With a longer endurance of nine hours and capable of flying at a higher operating altitude of 41,000 feet, this new platform also has a longer detection range of more than 200 nautical miles. By enhancing the Republic of Singapore Air Force's (RSAF) all-round radar coverage, the introduction of the four G-550 CAEW & C platforms (the RSAF is the second customer of the G-550 CAEW & C after the IDF Air Force) will strengthen the RSAF's situational awareness and give it greater response time to deal with any aerial threat more effectively. The delivery of all four platforms is expected to be completed over the next two years, and will be stationed at the RSAF’s Tengah Air Base under the command of 111 Squadron, while operating with the Air Defence and Operations Command during mission execution. The Indian Navy too is soon expected to order an initial two of four such platforms under a fast-track procurement procedure--Prasun K. Sengupta
94 comments:
Hi Sengupta did you get any information on the Mig-35 that you were suppose to get ?
Are you doing any special writeup on Mig-35 or MMRCA for May FORCE edition ?
Thanks
Why cant the IN adopt the DRDO version of AWACS and are ordering Israel CAEW & C.
More ever these system are not capable of taking off from an Aircraft Carrier , so it better to wait till DRDO comes with its own AWACS.
So the IN is expected to prefer this one over the E2D? Has this been publicly indicated?
Also were you given any details about the SPS?
Thanks
I have the same doubts. Why can't the DRDO AWAC satisfy IN requirement, Unless its going the same way most DRDO projects do. G-550 is a pretty expensive system($375 a unit) and was developed to satisfy Israeli requirement for a fast and agile platform which can lead strikes far from home (ie Iran). At this price IN can go for the IL-76 Phalcon AWAC. A bigger platform has more growth potential and options. This is why IAF didn't go for the G-550 and Israel had to develop two Phalcon systems in parallel.
Oops! Make that $375 million a unit for Singapore purchase of G-550 AWACS.
To Anon@10.43PM: I too am still awaiting the PPt presentation from RAC-MiG. Will upload it the moment I get it.
To Anon@11.05PM & Harpreet: The answer is quite simple. The DRDO-developed AEW & C platform will be ready for evaluations & trials only by 2012 and thereafter four years will pass by before it is declared a success of failure, whereas the Indian Navy wants a proven platform ASAP, so that at least by 2012 the MiG-29Ks and the to-be-procured AEW & CS platform can synchronise their operations and develop an effective air dominance operational art. Now, as far as aircraft carrier-based AEW platforms go, given the limitations of the STOBAR characteristics of both INS Vikramaditya and the IAC, the only deck-based AEW platforms will be helicopters like the Ka-31. While such platforms are effective only for limited periods (for up to four hours if two Ka-31s are continuously kept airborne) and are mostly for defensive operations (i.e. deterring hostile anti-ship cruise missile-equipped platforms from entering the missile launch envelopes), the availability of a land-based AEW & C platform with appreciable service ceiling and being capable of being aerially-refuelled by MiG-29Ks) will afford the Indian Navy an offensive air dominance capability for up to six hours. What the Navy is thus loooking for is an airborne battle management capability such such platforms, which the Ka-31s cannot perform. If you really wish to understand how such integrated carrier-based battle groups will operate in times of war in the Arabian Sea one really needs to examine in detail what exactly the Navy's operational scenario was during both Ex Brass Tacks in 1986/1987and during OP Vijay in mid-1999.
To Nava: I think it will be safe to easily assume that the E-2D does not quite match up to the G-550 CAEW & C, as both the Israelis and Singaporeans found out before committing to a decision on procuring their next-generation AEW & C platform. As for the SPS, the open-architecture nature of the avionics suite ensures that any customer-specified hardware can be installed on board with minor airframe modifications.
Thanks Prasun , Do you have information on the offer Russia is giving to IAF for its MMRCA bid ?
Can you throw some light on the recent issue of Rafale being barred from MMRCA bid , which later was declined by MOD.
Can you provide information on the offer French is giving to IAF for its MMRCA bid ?
Thanks for the response, nice to see you posting again...
Another query about the IN- do you know if it operates any USVs (e.g protector from rafael)or plans to procure some?
Thanks
Prasun what is the advantage of having a dual band radar one in S and one in L , any tactical advantage ?
I think the main advantage is that it allows 360 degree coverage.
Prasun da, namashkar. Bhalo achen to? In my opinion shore based G-550 CAEW system is useless against deep sea warefare. Have you any information about carriar based midium ranged AEW platform which can operate from IAC like small aircraft carriar?
