Tuesday, March 10, 2009

IDAS For Indian T-90 MBTs Selected


Sweden’s flagship company Saab Group, which also owns Gripen International and late last January opened its representative office in New Delhi, recently won two significant contract awards from the Ministry of Defence, one worth US$24 million for supplying the CIDAS integrated all-digital defensive aids suite for the 16 armed Dhruv ALH helicopters now being built by HAL for the Indian Air Force (IAF), and the other for supplying the LEDS-150 active protection system (APS) for the Indian Army’s T-90S+ and T-90M main battle tanks (MBT). Presently, the DRDO’s Bangalore-based Defence Avionics Research Establishment (DARE) and SaabTech are co-developing the MILDS AN/AAR-60 missile approach warning system (MAWS), which forms only one component of the CIDAS defensive aids suite. The MAWS is of South African origin and was further co-developed by EADS ewation (Germany) and Grintek Ewation (South Africa) after decided to merge by 2001. This was followed by SaabTech taking a stake in Avitronics (part of Grintek). SaabTech now owns both the South African companies (Grintek and Avitronics) as well as the EADS-Grintek joint venture. Therefore, in conclusion, the prime contractor for supplying the CIDAS defensive aids suite is SaabTech. The CIDAS will also find its way on board the HAL-developed Light Combat Helicopter, whose first prototype will be rolled out this March. In addition, the CIDAS will also most likely be on board the to-be-upgraded Ka-28PL, Ka-31 and Sea King Mk42B helicopters of the Indian Navy, and also on the 60 armed Dhruv ALHs that the Indian Army will be procuring for its projected Combat Aviation Brigade, which will also be employed for vertical envelopment operations in support of expeditionary amphibious warfare campaigns. A version of CIDAS also exists for combat aircraft and will in all probability be selected for installation on board the Su-30MKI in the near future, since the Su-30MKIs lack on-board missile approach warning systems and laser warning systems. Another aircraft to be equipped with CIDAS will be the Fifth Generation Fighter Aircraft (FGFA) now being co-developed by HAL and Russia’s United Aircraft Corp.

The contract for supplying the LEDS-150 APS suite for installation on board 987 T-90 MBTs has been won against stiff competition, and follows the Army HQ’s issuance of RFPs on April 24 last year. A total of six companies (Israel Military Industries, RAFAEL, BAE Systems, Raytheon, Rosoboronexport, Saab, and Germany’s IBD Deisenroth Engineering) were invited for submitting bids for supplying 1,657 APS suites worth $270 million. APS suites offered were Russia’s Kolomna-based KBM Engineering Design Bureau’s Arena-E, Israel Military Industries’ Iron Fist, RAFAEL Advanced Defence Systems’ Trophy, Raytheon’s Quick Kill, Saab’s LEDS-150 and Deisenroth Engineering’s AMAP-ADS. Eventually, the LEDS-150 was selected and its procurement contract was inked last month. The Land Electronic Defence System (LEDS) combines active signature management, soft-kill and hard-kill mechanisms to provide full spectrum active protection to armoured vehicles. Full hemispherical coverage is provided to detect incoming threats and alert the crew. When installed in full configuration, the LEDS-150 offers MBT-comparable protection to light and medium combat vehicles against engagement by weapons like RPG-7s, anti-tank guided-missiles, KE ammunition, mortars and field artillery shells. The LEDS-150 typically comprises laser warning sensors, ADC-150 active defence controller AD, a number of munition confirmation and tracking sensors, and high-speed directed launchers, which allow the combination of soft- and hard-kill countermeasure deployment capability to the platform, optional displays, and interconnecting harnesses. The hard kill feature of the LEDS-150 is characterised by its capability to physically destroy the efficiency of the terminal ballistic capability of attacking munitions without residual penetration of the protected vehicle. The hard kill system detects and tracks a single or simultaneous threats and calculates if the attacking munition will hit the platform or not. The system determines the best inertial intercept position and provides the slew and firing commands to the launchers. The Mongoose-1 countermeasure missile is launched at a predetermined time to intercept and neutralise the detected munition off-board at a distance of between 5 metres and 15 metres from the vehicle to minimise the collateral damage to own forces.--Prasun K. Sengupta

116 comments:

Anonymous said...

it shows that t90 getting better

Anonymous said...

photo of mi26

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.aviation.ru/contrib/Andrey_Platonov/Gallery/Mi-26_Chinook_bus.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.aviation.ru/contrib/Andrey_Platonov/Gallery/index_e.htm&usg=__a8f_tnm_Wt2iakzmi6MOlroNcDs=&h=331&w=380&sz=14&hl=en&start=33&um=1&tbnid=gw1Re38nS2fnNM:&tbnh=107&tbnw=123&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dmi26%26ndsp%3D18%26hl%3Den%26rls%3Dcom.microsoft:en-us%26sa%3DN%26start%3D18%26um%3D1


as mii26 provides payload carrying capability of c130j aircraft

as per hour cost of flying mi26 is $ 14000 which is not bad

Anonymous said...

i think russians developing passive anti radiation homing seeker for air to air missiles

Sontu said...

Prasun da,

Kemon acho ? anek din pore kotha hochhe...

Please clarify if IAF is planning the CIDAS-300 version for integration with ALH and other aircraft ?

AN/AAR-60 already exists in the market and proven ..then what development ARDE is doing ? I guess only integration work ..right ?

Any update on Arjun's induction ?

Regards,

Prasun K Sengupta said...

To Sontu da: Apni Kemon achen? Bhalo Khobor? The multi-spectral IDAS suite includes the CIDAS 300 and AAR-60 and this complete suite will be integrated by DARE with the mission computers (or core avionics computers) on board both fixed-wing and rotary-wing platforms of the Indian Army, Navy and Air Force that will be retrofitted with the IDAS.
As for the Arjun Mk1's induction, there's no doubt that it will be inducted into service. However, their operational status will be determined only after another two years, this being due to the time taken to establish the MBT's embedded operational logistics capabilities and infrastructure within the designated armoured brigades/regiments. It is quite a normal process associated with every new type of major hardware inducted by the armed forces.

Nava said...

Prasun, could you elaborate on why Saab's active protection system was favored over its competitors?

Prasun K Sengupta said...

I presume it was due to its superiority and cost-effectiveness over other competing systems, which emerged after the competitive bidding process. Mind you, the warning system components are also going on board the Indian armed forces' fixed-wing and rotary-winged aircraft, therefore Saab was in a position to offer much more attractive financial offers. In addition, the hard-kill APS elements are in series-production for a few European/Scandinavian customers and has been tested extensively, and it is thus seen as a mature system.

Abhinaba said...

Prasunda, kichu prasno... 1>Is RWR capable to give a complete dome(i.e 360 degree)like surveillance against incoming missle? 2>What is the range of SAAB's RWR? 3>Some so called critics say that conventional chaff/flare dispensers & active jammers are useless against AIM-120D.Is it true?

Anonymous said...

Is the IAF also inducting the armed Dhruv? In an earlier post you had said that it was only the army which was interested. What role does the IAF envisage for the armed Dhruv?

Anonymous said...

Some so called critics say that conventional chaff/flare dispensers & active jammers are useless against AIM-120D.Is it true
------------------------------------------------
u shoulf also know that in future russian ramjet missile there will be severral types of seekers
new active radar,passive anti radiation homing seeker,infra red seeker

but american use only one type of seeker in their aim120c as of now

but passive anti radiation homing seeker can't be jammed or seduced by decoys

Anonymous said...

prasunji, can u show us a pic or the location of the Mongoose countermeasure missile on the t-90?
i am curious to know.