Greetings Prasun,
How does the Erieye measure up against the G-550 AEW? I read somewhere the RMAF had initially decided on Wedgetail, but again costing was an issue.
prasun,
just a thought can u compare this system and its electronic warfare capabilities to that of the ASTER R1operated by the RAF? I think it was offered to INDIA(may be wrong here).
also is it possible to put catapults on the IAC's on portside like those on the american CVN's also what effect willit have on the ships performance?
Its good that IN has moved past ADS concept and is developing offensive doctrine for IAC. However I don't think that tying down an AC to land based AEW&C is a good idea. Will the G-550 fly without escort from its base to the theater. If not, it may as well be escorted by strike aircraft. It somehow defeats the idea of having an AC.
Unfortunately we are still flirting with the problem with half hearted measures like STOBAR while the only true solution is CATOBAR. This way we will keep struggling with compromise solutions like the British are struggling with Maritime Airborne Surveillance and Control (MASC) programme.
Prasun, IAC is about the size of Charles De Gaulle AC so why is IN resisting Catapult Assisted Take Off while they have already accepted the more difficult Arrested Recovery landing.
Prasun da, please inform about the total aircraft boarding capacity of IAC & INS Vikramaditya.
To Anon@4:33AM: The Russian MiG-35 offer for the M-MRCA has already been extensively detailed but the proof of the pudding lies in its eating. Hence, until and unless the world gets a glimpae of the definitive MiG-35 prototype rolling out of RAC-MiG's Zhukovsky facility anytime in future, I'm afraid we all will have to take up the MiG-35's viability with a fistful of salt.
Regarding the Rafale omnirole M-MRCA, it remains in contention and although it will inevitably pass the technical evaluation stage with flying colours, when it comes to the industrial offsets arena, setting up a local licenced-assembly line in India will be way too expensive when compared to the cost of setting up such assembly lines for aircraft like the F-16IN or Eurofighter EF-2000. Therefore, the Rafale still remains the dark horse along with the JAS-39 IN in the M-MRCA competition. Under the present economic conditions, there's no way the M-MRCA project can be delinked from the Tejas Mk2 project. The only way they can be delinked is by keeping the acquisition costs of the M-MRCA as low as possible and if this is the case, then Lockheed Martin's offer for the F-16IN Super Viper emerges as the most viable, both technologically and financially.
To Nava: The Protector USV has attracted keen interest from both the Navy and Coast Guard in India and was also demonstrated to them two years ago by the Republic of Singapore Navy. However, no orders have been placed thus far from any potential end-user in India.
To Anon@10:02AM: If you jump over to the previous thread you will see exhaustive explanations about the merits/demerits of X-band, L-band and S-band radars and their applications.
To Abhinaba Da: Namoshkar. Dhannobad, shob bhalo ache. One must note that unlike the US Navy or its British or French counterparts, the Indian Navy's carrier battle group (CBG) does not have any kind of expeditionary war-waging doctrine or reqmt beyond its immediate areas of operations in the Arabian Sea or Bay of Bengal. Therefore, the deployments and usage of CBGs are threat-specific and for this reason a fleet of AEW & C platforms backed up by aerial refuelling and operating from shore-based and island-based air bases will more than suffice. That's why, as I said earlier, to acquire an informed understanding of how CBGs will be employed in future, one has to examine how the CBG was deployed during Ex Brass Tacks in 1986-1987 and during mid-1999 in response to realistic operational scenarios.
To Faris: The G-550 is a widebodied aircraft, whereas the EMB-145 is narrow-bodied. Secondly, the G-550 CAEW & CS' mission sensor suite is far more versatile than the Erieye and gives 360-degree airspace surveillance/airborne battle management capability, which the Erieye cannot. Lastly, the G-550 CAEW & CS' fuselage and internal volume allows the aircraft to absorb the extra avionics reqd for satellite communications-based operational data links. The EMB-145 has to date not been certified to carry such avionics. Another advantage of the G-550 is its higher operational ceiling compared to the EMB-145.
As for the Royal Malaysian Air Force, I was present at the technical briefing which Boeing gave to the RMAF on the Wedgetail AEW & C way back in 1998. But the RMAF and MINDEFG balked at the procurement costs and currently the RMAF remains interested only in the EMB-145/Erieye system. Interestingly, Indonesia is poised to go for the Chinese KJ-200 AEW & C system, and Thailand will later this year receive its first Saab 340 Erieye AEW & C platform.
To Sachin Sathe: There's no comparison between the ASTOR/Sentinal system and the G-550 CAEW & CS. They are for totally different missions. What the ASTOR has on board is the very same kind of SAR which is contained within the EL/M-2060P pod carried by the Su-30MKI, and which can also be carried underneath the Searcher Mk2 or Heron 2 UAVs. The only differenece is that ISTAR operations can be undertaken on board the ASTOR whereas the EL/M-2060P has to pass the gathered ground imagery in real-time to ground stations for data processing and targetting. But IAI/ELTA has already redesigned the EL/M-2060P to be belly-mounted on both the G-550 as well as EMB-145 as a generic Aerial Common Sensor (ACS) and these two options will be presented to the IAF very soon. Raytheon has already done so with its ASTOR, this being done two years ago.
Regarding the IAC, the design has been frozen and therefore no such CATOBAR modification is possible. In any case, the portside portion of both the IAC and INS Vikramadutya is used for arrested recovery and therefore there's not enough space for the catapult-assisted takeoff run.
To Harpreet: yes, the shore-based AEW & CS could be escorted to their deployment stations by no more than 2 MiG-29Ks or even two Su-30MKIs. That remains a distinct possibility. I agree with you that the IN's Naval Design Bureau could have been bolder and incorporated CATOBAR for its IAC. But it probably took a less riskier approach at the time of decision-making, hoping to rely on the Russians to supply the STOBAR components, at a time when Naval HQ was not yet administered the 'shock treatment' by the Russians with regard to the INS Vikramaditya's escalating procurement costs. In any case, that is all in the past now and efforts should now be made to ensure that the MiG-29Ks and the projected carrier-based Tejas Mk2are equipped with 3-D thrust-vectoring nozzles. EADS is also proposing that the Tejas Mk2 have twin conformal fuel tanks.
Well it seems to me that USVs like the protector could provide a cost effective solution to the Somali pirate threat. The ships currently being used are really over kills.
Also if you're looking for a sentinel style aircraft from Israel:
http://www.iai.co.il/sip_storage/files/1/33021.pdf
To Nava: USVs like the RAFAEL Protector are used solely for offering proximate security for warships and are therefore typically deployed only up to 6nm away from the warship. It is remotely controlled from the warship and is deployed to its action station ONLY AFTER the warship's on-board long-range optronic sensors or marine navigation radars have picked up anything suspicious. Mind you, the Protector's on-board sensors are not of the long-range type. Another drawback of the Protector's deployment in the high seas is its RHIB platform and frequently even in medium sea states such RHIBs can be unstable. Therefore, operators like the Republic of Singapore Navy operate the Protector only in sheltered or littoral waters where the sea is calm, as in the Persian Gulf. But try to do it in the Horn of Africa and you can rest assured that such RHIBs won't be deployable most of time due to the rough seas. I don't think the existing deployment of warships off Somalia is an overkill as piracy incidents continue to happen despite the existence of several warships. What is required is a force multiplier and persistent airborne surveillance platform like the shipborne NRUAV, which will be able to monitor a huge swathe of area and consequently, will increase the warship's maritime awareness domain and will also help improve and quicken the warship's response to reported pirate attacks.
Regarding the MARS-2 EL/I-3150, all I can say is that it was this particular platform that went to India on January 11 this year and landed at Delhi's Palam Airport Technical Area for an overnight stop before proceeding to Agra AFB. This was mistakenly reported by Indian newsmedia as being the arrival of the IAF's first A-50E PHALCON. In reality, the MARS-2 EL/I-3150 was in India for 72 hours for a hush-hush demonstration tour and during that time it flew a few ground surveillance tracks along India's western and north-western border areas, and the last sortie was undertaken from Agra to Tambaram AFB (this being a refuelling stop) and from there it proceeded towards northeastern Sri Lanka and covered the entire area from a standoff distance without entering Sri Lankan airspace before turning back to head to Kochi at nighttime for yet another refuelling stop before flying back to Israel. Now the cat's out of the bag!!!
Well I'm convinced about the Protector, I didn't realize its severe limitations. However don't you think that in the long run the optimal solution to the pirate threat-and to various maritime LIC situations- will be a combination of USVs and UAVs? I mean its rather wasteful to send a corvette (and an advanced one at that) to a mission that could be performed by say a heron, a typhoon gun and MAYBE a spike missile...but perhaps I'm wrong. And while the current gen USVs might not be up for it, there are quite a few companies working on future solutions, among them Rafael, Elbit and Aeronautics of Israel.
Wow that's quite a scoop man! Do you know if a procurement is imminent? It looks like a powerful system, and it could dovetail with the existing (and expected)combination of Israeli strategic intelligence platforms.
Thanks
To Nava: The point you got to bear in mind is that every UAV or USV cannot operate autonomously. They have to be remote-controlled and for that one requires a control station. In the maritime domain this translates into a mother ship or warship that houses the navigation and flight control consoles. Therefore, wherever such UAVs or USVs are deployed at sea, one will require the services of such warships. Also, given the nature of piracy it is next to impossible to distinguish from the air the difference between pirate vessels or fighing vessels. Final confirmation ALWAYS will come from visit-board-search-seize operations conducted by quick-reaction teams of personnel. Hence, despite all the sophistication, there's only so much that unmanned weapon systems can do. In such operations one can never do away with the human element.