Prasun K Sengupta said...

To Abhinaba: The RWR is only one component of the missile approach warning system that also includes laser illumination warners and infra-red detectors for detecting passive IR-guided missiles. All missile approach warning systems give 360-degree coverage. Earlier I posted the brochures of the CIDAS 300 airborne integrated defensive aids suite which will be on board Pakistan's four Saab 2000 AEW & C platforms and a modified derivative of this same suite will be on board the airborne fixed-wing and rotary-winged platforms of India's three armed services. You will find the performance parameters listed in that brochure.
As far as combatting AIM-120D-type BVRAAMs go, there are two available countermeasures: towed active decoys, as well as internal active jammers mounted inside a combat aircraft's airframe, for instance on the MiG-29/MiG-35.

To Anon@1:16AM: The IAF has ordered the armed Dhruv ALH and the armaments package will include the chin-mounted 20mm cannon, Mistral ATAM air-to-air missiles and FZ 2.75-inch rocket pods. The Army's version of the armed Dhruv ALH will, in addition to the above, also be qualified for carrying anti-armour guided-missiles like the LAHAT. The IAF will use the armed Dhruv ALH as an armed utility helicopter with limited armed aeroscout capabilities pending the arrival of the Light Combat Helicopter.

To Anon@9:06AM: Passive anti-radiation homing seekers can be seduced by active towed-decoys. In addition, Russia is several years behind the US and Europe in terms of sensor fusion technology and developing tri-mode seekers (just as the US and Europe are behind Russia when it comes to developing hypersonic air combat missiles). In fact, the anti-armour Joint Common Missile being offered by Boeing along with the AH-64D Longbow Apache and also with Bell's AH-1Z Viper already features on-board tri-mode seeker.

Bobs said...

"A version of CIDAS ............., .......since the Su-30MKIs lack on-board missile approach warning systems and laser warning systems"
---------------------------------
prasun,are you sure about that? su-30mki always had missile approach warning systems and radar warning sensors,in my view.

Prasun K Sengupta said...

To Anon@9:37AM: You will find the photo probably at Saab's website as I had picked up a brochure (during the Eurosatory 2008 expo in France) of the system in which the Mongoose installation was shown on a T-90S MBT.

Anonymous said...

it does't matter what is offered with apache,even 20 year old missiles tech can destroy most modern tech

and about passive anti radiation homing seeker it was said in paper published by US navy "that this seeker can't be jammed or seduced by jammers and active towed decoys"

Anonymous said...

even if apache carry most modern anti armour missile,apache or for that matter any other helicopter itself can be shot down by older stinger or igla SAMs.

Prasun K Sengupta said...

To Bobs: The Su-30MKI does indeed have RWRs (Tarang Mk3 developed by DARE and built by BEL), but the other missile approach warning system modules are missing. These are all on board the Malaysian Su-30MKMs, but not on board the Su-30MKI. They will go on board when the mid-life upgrade (for the first 140 units) of the Su-30MKI gets underway by 2012, which will also see the installation of on-board 'thin-skin' AESA arrays now being developed by Tikhomirov NIIP, which will enable the Su-30MKI to undertake 360-degree hemispherical radar surveillance, instead of the directional envelope now possible with the NO-11M Bars PESA radar.

Anonymous said...

chinese j11 has laser warning and missile approach warning system a link is here

http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-SinoFlanker.html

it shows what chinese have in there aircraft

Prasun K Sengupta said...

The J-11A/B project is still in the R & D stage and what it involves is substitution of Russia-origin avionics and cockpit instrumentation on a Su-27SK/UBK airframe with homegrown substitutes developed originally for the J-10. In addition, AVIC is trying to develop an indigenous substitute for the AL-31F but the required thrust ratings have not yet been attained. The missile approach warning system is still under development by CETC and was shown in posters at Zhuhai last November, but has yet to enter operational service, as is the case with the J-11.

Sontu said...

Thanks Prasun da,

For clarifying my question.
Regarding the Chinese AL-31 F equivalent engine i.e. WS-10, I understood that it has the required maximum thrust level but has other performance issues like it slowly (in some case even 50% low acceleration) pulls the required the thrust..in layman's word it takes 50% more time to achieve the required thrust, compared to Russian AL-31 FN.

Regards,

Abhinaba said...

Prasunda,amar prasner uttar debar janno dhannabad.Now please inform ,which company's active towed decoy is used by IAF?

Anonymous said...

Prasun,
How many Su 30MKI's are in service right now. Had heard of 116 or so. Is that correct?
Thanks

Prasun K Sengupta said...

To Sontuda: The principal problems being encountered by AVIC in terms of turbofan development are similar to what India is encountering. Both countries are trying to overcome the metallurgical R & D challenges. However, the Chinese have a headstart as they began cooperating with the likes of GE and SNECMA way back in the early 1990s in the arena of commercial turbofans. Also, AVIC bought out the entire Rolls-Royce Spey production line and production know-how in the late 1980s, and this engine now powers the JH-7A bomber. Thus, China is in many ways ahead of India in terms of acquiring certain key technological competencies two decades agao as far as engine production goes.

To Abhinaba: There are presently no active towed-decoys in service with either the IAF or Indian Navy, although at Aero India 2009 the likes of X-Guard (from RAFAEL), Ariel Mk2 from EADS, ALE-50 from Raytheon and ALE-55 from BAE Systems were showcased. The ALE-50 and ALE-55 are being offered along with the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet. The Ariel Mk2 is beinbg offered for both the EF-2000 Typhoon and JAS-39IN Gripen NG, while the X-Guard is being offered for the JAS-39IN, F-16IN Viper, naval MiG-29K and Tejas LCA. RAFAEL is also offering the Skyshield (while IAI/ELTA is offering the EL/L-8222) EW jamming pod for the MiG-29K and Tejas LCA. RAFAEL's Recce Lite and Litening-3 pods are already on board the Tejas LCA. The Russians too have developed an active towed-decoy for the Su-30MKI.

Prasun K Sengupta said...

To Anon@12:40PM: Yup, should be between 112 and 116. From No1 to No140 the Su-30MKIs will be of the Block 3 standard with NO-11M Bars PESA on board. From Aircraft No141 onwards right up to No230 the Su-30MKI Block 4 with upgraded avionics suite, including AESA and the new-generation defensive aids suite, will be the production standard.

Anonymous said...

TVC on mig29ovt is very important as it takes no more than 5-6 second to fire its 6 BVR missiles and it run out of missiles

most of combat kills in past have been WVR as it has been proven that BVR shots r not that reliable

in that case it has only 2 short range missiles and lots of internal fuel +TVC so it can go for dog fight

also most of mid size fighters like f18e/f,rafale,typhoon,mig35
carry 6 BVR+2 WVR +fuel tank

this is what the general configuration and there r lots of counter counter measures,jamming,towed decoys to seduce BVR missiles
so if BVR missiles fail TVC is additional manouverability

deep.blue said...

Is the ministry going to give out a press statement on this?

Anonymous said...

Maxim Pyadushkin writes: Besides its Zhuk-AE AESA radar, Russia’s Phazotron-NIIR company is showing another new product at Aero India 2009 – the Zhuk M1E radar, with a mechanical slot array. As deputy director Yuri Guskov explained to Ares, the radar displayed in Bangalore is a production item and will be installed on one of India’s carrier-based MiG-29Ks.


Guskov said that Phazotron is already working on the next modification of its slot array radars, the Zhuk M2E. This version will have a faster processor, allowing it to classify targets by type (for instance, fighters, bombers and helicopters) and to break-out formation targets flying at 20-30 meters apart. The radar can also be programmed to identify aircraft by type – in the case of a new type, it can record its reflected signal and later use it for identification.

The Zhuk M2E should start flight testing this year. The modernized radar will equip 62 Indian Air Force MiG-29s that MiG is modifying to the MiG-29UPG configuration under contract to the IAF. MiG design bureau chief designer Vladimir Barkovsky said here that the first six aircraft have already been shipped to Russia. The Indian Air Force is expected to receive its first MiG-29UPG in 2010.

Prasun K Sengupta said...

All this is fine, but what about the mean-time-between-failures of such radars, including the NO-11M Bars PESA? Any ideas? Performance parameters are useless unless there is performance reliability.

Anonymous said...

Thanks for the numbers on the Sukhois.

Abhinaba said...

Prasunda,please post an article about details of our BMD system.

Anonymous said...

Prasun, on the Number of Operational Su30MKI's.........112 to 116. Is that not a little on the higher side. So far only 5 Sqdns (8,20,24, 30 and 31) are operational. Normally a Sqdn would have 16 aircraft each + attrition reserve....so is the figure closer to @100 Su30' ??
Please correct me if i am wrong. Thanks, rgds

Prasun K Sengupta said...

By the way, I'm still awaiting for someone to give the MTBF of the Kopyo and NO-11M Bars radars in service with the MiG-21 Bisons and Su-30MKI. Anyone care to throw some light on these figures?

Abhinaba said...

Some air bases lack full squadron of su-30mki . Like in a remote airbase of Nicober island only 6 su-30mki present for strategic reason.So measuring number of su-30mki on the basis of squadron no. will be a wrong measurmet.

Prasun K Sengupta said...

There is at least one more squadron converting to the Su-30MKI in addition to the operational ones you've highlighted. In terms of aircraft deliveries, the number breached the 110 mark early this year, accordig to Russia's United Aircraft Corp/IRKUT Corp. In terms of full operational capability, only three squadrons-- 20, 24 and 30--have attained this milestone thus far. The operational conversion process is further complicated due to the unavailability as yet of the Su-30MKI full mission simulators (of the type acquired by the Indian navy for the MiG-29K).

Anonymous said...

prasunji,there are no pics of mongoose missile on the SAAB site...pls provide links.

Anonymous said...

By the way, I'm still awaiting for someone to give the MTBF of the Kopyo and NO-11M Bars radars in service with the MiG-21 Bisons and Su-30MKI. Anyone care to throw some light on these figures?
-----------------------------------
well russian radars r upto 4 time cheaper than western radars
if iaf can use old radar on mig29 for 25 years the newer radars zhuk m1e,bars must be reliable than those old ones

by the way an apg79 cost $ 14 million and MTBF of this radar is 917 hours and russian radars r almost 4 times cheaper so toatl life cycle time of four radars must be more than the life cycle time of an apg79

Prasun K Sengupta said...

Are you sure when you say "must be" or are you speculating? By the way you won't get any confirmed figures from either Wikipedia or ausairpower etc etc as they too do not have the technical specs as listed in the contractual documents, to which I have access. So, do try to be very careful when quoting any figures. By the way, the APG-79 no way costs what you've claimed. The figure is much lower than US$5 million. And also, existing radars like EL/M-2032 and APG-67 had attained MTBFs of 350 hours by the late 1980s. In comparison, what are the MTBFs of the Kopyo and NO-11M Bars? I'll give you a clue: they're less than 150 hours. Now, can you zero in on the actual in-service figures or specified figures as given by the OEMs Phazotron JSC and Tikhomirov NIIP?

Anonymous said...

And also, existing radars like EL/M-2032 and APG-67 had attained MTBFs of 350 hours by the late 1980s. In comparison, what are the MTBFs of the Kopyo and NO-11M Bars
I'll give you a clue: they're less than 150 hour
----------------------------------
thats not true,if ur comment is right then IAF would have upgraded mig21 with elta2032 and same radar for mig29 upgrade also

then y the hell iaf would go for kopyo and zhuk m1e for mig21 and mig29 upgrade

as israel upgraded mig21 with elta2032 and can only fire derby missile but on the other hand with kopyo mig21 can have r77

moreover actual price of f18e/f is over $80 million and no way that apg79 is less than $ 5 million

Anonymous said...

prasun sir,

would you tell us that apy10 radar is any day better than seaspary5000
radar or not

as sea spray radar is better tech i mean aesa and why our navy going for P8I as there will be no aesa on P8I

Prasun K Sengupta said...

The reason why the IAF chose the Kopyo over the EL/M-2032 was because of IAF considered view that it is better to stick with one prime contractor for the upgrade package and accept whatever the prime contractor specifies, which in turn will simplify product liability implementation procedures and contractual obligations. That's why the IAF is sticking to Russia for the MiG-29 upgrade and to Dassault for the Mirage 2000 upgrade. But once the Kopyo was flown on board the MiG-21 Bison prototypes the MTBF figures were less than 100 hours, and to date only 102 hours have been achieved. The MTBF of the NO-11M Bars is far more worse. By the way, just because the MiG-21 Bison can fire the Vympel R-77 BVRAAM does not automatically mean that the MiG-21 Bison can intercept hostile airborne targets 60km away. The specified and demonstrated interception envelope is closer to the 35km-range, which is not much more than the Derby. I'll upload the contractual documents detailing the specified MTBFs of the Kopyo and NO-11M Bars in due time so that there are no more disagreements and no more speculations.

Anonymous said...

mig21 bison works wioth su30mki and su30 carry more powerful radar and track upto 30 targets at range of over 125 km and those target coordinates r passed to mig21 bison through data link and su30 tells mig21 bison when to fire its r77 missile

Prasun K Sengupta said...

The Indian Navy does not have to worry about the APY-10 radar as the P-8Is will have the ELTA EL/M-2022(V)3 radar, which in future can also be modified to incorporate the AESA antenna of the type on the EL/M-2052. Therefore, the EL/M-2022(V)3 will in future have the very same capabilities as the Seaspray 5000e. It therefore makes sense from a product support and direct industrial offesets standpoint to invest in the EL/M-2022(V)3 on the P-8I, Tu-142M, the yet-to-be-upgraded Sea King Mk42B and Ka-28PL helicopters, the yet-to-be-selected new-generation shipborne helicopter, the NRUAV VTOL UAV, and the yet-to-be-selected medium-range maritime recce/ASW aircraft for the Indian Navy. On the other hand, the MRMR aircraft and Dhruv ALH helicopters of the Indian Coast Guard can do with the cheaper Supervision SV-2000 radar developed by LRDE and built by BEL.

To Anon@9:51AM: The interception methodology you've highlighted was valid for the Su-30K and MiG-21 Bison combination. But not with the Su-30MKI and MiG-21 Bison, or Su-30MKI and Mirage 2000 as in future all airborne battle management functions will be performed by the A-50E/PHALCON AEW & C platforms. The Su-30MKI/MiG-21 Bison combination may well be more than enough when pitted against the air forces of Bangladesh or Sri Lanka, but not anymore against the air forces of China and Pakistan, both of which have secured mature AEW & C platforms.