Regarding the MARS-2 EL/I-3150 demo tour, I'm sure IAI wouldn't have spent an enormous amount of money reqd for staging the tour had there not been a serious reqmt from the Indian customer.
Yeah sure the UVs would have to be remotely operated, but couldn't this can be done from a stand off range via NLOS data links or SATCOM? The command and control center could be a single dedicated ship or more cheaply a land based station positioned far from the conflict area. Perhaps the UAV would be operated with SATCOM and it would then control the USV with a regular data link.Is this prohibitively expensive?
Also I understand that there is a need for final confirmation and warning but I think this could be done from the alerted USV.Once you get sufficient stabilization you can mount a toplite style sensor on the USV. Wouldn't this be enough?
Thanks, for information. Please,response to my 2nd comment .
To Nava: Anti-piracy operations are not as simple as seek and destroy missions. There may be thousands of small ships and fishing trawlers that often need to be physically embarked upon and inspected by marines on suspicion. Also there are policy restrictions like not to harm the pirates for fear of backlash against sailors being held hostage. Often pirates employ "Mother Ships" that are captured foreign vessels and may have hostage crew on board.
The best way to deal with such complex threats is to deploy large number of OPV with a chopper and requisite number of marines/marcos on board. Unfortunately IN like most big navies doesn't have a good number of OPV. Smaller ships also require a local base or support of a replenishment ship.
Why do Singapore buy such aircrafts while most of its neighbors are friendly
Prasun K Sengupta ACCORDING TO SIPRI Arms Transfers Database 2008 Il-78 Midas That PAF will be getting are Ex-Ukrainian, so they cant have PS-90 engines?
How does G-550 CAEW&C compares IAF IL-76 AEW&C and Saab-2000 AEW&C in term of radar
To Anon@2:30:00 AM: Singapore has got money to burn.They have even built massive hi-tech NBC shelters under the city. But to be fair they do have some historical tensions with Malaysia and Indonesia.
It is Australia that surprises me. Who do they have dispute with? As if they miss some neighbors to fight with they are out to find enemy in far off places. With their tiny population for how long will they cry about maintaining military parity with China?
An unrelated question:
Will the Barak 8 host a dual IIR\active radar seeker or just active radar?
Prasun da, in previous thread you said cockpit of Tejas is not pilot friendly, why? If IAC is equiped with Mig-29k/kub instead of navalished Tejas, will IAC's total aircraft boarding capacity decrease?
To Nava: What you've said is all possible, provided a country's navy has been awarded a non-recurring budget of US$220 million to procure and launch a dedicated military communications satellite, and a recurring sum of up to $50 million per annum to maintain all the terrestrial and extra-terrestrial infrastructure. So yes, such SATCOMS infrastructure can be prohibitively expensive. Also, in your suggestion there appears to be a presupposition that pirate vessels at sea are easily detectable. While this is possible along narrow riverine waterways, in the open seas it is extremely difficult to pinpoint them due to the sheer swathe of space to be monitored and that too in the absence of any man-made or natural navigational landmarks, unlike operations on land. It is only after all such challenges are overcome that one can even consider the employment of USVs. The fact that even the US is still years away from deploying UAV-/aircraft-based broad area maritime surveillance (BAMS) systems should give you an idea of how challenging the BAMS-based scenario is. Harpreet is therefore right in saying that anti-piracy operations are inherently manpower-intensive as well as platform-centric.
Regarding the Barak-8 MR-SAM it will have an active radar for terminal guidance. The LR-SAM variant will have dual-mode sensors for terminal guidance just like the PAC-3.
To Anon@2:30AM: For the very same reason that Thailand has invested in AEW & C capabilities. Acquisition of AEW & C platforms need not necessarily be associated with the existence of clear and present dangers. It is all about a country's advanced state of evolution in terms of developing one's airpower doctrine. And contrary to what the popular perception may be, Singapore and Malaysia have never perceived each other to be mortal enemies. On the contrary, both countries have traditionally faced an existential threat from Indonesia since the late 1950s. And if you analyse how exactly the Indonesians have deployed their recent Su-27SMK and Su-30MK/MK2 acquisitions you will realise what exactly are the threat perceptions of both Malaysia and Indonesia.
To MJ26459: I see no reason why the IL-78s of Ukrainian origin cannot be re-engined with PS-90As, should the Pakistan Air Force desire such a re-engining option. Afterall, the Klimov RD-93s are flowing in for the JF-17 Thunder programme as are Ulan-Ude/Kazan-built Mi-17s.