Anonymous said...

The MTBF of the NO-11M Bars is far more worse
--------------------------------
when india bought su30mki it had most powerful radar in world and at that time there was no similar radar with range was available to india and if iaf started looking at MTBF then v would not haver su30 in our inventory

now most powerful radar available to us is irbis e radar,and main thing is the range not the MTBF,
so if IAF now start looking at MTBF of irbis e then there is no other radar which can beat the excellent range excellent of irbis e is available to us

moreover bars for india has many western and indian electronic components as they increase NUMBER OF HOURS MTbf

Anonymous said...

The Su-30MKI/MiG-21 Bison combination may well be more than enough when pitted against the air forces of Bangladesh or Sri Lanka, but not anymore against the air forces of China and Pakistan, both of which have secured mature AEW & C platforms.
----------------------------------
this combination is much better than using aewacs as larger awacs aircraft r easier targets

su30 mki radar can track 30 targets but it can't intercept them all so it can send their position coordinates to bison so as to help bison to fire its r77

Anonymous said...

moreover prasun i am not opposing u and neither i want to

main thing is range of radar not MTBF and availability of system means centain country wants to sell its latest tech or not

in combat allo that matters is range not MTBF

as in 2001 there was no other radar which had similar long range compared to bars availavle to us

no v have irbis e radar and there is no other long range radar available to us which can compare with the range of irbis e so either v look at MTBF or look at range of radar

other comparable radars to irbis e r apg77,apg63(v3) but v can't have them

Prasun K Sengupta said...

Like I explained earlier, the engagement envelope and other related performance parameters of sny airborne radar are next to useless if the mission reliability/serviceability is not high. In future air campaigns a combat aircraft will have to conduct at least three sorties per day and this can be done only if all on-board mission avionics are in a functional state. The range of any airborne radar on board a combat aircraft, be it AESA or PESA, will be of no consequence at all since the entire airborne battle management process will be carried out by AEW & C platforms. That's also the reason why future BVRAAMs like the MBDA-built Meteor will receive mid-course navigation cues from AEW & C platforms via secure data links. And mind you, Su-30MKI/MiG-21 Bison combination packages without AEW & C support can be ambushed with ease. And FYI no AEW & C platform will be flying close to the area where air combats will be staged. Any AEW & C platform cruising at an altitude of 45,000 feet will be at least 200km away from the scene of air campaigns. Therefore, the question of AEW & C platforms being shot down does not arise and that's also the reason why thus far no airborne AEW & C platforms have been shot down anywhere.

Anonymous said...

for shooting down enemy AWACS su30 will either get r172 or r37

as r37 is in production not sure of r137

r 37 can easily b intergrated to mki

Anonymous said...

Any AEW & C platform cruising at an altitude of 45,000 feet will be at least 200km away from the scene of air campaigns. Therefore, the question of AEW & C platforms being shot down does not arise and that's also the reason why thus far no airborne AEW & C platforms have been shot down anywhere
---------------------------------
those who flew awacs against enemeis(iraq,serbia) and those enemies never had capability to shoot down awacs

Prasun K Sengupta said...

Shooting down AEW & C platforms is not that easy. Especially for those platforms equipped with AESA radars, inbound BVRAAMs will be successfully countered through directional jamming. That's also the reason why such directional jammers were shown mounted both portside and on the starboard section of the EMB-145 AEW & CS' airframe that was showcased by DRDO/CABS during Aero India'09.

mknace said...

:-D :-D :-D
nice entry
kipidap

Anonymous said...

TOI reported problems with Russian Mig 29's as almost 200 being grounded due to vertical stabilizer breaking off in flight. Does this doom the Mig 35 in the MMRCA contest.
On another note western airframes such as the Super Hornet seem to have a longer airframe life then Mig 29. THe Mig 29 barely manages 2500 hrs where as Boeing claims Super Hornet needs no serious maintenance for almost 5000 hrs!

Prasun K Sengupta said...

The MiG-29s of the type in service with India, Bangladesh, Malaysia, and Myanmar have to undergo a compulsory airframe fatigue check after logging 800 flight-hours and upon touching the 1,000-hour mark, have to relifed, or undergo a technical service life-extension process. The figures you've quoted for the Super Hornet are correct and other Western combat aircraft have similar figures as well. In case of the MiG-29K, the figures are closer to the 4,000-hour mark. This is further extended on the MiG-35 to a claimed 6,000 hours. However, here's the catch: the tandem-seat MiG-35 shown at air shows is NOT the definitive MiG-35, it was originallty flouted as the MiG-28 MRCA. The definitive MiG-35 has yet to be rolled out and to the best of my knowledge, has not yet been built. At Aero India'09 I got extensive design and performance parameters pertaining to the MiG-35, especially its airframe design and construction data/features and will upload them in the near future.

Anonymous said...

TOI reported problems with Russian Mig 29's as almost 200 being grounded due to vertical stabilizer breaking off in flight. Does this doom the Mig 35 in the MMRCA contest.
On another note western airframes such as the Super Hornet seem to have a longer airframe life then Mig 29. THe Mig 29 barely manages 2500 hrs where as Boeing claims Super Hornet needs no serious maintenance for almost 5000 hrs
----------------------------------------------
well russian problem is that their air force doesn't have that much funding and their pilots don't even fly so maintaince problem is because of funding

after cold war those mig29 no one looked after them and for almost last 20 years russian air force mig29 have not been upgraded or flown or maintained because of funding problem

u will c same problem with most of russian air force aircraft as russians don't have funding to maintain that big air force

but that doesn't mean mig35 will have same problem in india maintainance of fighter is kept at high level because v use tham regularly but in russia they don't even fly their aircraft or maintain them as they don't have enough funding

Anonymous said...

prsun sir,

what do u think that f18e/f as claimed don't need maintaince before 5000 hours but i don't believe this can be marketing point and because our air force never used american fighter so no one knows about such claims until f18e/f is used by air force and then come down to conclusion that these figures r true

as i think our air force largely used migs and air force knows what is truth about maintaince

so don't believe about such marketing figures until fighter aircraft is in actual use and only then come to know what is truth

Anonymous said...

how many f15 were grounded in america despite they were well maintained compared to mig29 in russia

Anonymous said...

to prasun

f18e/f as claimed don't need maintaince before 5000

what do u think about maintaince hours when comparing f18e/f,typhoon,rafale

i think rafale and typhoon must b better than f18 in this regard

Anonymous said...

The MiG-29s of the type in service with India, Bangladesh, Malaysia, and Myanmar have to undergo a compulsory airframe fatigue check after logging 800 flight-hours and upon touching the 1,000-hour mark, have to relifed, or undergo a technical service life-extension process.
-------------------------------------------------
in russia in past 20 years those mig29 were barely touched let alone keeping them in rgular check

Anonymous said...

TOI reported problems with Russian Mig 29's as almost 200 being grounded due to vertical stabilizer breaking off in flight. Does this doom the Mig 35 in the MMRCA contest
---------------------------------------------------
when f15 were grounded in america then it didn't mean that israel,s.korea,singapore,saudi arabia,japan also need to ground their aircraft

if mig29 r gounded in russia it doesn't mean same thing would happen in other countries because in other countries who fly mig29 aircraft mig29 r kept in regular check

Anonymous said...

Shooting down AEW & C platforms is not that easy. Especially for those platforms equipped with AESA radars, inbound BVRAAMs will be successfully countered through directional jamming. That's also the reason why such directional jammers were shown mounted both portside and on the starboard section of the EMB-145 AEW & CS' airframe that was showcased by DRDO/CABS during Aero India'09.

---------------------------------
if kh31 weigh 600 kg and 6 kh31 r cleared on su30mki then r37 weigh 600kg and 6 can be carried on su30mki if cleared to carry

now if there r 15 su30mki carrying
90 R37 against 3-4 enemy awacs or tankers then even if 80 of those r37 r jammed or go off the target remaining 10 will be enough to shoot down AWACS,TANKERS

Anonymous said...

any rough idea about mig29
how many hours mig29 have been flown since induction in IAF in 1985

Prasun K Sengupta said...

To Anon@3:48AM: Irregardless of where and how you fly Western aircraft like the Super Hornet, the airframe hours stay the same. Regarding the Super Hornet it has already flown worldwide in various theatres, including high-altitude areas like in Afghanistan and as such compared to the MiG-35 or EF-2000 or JAS-39IN the Super Hornet is a much more mature design. It can log in as high as 350 flight hours a year, compared to the MiG-29's 100 hours.

To Anon@6:26AM: Whether you fire 2 R-37s or 20 R-37s the directional jamming capability of the AEW & C platform will have the same mission effectiveness rate. In any case, your scenario is not feasible nor realistic (a childish fantasy, actually) as every AEW & C platform will be escorted by air superiority combat aircraft armed with BVRAAMs. Nobody flies a standalone AEW & C platform without escorting combat aircraft.

Prasun K Sengupta said...

Normally, even for aircraft like the Su-30MKI, the specified flight hours per year are still limited to 120 hours. The only exception is the MiG-29K. Figures for the MiG-35 are projected only, and have yet to be proven by flight-tests, which cannot be done as yet since no definitive MiG-35 prototype has been built so far.
The figures for Western M-MRCAs, including the Mirage 2000s, are two times more than that. Which means if you log more than 120 hours (like 275 hours as is the Western norm for maintaining aircrew flight/air combat mission proficiency) on the Su-30MKI, the aircraft will subsequently be have to be grounded for premature maintenance/servicing. That's what happened to the IAF MiG-29s in the late 1980s when more flight hours were logged than was specified, leading to several RD-33 engines (with 350-hour TBO) being damaged and requiring premature servicing. One way of overcoming this limitation is to conserve flight-hours and instead train increasingly on full-flight mission simulators, but even in this area the IAF was not able to procure them for the MiG-21, miG-23BN, MiG-27M and MiG-29. Even for the Su-30MKI the simulators were ordered too late, something which no other self-respecting air force would do.

Anonymous said...

Irregardless of where and how you fly Western aircraft like the Super Hornet, the airframe hours stay the same. Regarding the Super Hornet it has already flown worldwide in various theatres, including high-altitude areas like in Afghanistan and as such compared to the MiG-35 or EF-2000 or JAS-39IN the Super Hornet is a much more mature design. It can log in as high as 350 flight hours a year, compared to the MiG-29's 100 hours
-------------------------------------------
indian air force fighters also been flown in different enviroment
above himalayas,on thar desert,on sea for last 30 years

Anonymous said...

f18 can log in as high as 350 flight hours a year, compared to the MiG-29's 100 hours
---------------------------------------------
ya but upgraded mig29 with rd33-3 engines can also log 250 hours a year

rd33-3 engine life 4000 hours and 1000 MTBF as claimed by klimov

Anonymous said...

Normally, even for aircraft like the Su-30MKI, the specified flight hours per year are still limited to 120 hours. The only exception is the MiG-29K. Figures for the MiG-35 are projected only, and have yet to be proven by flight-tests, which cannot be done as yet since no definitive MiG-35 prototype has been built so far
----------------------------------------------
y mig29k is only exception when both mig29k and mig35 use rd33mk engines

mig35 isessentially mig29k except with bigger nose cone dia and able to carry more payload

Prasun K Sengupta said...

To Anon@11:22AM: Even if the RD-33-3 engines can log 250 flight hours a year, the MiG-29B-12's airframe is limited to only 100 hours. This is the mis-match. Therefore, the aircraft will not be able to fly more than 100 hours per year. Also, the TBO of the RD-33-3 is still way below its Western counterparts.
The MiG-29K's airframe is being certified to log 150 flight-hours per year, but as I explained earlier, any performance parameters of the MiG-35 are only projected, including the airframe life. The MiG-35's airframe will have a much greater composites content than the MiG-29K and will therefore be able to log more than 200 flight-hours a year but the figures are still projected as there is no MiG-35 prototype flying at the moment. Therefore, certified performance parameters and technical service life fgures of the MiG-35 are still unavailable from the OEM.

Anonymous said...

airframe ruggedness and rigidity of russian mig29 and su30 is proven when these aircraft do funky manouvers if other western aircraft do similar those aircraft would just break apart

Anonymous said...

prasun sir,

what do you think if india buys
f16blk60,will this aircraft provides addtional capability or it would just add to the numbers
also US airforce has stopped them buying.

and will f16blk60 be better than mig35

Anonymous said...

moreover is f16 block60 being offered at the same price of mig35

only operator of f16-60 is UAE and it cost them $ 80 million per aircraft

russians offering us mig35 for
$ 40- 50 million will f16blk60 be offfered at lower price than $ 40 million per aircraft

Prasun K Sengupta said...

To Anon@1:36PM: No matter how rugged the Russian combat aircraft airframes may be, their TBOs and TTSLs are much lower than their Western counterparts. Conseqently, more money will have to be spent when servicing Russian combat aircraft in terms of life-cycle costs. And the funky aerobatics/manoeuvres are good only for air show displays. In real-world air combat such fancy post-stall manoeuvres of the Su-30MKI will result in the aircraft being shot down with ease by cannon-fire.

To Anon@1:38PM: Even though the USAF has stopped buying additional F-16s, these aircraft will be in USAF service till 2040. Furthermore, they will also be upgraded as the years go by. At the moment, all non-Russian combat aircraft, be it the F-16IN or Super Hornet or JAS-39IN or Rafale or Typhoon, are network-centric and have superior performance, and if Lockheed Martin is allowed by the US Govt to offer a customised version of the F-16IN featuring an all-Israeli avionics suite then the F-16IN will become a truly formidable M-MRCA, just like the Su-30MKI has emerged as a fearsome air dominance combat aircraft. Regarding the MiG-35, I cannot draw any firm positive or negative conclusions about it simply because it does not exist at this point. As I said earlier, even the first functional prototype of the MiG-35 has yet to be rolled out. Of all the M-MRCA contenders, the MiG-35 is the only contender that is not flying at the moment. Therefore, how exactly the IAF evaluation team will evaluate the MiG-35 is anyone's guess.

Anonymous said...

Prasun,
What is the red and blue Mig prototype that is doing the rounds at all the air shows including Aero Indian 07 and 09? Is that not the Mig35.

Vishal said...

^^Yeah, you can say that. I guess interalia its without the AESA radar that the Mig-35 is supposed to have eventually. Its Mig 29 OVT to be precise.

Raghav said...