Regarding AEW & C comparisons, the IAF's A-50E PHALCON, due to its bigger size, is definitely way superior to the G-550 CAEW & CS in terms of airspace surveillance envelope, airborne battle management capacities, and mission endurance. Between the G-550 CAEW & CS and Saab 2000 AEW & C, the former is much more superior, no doubt. The Saab 2000 being a turboprop will have a much slower cruise speed and its service ceiling will be limited to 31,000 feet. On top of that, the Saab 2000 will have no aerial refuelling capability, which the G-550 will have. I had last year posted the brochures of the Saab 2000 AEW & C in an earlier thread and you can compare the performance parameters of both platforms yourself.
Hope you are planning to give us full blown account of the Arjun going head to head with the T-90S this summer
To Abhinaba: A visual comparison of the cockpits of the JF-17, JAS-39IN and the Tejas LCA will reveal that the pilot of the Tejas LCA will have a greater workload in terms of cockpit resource management and consequently will have less time on hand to concentrate on mission management. The Tejas LCA's AMLCDs will have to increased in size (similar to what is on the Su-30MKI and MiG-29K) so that the pilot's situational awareness is further improved while at the same time increasing the mission management capabilities. As for the number of aircraft on board the IAC or INS Vikramaditya, the operational deployment will see no more than 20 MiG-29Ks or Tejas LCAs, plus some eight helicopters, mostly Ka-31s.
To Anon@10:48AM: It won't be a head-to-head between the T-90S and Arjun Mk1, but between the latest imported and upgraded T-90M and Arjun Mk1. The T-90S doesn't stand any chance against the Arjun Mk1. Another interesting point to note is the Pakistan Army's latest T-84UD MBT acquisition, since this MBT does away with the hull-mounted carousel autoloader of the type found on board the Al Khalid, and instead houses a rear turret-housed autoloader-cum-ammo stowage compartment. I guess both the Ukrainian OEM and the Pakistan Army have at last realised that hit survivability is more important than hit avoidance!
to friends
pakis getting EX UKRAIN IL78 will be reengined anf those new engines will come from ukrain not from russia
u all must know that ukrain has well established aviation industry and it can produce aero engine on its own without foreign help
just to let u know that AN-124's engines can be derated and fitted into il78
to prasun
"Zaporozhye Machine-Building Design Bureau" is a ukrainian company which is able to build all kinds of aero engines(gas turbine,turboprop,turbofan,
turboshaft)and marine gas turbines as well
so new engines for IL78 for paki aire force will be supplied from this company
To Prasun da,
There is no specific information about climb rate, sustained turn rate,instantaneous turn rate & roll rate of Tejas. Have you any idea? Please compare those rates with that of JF-17.
To Anon@2:34
Since World War II when Australia was nearly absorbed into Imperial Japan, the US has been the defender and protector of Australia.As an ANZUS ally, the US has certain minimum equipment demands on Australia for interoperability.It is also Australia's policy to maintain someform of deterrence capability should China or North Korea or Indonesia invade Australian territories.So whilst Australia has no real threats per se, it needs a balanced military capability to assist the US and be able to defend itself rather than go down straightaway.
Prasun, this Thales press release lists the IN warships for which LW08 VSR has been contracted for to date. Only the Shivalik class is missing here. Could it be the contracted radars for Kolkata class are really meant for Shivalik class?
Why is the IN so fond of this 2D radar? It won't even look good next to MF-STAR.
To,Harpreet,
the latest varient of LW08 i.e JUPITER(Performs as long range air surveillance D-ba nd radar that detects 2m^2 RCS target from 260 km.) is mounted on "Abraham Van den Hulst"-a chilean fregate. In case of reaction time,range it is similar to MF-STAR. The only disadvantage of it is it's 5D searching.Hope, the indian variant will have indian navy's requirment specific features.There is no info. about pulse repetition time of LW08.Any one know?
please read my comment as it's lack of 3D searching instead of -it's 5D searching in the line-The only disadvantage of it is---.
Sorry .
To Abhinaba: It will be a futile exercise to compare the performance parameters of the Tejas LCA with those of the JF-17 simply because the Tejas Mk2 incorporating thrust-vectoring nozzles will be the definitive variant that enters service in large numbers. Therefore, the figures will become available only after the next two years.
To Anon@2:53PM: Ukraine may well have the capability of producing all kinds of engines/turbofans but that does not mean it can re-engine any aircraft. For doing that the engine manufacturer must have access to the aircraft's design data from the OKB (design bureau) and in case of the IL-76/IL-78 the OKB is Russian. Even the Tashkent Aircraft Production Organisation, which builds the IL-76/IL-78, cannot undertake such re-engining work simply because the final say on airworthiness certification of any new powerplant for the IL-76/IL-78 has to come from the Russian OKB. Its that simple. Therefore, Russian approval and blessings have to be sought before the IL-76/IL-78 can be re-engined.
To Pierre Zorin: Indonesia perceives Australia as a threat because it suspects that Papua New Guinea and Australia are working hand in hand in trying to destabilise existing Indonesian sovereignty over West Papua.
To Harpreet: The LW-08s will not go on the Project 17 FFGs, they're all for the Project 15/Project 15A DDGs. I share your pessimism regarding these radars going on the Project 15A DDGs as well. I still can't figure out why the 3-D CAR/Revati was developed only as an S-band radar, when ORIGINALLY, the DRDO/LRDE as far back as 1998 was claiming that the 3-D CAR would be an L-band radar. By 2001 the 3-D CAR was born again as the S-band system, tis time based on a JV with Poland!
Sir,
please give us an update about abhay icv, nirbhay, sagarika & lch project!
Prasun, which secondary radar is P17 FFG supposed to have? It does seem to have a second mast. I think IN choice of LW-08 for P15A DDGs indicates we are still living with the 2 imported Green Pine radars for our BMD program. Why else DRDO cant deliver a naval version of LRTR for P15A when they have been quick to come up with Revathi variant of 3D-CAR.
Since 3D-CAR was meant to serve Akash SAM, I suppose S-Band range was considered sufficient while keeping the system compact and mobile. Frankly I don't care form where DRDO gets its tech as long as they deliver something. I hope current talks between BEL and Thales delivers some "co-developed" radar to take place of LW-08.
To Harpreet: That is why I persist in claiming that the Indian Navy's Design Bureau suffers from an attitude of design conservatism. Considering the time taken for commissioning the three Project 17 FFGs, the Naval Design Bureau by 2000 should have drawn the correct lessons from the Project 15 DDG programme and should have consequently gone for the APAR/Smart-L combination. Now IAI/ELTA for sure is developing the 'navalised' Green Pine L-band system for the IAC and this has already been shown in the IAC illustrations done by Cochin Shipyard Ltd. But again, I can't figure out why this very radar wasn't specified for the Project 15A/Kolkata-class DDGs. A similar solution should have been adopted for not only the three Project 17 FFGs, but also for the follow-on three Project 1135.6 FFGs.
TO PRASUN
L/M-2238 S-band 3-D search radar comes with small,medium,large antennas and hence they have different detection ranges
so
any idea which size of L/M-2238 S-band 3-D search radar fitted to indian navy ships
to prasun
why this AEWACS aircraft has two bands of radar operation why there is L band aesa instead of being all S BAND aesa operation
some people shout here GAMMA DE radar operates in L band and so does SMART L(which is still being produced)
japanese building newer ships ans submarines pretty fast
To Anon@2:54:00 PM: When you have two radars operating in tandem, you would choose a lower frequency radar for volume search to take advantage of longer range and better weather resistance. This while a higher frequency radar is available for clearer identification and fire control.
This is why Smart-L is used as a secondary VSR on warships and DRDO uses L-Band LRTR(Green Pine) for BM detection and tracking while S-Band MFCR(Thales) is used for engagement.
Prasun, The T/R modules(TRMM) developed for DRDO AWAC are different to one displayed ages ago.
Continued above, got distracted.
Prasun, were these older T/R modules ever used in a radar?
To Anon@2:54:00 PM: Coming to AWACs. The primary role of an AWAC is Early Warning against low flying threats. Hence detection range matters here. The L-Band Phalcon with range of ~450km beats the ~350km range of S-Band Ericsson and DRDO CABS AWACs. It all comes down to technical competence. DRDO & Ericsson have chosen S-Band as their AWAC platforms are too small to support L-Band AESA. G-550 has managed that with conformal arrays. But L-Band T/R modules are too big for G-550 nose and tail, hence S-Band there. Meanwhile the US is so far ahead that they have chosen an even higher frequency (X-Band) for Boieng 737 Wedgetail and still manage to beat L-Band Phalcon in every aspect including detection range.
When will G-550 CAEW & C come.
Has GOI security cabinet approved it.
The only number I've heard regarding the Wedgetail's range is "over 200 NM", do you know the actual range?
Oh, I mean the radar's detection range of course.
sorry
My mistake, i confused X-Band AN/TPY-2 with L-Band MESA used on Boieng 737 Wedgetail.
to quote Northrop Grumman"AESA fighter radars, because they use X-band frequencies and synthetic aperture processing, are capable of such “targeting-quality” resolution. This is not the case for the AEW&C MESA radar: it uses lower, L-band frequencies, settling for lower resolution in order to
achieve long range detection with less disruption from bad weather"
Oh, I see. Well if that's the case then you shouldn't be comparing its range to 450 kilometers either...