At the rate at which the MMRCA is progressing it seems that those 126 planes will enter into service at the same time as the Tejas. It is widely acknowledged that the Tejas is a 4.5 Gen. fighter. It is the lightest in its class and also cheap. It uses lots of composites and so service life is also very high. So doesn't it make sense to concentrate simply on the Tejas and use the MMRCA money (a whopping $10 billion) to co-develop with some other country: an AESA radar and advanced avionics for Tejas, strengthen the wings and build a more powerful engine with TVC so that the Tejas is able to carry the same load as the MMRCA planes.
We already have MiGs of various designations along with Mirage and Sukhoi. How many more different varieties will we be adding to our kitty? I think apart from the IAF no other air force has such a diverse variety of fighters. At least if we substitute the MMRCA with Tejas, we will be giving a fillip to our indigenous industries and also save on maintenence costs.

Nava said...

Prasun, if you had to pick a winner amongst the western fighters (the flying ones) in their current configuration- no further customization- which one would you choose?
Also, which Israeli avionics would you like to see on the "super viper"?

Anonymous said...

No matter how rugged the Russian combat aircraft airframes may be, their TBOs and TTSLs are much lower than their Western counterparts. Conseqently, more money will have to be spent when servicing Russian combat aircraft in terms of life-cycle costs.
------------------------------------------
u can't come to conclusion until aircraft is used by indian air force whether it is western or russian and our air force has only used russian and french aircraft and they know what is the truth and truth about western aircraft only proven if IAF uses them,

first of all western aircraft has much more intial purchase cost and require more costly infrastructure,
spares of western aircraft r much more costlty and their upgrading is also very costly,IAF will be using mig29 till 2030 almost for 45 years and most western airforces retire their aircraft in 30 years like australia and canada will retire their f18 in 2014 which they acquired in 1984

UK retired their jaguar in 2006 which they acquired in 1976

US retried their aircraft f14 in 2006 which they acquired in 1975

moreoever no aircraft is netcentric,it electronics which make aircraft netcentric.

one can buy su35bm at the same price of f16blk60 and 2 su35bm for one typhoon

Anonymous said...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuZstiyZMk8

In the above video, there is a Tejas on display with a refueling probe on the starboard side. Is it a real probe?

Prasun K Sengupta said...

To Anon@4:16PM: As Vishal rightly explains it, it is the MiG-29OVT. The MiG-35 does not exist as a functional prototype as of now. It is only a paper design.

To Raghav: I agree entirely. The Su-30MKI too is a MRCA and prudence suggests that the IAF ought to acquire another 100 of them directly from IRKUT Corp over the next three years to make up for the shortfall caused by decommissioning of all the MiG-23BNs and 60% of the MiG-27M fleet. Cancell the on-going M-MRCA contest and use that money instead on the FGFA project to ensure speedy and time-bound induction. Also, stop ADA from developing the manned MCA and instead re-define the MCA project into a more realistic UCAV for which an operational reqmt is now being drafted by IAF HQ.

To Nava: Only two M-MRCAs would satisfy all the ASQRs of the IAF: F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and JAS-39IN Gripen NG.

To Anon@6:54AM: That is a non-flying full-scale LCA display model, as is its aerial refuelling probe. The operational Tejas LCA is due to have an actuated on-board refuelling probe, whose prototype is still in fabrication and has been developed by the UK's Chobam Group.

Anonymous said...

yes it is easier and cheaper to buy more su30mki i will say 120
more so as to make 350 of them

because they cost less than f18e/f,rafale,typhoon

chinese r buying more su35mkk and building more j11 so they would have almost 400 flankers

Nava said...

What's the induction time frame you envisage for this UCAV, and who do you see developing it? Does India alone have the sufficient technological abilities in the UAV field? Russia, the natural choice for
airplane development from India's perspective, is lagging behind in UAV technology- Its Chief of Staff even announced at one point that the military would buy Israeli UAVs (not sure if they followed through).

Prasun K Sengupta said...

To Nava: Actually, the Indian Army needs UCAVs (like the reaper and Mantis) now as the IAF's close air support capabilities have rapidly diminished now with the deommissioning of its MiG-21Ms, MiG-23BNs and several MiG-27Ms. The IAF today is more focussed on battlefield air interdiction and deep interdiction, and is unable to provide battlefield air defence and close air support to compensate for the obsolescence in the areas of land-mobile air defence artillery and field artillery (that's why the Army ludicrously is asking for missiles like the Prithvi SS-150 and BrahMos to attack targets a mere 50km away!!!). At the same time, the IAF is deeply opposed to the Army acquiring its own attack helicopters and UCAVs. Therefore the Army is now between the rock and a hard case! My personal view is that both these assets--attack helicopters and UCAVs--must become Army Aviation assets as the IAF's air war-waging campaign is simply unable to accommodate close air support requirements until 2017. I've already drafted an analytical feature on this very issue for FORCE's April 2009 issue and it will dwell at length on how the IAF is involved in a never-ending doctrinal rivalry with the Army, The analysis is aptly titled "From Cold Start to Cold Feet".
Now, regarding the technologies required for developing MCA-derived UCAVs, these are easily available from technology partners from Israel and France, and the NRUAV project can serve here as a role model for the way to proceed. And I persist in my long-held view about HAL being nominated as the principal prime contractor for the MCA-UCAV project, with ADA, ADE etc serving as HAL's technology development partners, instead of them being in the driver's seat.

Anonymous said...

Does the HAL has good design departments? from the news reports over the past many years, HAL always looks for one or other foreign partners rather than developing its own technologies. Or please elaborate, if there are any examples in which HAL had helped in indigenising than being an assembler of imported technologies.

Anonymous said...

drdo jv israel is developing a DFRIM for aircraft that can destroy incoming missile using lasers.this technology can be applicated on AFV also

Nava said...

Prasun:
I thought you meant a more ambitious program along the lines of the American x-45 or the European neuron that are meant to become operational in the coming decade or later (though this is disputed, many claim that it'll be much sooner and initially in the black). If you're thinking about a drone in the reaper class, used for tactical strikes, air support and tactical intelligence, I think the Heron TP can fill that role well, perhaps better than any other operational drone. If you disagree I'll make my case for it...

Prasun K Sengupta said...

To Anon@10:17AM: HAL presently has two principal problems or handicaps: Firstly, it is not autonomous in terms of corporate planning and financial resources. A strategic divestment by the MoD is urgently called for. Only then will HAL be able to deliver what it has promised on time. Secondly, the morons at the MoD decided to create a parallel and totally uncalled-for design authority in the form of ADA. This duplication of resources has since resulted in a terrible price to pay. Today there are two lobbies, the Dept of Public Enterprises that is in HAL's favour and wants HAL to co-develop the FGFA and MRTA with Russia, and the second lobby is the one led by the DRDO and including ADA and NAL that also wants to design and develop products like the MCA (which we don;t know as yet whether it will be a fifth-generation MRCA or a sixth-generation MRCA!!!) and Saras. To me, this state of affairs is discredited, is financially untenable and scientifically suicidal. Consequently, HAL till this day is unable to develop the two distinct derivatives of the Dhruv ALH--the LCH and the LUH. Logically, prototypes of these two helicopters should have rolled out within three years of the Dhruv ALH entering service. Instead, the LCH is due to be rolled out only early next year, while the LUH is another six years away! Had the HAL Chairman had the financial and corporate planning independence from the MoD, such a pathetic state of affairs would never have existed.

To Nava: You've misinterpreted my earlier comment: I was referring to TWO DIFFERENT UCAV requirements: one which is required immediately for all-weather close air support, and one which would enter service by 2020. The MCA-based stealthy UCAV will fall into the latter category.

Prasun K Sengupta said...

To Nava: The Heron TP will never be acquired in a UCAV configuration simply because the US will prohibit Israel from selling it to India due to MTCR restrictions. The only option for India therefore lies in developing a UCAV variant of the Rustom UAV ASAP. Such a UCAV variant, powered by twin V8 diesel engines, should give it an appreciable endurance and weapons carrying payload.

Kaushik said...

Why don't we do this:

1. Club together, ISRO and DRDL on the lines of NASA. This will bring rocket scientists working in two different organizations together and so will complement each other.

2. Combine LRDE, DARE with Bharat Electricals Ltd. and all other organizations that deal with electronic components for defence and space purposes. This will create one single organization dealing with strategic electronics research and also manufacturing them.

3. Combine CVRDE, VRDE, HVF and Bharat Earth Movers Ltd. This org. deals with tanks, IFVs, and all other land combat vehicles.

My point is why don't we create one single huge organization each for making space rockets & missiles, another for all electronics, another for land vehicles and so on. These organizations should be responsible right from R&D to manufacture. This will create defence industry behemoths in India on the likes of Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Northrop, EADS etc. This will also introduce professionalism and prevent dilution of funds and resources.

Anonymous said...

Prasun, I think your suggestion will not be good, We should not combine HAL, NAL and ADA. On the other hand, we must let each of the above agencies develop their independent research and manufacturing capabilities. This will create three different agencies in our country that are all involved in aircraft R & D and production so that in future all three will compete with each other for IAF contracts and so the IAF will get to select the best from the three. Look at Lockheed, Boeing, Northrop and the former McDonell Douglas of the USA. Look at the MiG, Sukhoi and Tupolev agencies. It is because of these agencies that USAF and Russian AF get their world class fighters.

Combining the three agencies is a short sighted approach. It might be rewarding initially but in future we will surely regret it.

Nava said...

Prasun:
Indeed I misinterpreted you-henceforth I shall refer (for the sake of brevity) to the MCA UAV as LT(long term) and the reaper class as NT. The LT is at this point rather speculative-indeed it is a suggestion made by you, maybe its in the works and maybe not- so I can't say much of it other than this: It will be very challenging and I'll be impressed if it happens by 2020.
Regarding the Heron NT, I'm not sure how the MTCR applies... The Herons indeed sport an American turboprop, but hasn't India already ordered several of them?
I take that to mean that the "base"
bird is exportable, in which case (LT) UAV configuration consists mainly of ordering missiles (Lahat, spike etc.)-the sensors and EW are there anyway, and even if they were to be switched this wouldn't be an issue as far as the US is concerned. Am I wrong?

Prasun K Sengupta said...

To Anon@1:28PM: My proposed govt divestments from defence PSUs and converting them into public-listed entities is the only viable option left. I've noticed for quite some time that most of the bloggers who comment on such issues do not have an economics or financial background. Hence their inability to appreciate the fact that India does not have inexhaustable financial resources and whatever resources are available must be allocated for both national security and internal security requirements and on top of that if you've observed what are the growing demands of govt pensioners, the answer is clesar: the country has limited resources that have to be spread out. If India were to have a US$10 trillion economy then by all means have domestic competitive bidding. But as you may know, that is not the case and we can't even dream of having such domestic competitions for the foreseeable future. Also remember that long gone are the days when India could buy weapons at friendly prices from the USSR. All these limitations have to be factored in when evolving a roadmap for developing national military-industrial R & D competencies. Therefore, as Kaushik suggests above, we have no choice but to create mega-mergers and turn them iunto publicly-listed entities. Now, if you still persist in preserving the present dysfunctional state of military-industrial R & D, then you'll get what you deserve: no fixed timeframe for inducting the LCH, and rolling out the LUH when imports have already fulfilled the armed services' requirements. Even in the US, the back-breakbreaking competition to supply the F-35 JSF's powerplant will in future see only two entities--GE Cand Pratt & Whitney--surviving and that too due to their dominance of the commercial engine (and not military) market. And Rolls-Royce will have to team up with either of these two companies in order to bid for future turbofan R & D projects. Even in Russia and China all the engine and airframe manufacturers have been grouped into single corporate behemoths. That being the case, do you really expect India to engage in cost-prohibitive domestic competitive military R & D projects?

To Nava: The MTCR restriction applies to the Heron-TP's weaponised configuration. As long as it is not armed with any weapons and is used for only surveillance or reconnaissance, the MTCR will not apply. It is for this reason that the BAE Systems Mantis was displayed at Aero India 2009 as only a UAV, and not as a UCAV. Check out any photos of the Mantis exhibited as a static display at the exhibition and you will see that its underwing pylons are not carrying any weapons, be they LGBs or guided-missiles.

F said...

Prasun, after all the fuss with the Cougar deal for Malaysia, do think Eurocopter is still the main contender for any future order?

Prasun K Sengupta said...

Of course. Both Eurocopter & AgustaWestland are on track for winning additional orders from both the PDRM, BOMBA and MMEA, which have already committed themselves to mixed helicopter fleets sourced from both these OEMs.

Kannan said...

IAF going for fresh tender for AJT! Spare supply and product support problems for Hawk.. So Another airframe? What on earth is IAF problem..Shouldn't we hold BAE responsible for the mess and make them deliver instead for inducting yet another type of aircraft? Love to hear your thoughts on this mess!

Anonymous said...

2 competitors from russia mig at,yak130

yak 130 would be the best fully didgital because hal has tot for al55 engines

Anonymous said...

to prasun

f15 silent eagle

what do u think about internal bays for su30mki,i think there is enough centreline space between air intakes and is enough to carry 8 air to air missiles internally

i think russians and chinks will follow this soon it is much easier to build internal bays on s327,30 etc

Anonymous said...

Yes..Prasun please comment on the rumour that IAF is going for another AJT. Is the fate of the Hawks sealed. There is got to be something else going on. Hawks canot be that bad. Majority of the Air Forces use Hawk for lead in fighter training...or is HAL creating problems to promote their IJT.

Prasun K Sengupta said...

To Kannan et all: Before we all jump to conclusions and engage in the blame-game involving BAE Systems, we have to consider the following: The original contract for Hawk Mk.132 lead-in fighter trainers (LIFT) called for a COMBINED procurement, i.e. 64 + a follow-on 57 for the IAF and 15 for the Indian Navy. However, when the time came for contract signature, only the IAF's contract was inked, and the Navy for mysterious reasons opted not to place its share of the orders, presuming that some Hawk Mk.132s from the IAF's first order tranche (for 64 aircraft) could subsequently be transferred and the IAF in turn would make up for this shortfall by signing a supplementary contract for 57 + 15 Hawk Mk.132s. However, Last year, Navy HQ was abruptly told by IAF HQ that even when the IAF inked a supplementary procurement contract it did not automatically mean that the 15 Hawk Mk.132s would be made available to the Navy out of the IAF existing orderbook for 64 Hawk Mk.132s. Rather, the 15 Hawk.132s would be delivered to the Navy AFTER all 64 + 57 + 15 Hawk Mk.132s have been delivered to the IAF. Now, the Navy is in a severe bind as it urgently requires the 15 Hawk Mk.132s but because of the present fiasco it has no option but to negotiate a new contract with BAE Systems for 15 Hawk Mk.132s as these aircraft will not be transferred from either the IAF's existing contract or the supplementary contract for Hawk Mk.132s. Now, according to the MoD's 2006 Defence Procurement Procedures whenever a new contract is to be inked, it should be preceded by the competitive tendering process. This legally means that the Navy cannot automatically select the Hawk.132 and order it under a sole-source contract. And that's the reason why BAE Systems' competitors, especially Russia's United Aircraft Corp (UAC) and Alenia Aeronautica, have made official representations to the MoD in which it has asked for the Yak-130 and M-346H to be evaluated by the Indian Navy as well. But you will all appreciate that the regular journalist/reporter in India does not either have the patience or the intellect to go down to the bottom of the matter and examine the issue in detail. So, he/she attempts a shortcut and oversimplify the issue. The bottom line: the spat is not over the IAF seeking a new LIFT, but over the Navy's requirement for LIFT.