Wedgetail's MESA has many more T/R modules than Phalcon, over 4000 infact. Compare that to 1280 T/R in DRDO AWAC. Here is source on its detection range.
Well, according to Janes, the Phalcon has 4608 TR elements. Link:http://www.janes.com/extracts/ext
ract/jav/jav_0468.html
What does maximum detection range even mean? The detection range for the largest conceivable target?
To Anon@2:28PM: Based on visual observations of the radar antenna on board INS Viraat and on board the Project 16 Godavari-class FFGs, they appear to be in the medium category.
To Harpreet: None of the T/R modules have as yet been applied to any production-level radar. But once the LRTR enters series production these T/R modules will presumably be put to use.
To Anon@3:25AM: No, the GoI's Cabinet Committee on National Security has not yet approved the contract signature for the G-550 CAEW & CS.
To Nava: The detection ranges currently apply to airborne combat aircraft-sized targets, although software algorithms can be developed to detect cruise missiles as well. The challenges do not apply to the hardware, but in areas of mission software. The day is not far when such AESA radars will be capable of both AEW & C as well as GMTI, something like the EADS-headed SOSTAR programme for NATO.
By the way, hope you all have heard about the crash of the first Su-30MKI. My personal belief is that this was only a matter of time and was waiting to happen. If only the full-mission simulators for the Su-30MKIs were acquiired way back in 2003 (sigh!).
So, according to the site harpreet referenced, the wedgetail can detect an aircraft sized target at 400NM?! What RCS are we talking about?
The Su30 crash is truly sad. Given the history of Russian jets in IAF service the Sukhois have an exceptional record. I an not sure how much simulators could have helped here since both the pilots were experienced. Having seen the video of pilots eject from a crashing Su30 at Paris air show makes the loss of a pilot even more surprising.
RIP Wing Commander P S Nara
Prasun, The Il76 Phalcon has a triangular AESA array unlike the six panel phased-array of Boeing 707 Phalcon Nava has mentioned above. Do you know the number of T/R elements in Il76 Phalcon?
Nava, for an aircraft flying at 10km alt the horizon appears at 200 NM. So at 400 NM it can at best see another aircraft flying at the same altitude. Prasun has rightly said the real difference is in Software/Processing. If Wedgetail can track 3000 targets can anyone come up with figure for Phalcon.
To Nava: Don't get so worked up with RCS as that relates only to target detection by the on-board AESA radar. Actually, the ELINT/SIGINT suite of the PHALCON ensures target detection way beyond 300nm using non-cooperative target recognition (NCTR) modes of operation, that is very rarely discussed in the open domain.
To Harpreet: Nava's figure of T/R elements used by the PHALCON's triangular AESA antenna is correct.
Regarding the Su-30MKI crash, both the aircrew being experienced flyers does not automatically translate into the two (pilot and navigator) being equally experienced in flying the Su-30MKI. The fact that one of the aircrew was killed indicates that ejection must have taken place at low altitude, this leading to fatal spinal injury. And all this is further indicative (although speculative at this stage) of the fact that the flight emergency was declared in only the final stages and this usually happens when either the flight crew is relatively inexperienced with the aircraft-type and its emergency procedures protocol, or when disorientation occures, resulting in loss of situational awareness. All this, of course, can be prevented if full-mission simulators are employed extensively, especially in training the aircrew for making the correct responses during in-flight emergencies. Although the IAF will never agree, if an independent audit of all fatal air crashes involving the MiG-21, MiG-23BN, MiG-27M and MiG-29 were to be carried, the majority of them will come under the 'avoidable' category, i.e. had the IAF inducted flight simulators and cockpit procedures trainers for these aircraft types for both rookie pilots as well as for those experienced pilots converting to these aircraft types, then such fatalities could have been avoided.
you guyz all taking about AESA tech and comparing american and euro and israeli stuff
but you must know that how much americans spending on defence tech compared to others
all depends on money
f22 ans rafale typhoon have also crashed
Prasun thanks for the promptly replies.Totally unrelated question:
I heard that Elbit and HAL were planning to offer the Army the Skylark UAV. Also there's been word of indigenous designs if I'm not mistaken. What's the situation with Mini UAVs in the army and special forces;has any particular one been selected to be purchased en masse?
Thanks for your insight Prasun.
So what happned in 2003? Is IAF really unappreciative of the importance of simulators?
Please add my following questions to Nava's query on Army's modernisation.
1) Has IA acquired the MTU Instavest described as the fastest Ballistic jacket in the world. Is this really an indigenous development?
2) What is the status of FINSAN program. Has it been materialised and any objectives/deadlines set?
3) Are there any significant contributions/products private defence sector in India has made so far? Can you list some of them or write an article on it if you haven't already.