Prasun K Sengupta said...

To Anon@7:37AM: The internal bays for the Su-30 family of combat aircraft and for the FGFA were displayed during MAKS 2007. The Russians are in fact ahead in this area in terms of design, although the US has been the first to roll it out in the form of the F-15SE.

Anonymous said...

OK a while ago there was a rumor that the Navy might go in for the carrier capable version of the Hawk called T45 Goshawk which is made by Boeing I think. Why not buy these T45 outright as rhe number of units is pretty low at 15. The Indian Navy rookie pilots in the US are already training on the T-45.

Prasun K Sengupta said...

Because the T-45C is is an advanced jet trainer, and not a lead-in fighter trainer. Even the HJT-36 IJT's cockpit is more advanced than thst of the T-45C. The T-45C's cockpit is cluttered with electro-mechanical instrumentation, unlike the Hawk Mk132's glass cockpit and the Navy requires this kind of cockpit environment as it is similar to those on board the MiG-29Ks. For aircraft carrier deck landings/takeoffs all Indian Navy MiG-29K pilots will be qualified and certified after undergoing the conversion course on the MiG-29K operational flight trainer (simulator). The Navy is also committed like the IAF to order the HJT-36 IJT IF HAL cxan deliver it on schedule. Currently, there are are several control system-related design/performance deficiencies on the HJT-36 that require rectification.

Anonymous said...

Thanks for your quick response. Any idea how many Hawks are operational at Bidar now. I believe BAE has already supplied their share of the 24 fully built Hawks and remaining are to be manufactured by HAL.

Anonymous said...

why can't Navy train its pilots in air force facilities and then train them in carrier landing rather than buy everything bought by air force ?

This way navy needs only Mig29K simulators and use all of the airforce's resources to train its pilots.

Anonymous said...

internal bay on Su-30 family ? what the heck are you talking about prasun ? which variant ? *any* other source other than yours confirming the same, other than yours ?

Prasun K Sengupta said...

Dude, the photos of such belly-mounted internal weapons bays for the Su-30 family were released in August 2007 by Sukhoi OKB and shown in posters at the MAKS 2007 expo. An article in a subsequent issue of AIR FLEET magazine reproduced those photos as well.

Anonymous said...

to anon @ 11:34:00 AM

t45 goshawk is not optimised for ski jump take off and procuring them for navy makes no sense,and so many govt related problems

su25 two seater carrier based version is optimised for ski jump take off deployed on kuznetsov along with su33 and can be operated from gorky with out problems and that makes much more sense,i think russia must have some of them in storage

Anonymous said...

which hemet mounted sight su30mki uses

prasun can u post some brochures on different HMS european,american,israeli, and russian

Anonymous said...

to prasun

indian air force Pilot of a upgraded Mi-35. Cockpit upgrades pilot night vision goggles (NVG) with flight data displayed on one eye piece, a digital moving map, rearrangement of the fore and aft cockpits. Cockpit lighting is NVG compatible. The HMOSP and the 12.7mm four-barrel machine gun are slaved to the pilot's line of sight.

Courtsey Frontierindia.net

picture link

http://vayu-sena-aux.tripod.com/pix/Mi-35_upgrade_helmet_mounted_sight.jpg

Ray C said...

prasun wrote:
It is for this reason that the BAE Systems Mantis was displayed at Aero India 2009 as only a UAV, and not as a UCAV. Check out any photos of the Mantis exhibited as a static display at the exhibition and you will see that its underwing pylons are not carrying any weapons, be they LGBs or guided-missiles.

you are terribly wrong, Mr. Prasun

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=4284&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=400

check out the second pic in that set...its from this year's aero india...You can clearly see 4 PGMs fitted on the pylons....Bingo!

Abhijoy said...

@Anon 8:46PM

Dude..haha...prasun isnt talking about our Hinds..hes talking about the proposed Mikoyan-35 fighter. I think you missed the G.

Prasun K Sengupta said...

To Ray C@11:34AM: The photo you're referring to was taken at last year's Farnborough Air Show. Just because there's a HAL booth in the background you're erroneously presuming that the Mantis UCAS display was at Aero India 2009. Since you're unlikely to believe me, kindly revert back to the BR website where all AI-09 photos are uploaded and pay close attention to the exhibition floorspace outdoors over which the Mantis UCAS was on static display and you will discover that the floorspace is not of the square-tiled type at Farnborough that appears in the photo you've referred to in your post above. That's the key difference which proves my earlier assertion that the Mantis UCAS displayed at AI-09 was unarmed. Hopefully you will realise your mistake and acknowledge it, that is if you have the balls to do so. Bingo!!!

Prasun K Sengupta said...

Thanks Abhijoy (LOL!). I too was wondering what the Mi-35 info was all about!

Sontu said...

Ray C Ji,
Infact when I visited the AI-09 ..I did not see any weapons onboard Mantis. Interestingly I had seen this UCAS configuration photo of Mantis before AI-09 and same I asked to BAE guys at AI-09 show and those guys were some how escaping my question about the armed version of Mantis..and I was really wondering if the earlier picture of armed Mantis was only an Artist's impression or what?
So it seems MTCR is the culprit ..why this armed version/configuration not being offered to India..
Regards,

Prasun K Sengupta said...

Sontu da, Namoshkar. This yet again proves that this thing called 'common sense' is rapidly becoming a rarity (LOL!). As they say, seeing does not automatically translate into perceptive or discerning observation. Very many thanks for sharing your much-valued inputs.

Kannan,India said...

If this MTCR thing is such a problem, then popeye turbo violates all that right?India supposedly has popeye turbo. Debka reports that we have popeye turbo with 1500km range..On an other note..is it possible to buy the unarmed UAV and arm it later with avionics and missiles from the same company or another as an upgradation package or something..The technologies are same for UAV->UCAV like any attack helicopter or fighter jet..so then is just a theoretical issue..? Or if we conclude that MTCR is an air-tight thing..is our only alternative is to arm it with Nag/Helina ATGM?

Prasun K Sengupta said...

The IAF has Popeye Lite, not Popeye Turbo. India is developing the supersonic ADM or Air-Delivered Munition (similar to the French ASLP), which will be superior to the subsonic Popeye Turbo.

Anonymous said...

that info was about mi35 combat helicopter of indian air force not about mig35 fighter aircraft

Anonymous said...

Dude, the photos of such belly-mounted internal weapons bays for the Su-30 family were released in August 2007 by Sukhoi OKB and shown in posters at the MAKS 2007 expo. An article in a subsequent issue of AIR FLEET magazine reproduced those photos as well.

@Prasun, could we have an image of that poster ?
will much appreciate it.