PLs sir, give ma any update about Abhay icv. After the arjun drama i fear that it also going in the same direction
To Anon@ 2:37:00 AM:
I have heard that Abhay ICV has been relegated to the status of "technology demonstrator". The army is now studying FICV & FAFV concepts.
Now that US army jolted by lessons in Iraq & Afganistan is reviewing its FCS program, I hope IA will better appreciate good old heavy armour of Arjun AFV.
To Anon@3:28PM: Yes, there have been crashes of all these new-generation combat aircraft but they crashed either when they were being developed (in prototype stage) or when they were in the process of induction. In case of the Su-30MKI, since its induction in September 2002, this was the first writeoff, meaning it was either an avoidable technical (ground maintenance-related) or human error (in terms of being unable to properly react to an inflight emergency or reacting too late). In both probable causes, the usage of simulators for training both aircrew and ground crew is indispensible nowadays. However, the Su-30MKI remains the only 4+ generation MRCA that till this day does not have accompanying full-mission flight simulators, cockpit procedures trainers, avionics part-task trainers (although they're on their way now), and maintenance simulators. Anyone care to explain this anomaly? Why did the IAF plan the Su-30MKI's induction in way the Indian Navy has done with the MiG-29K? Why was the development of the above-mentioned types of simulators not undertaken since the late 1990s concurrently with the development and flight-testing of the Su-30MKI? Will history be repeated with the IAF's upgraded MiG-29s,.i.e., the IAF accepting the upgraded aircraft but unaccompanied by the above-mentioned types of simulators? If China's PLA Air Force could induct such simulators way back in 2002, what prevents the IAF from inducting them as well?
To Nava: Well, HAL and ELBIT have two distinct JVs: one for the Skylark and other for supplying helmet-mounted night vision goggles and the DASH Mk2 HMD to the IAF. On the other hand, Hyderabad-based Speck Industries too has teamed up with IAI to offer mini-UAVs similar to Skylark. The TATA Group too has developed some hand-held mini-UAVs. Looks like these companies are now competitively bidding for supplying mini-UAVs to both the Indian armed forces as well as the paramilitary forces. The market for the latter is huge, to put it lightly. But no contract awards have taken place as yet.
To Harpreet: It's not just the IAF, but also the Army and Indian Navy, especially when it comes to inducting simulators for equipment of Soviet/Russian origin. For instance, till today, there are no flight simulators for either the Ka-28PL and Ka-31. Why? There are no platoon gunnery simulators for the T-90S MBTs, despite such simulators being available from companies like RUAG of Switzerland. Why? Why has no such platoon gunnery simulator been developed by the DRDO for the Arjun Mk1 MBT? Why is the IAF not acquiring flight simulators along with the Mi-17V-5s? Why has HAL not yet been able to develop a flight simulator or cockpit procedures trainer for the Dhruv ALH? Why is ADA or HAL not even talking about the development of a full-fledged full-mission flight simulator for the Tejas LCA?
Regarding the MKU-built Instavest, I'm not aware whether or not it is an indigenous development, but I do know that this company has supplied composite armoured panels for the Shivalik-class FFGs and is also supplying them for Turkey's MILGEM corvettes. The F-INSAS is still work in progress. Regardng your point 3, boy, it will take a lot of work but I will try to highlight some of them in future. Te contributions are significant. For instance, Hitachi-Dass is the company that has designed and developed containerised NBC shelters and command posts for all three armed forces. For instance, the CPs of the BrahMos are all being supplied by this company. Those for the MR-SAM and LR-SAM too will be supplied by Hitachi-Dass. Larsen & Toubro's 300-tonne mini-submarine that was co-developed with Italian companies is still undergoing sea trials and its prodfuction variants will be used by MARCOS.
To Anon@2:37AM: The Abhay AIFV was just a technology demonstrator project ad I'm at a loss to understand why it is not proceeding ahead to the production stage.
Another question about UAVs, this time more general: what's the level of technological cooperation with Israel in this field? Are there any serious JVs, apart from marketing agreements(and attempts at reverse engineering)? It seems that this field will only get more important, and benefiting from Israeli technology seems like an excellent way to get ahead- Just ask Russia :)
The military-industrial cooperation in the area of UAVs dates back to the late 1990s when the first El-Op built FLIR turrets were acquired for fitment on to India's homegrown Nishant tactical UAVs. By 1998 the Searcher Mk1s originally meant for Singapore were already with the Indian Air Force. But the biggest and most significant military-industrial cooperation (between IAI/MALAT and HAL) in the area of UAVs to date and that is still ongoing concerns the vertical takeoff and landing shipborne NRUAV, which got underway in 2005. The Indian Navy is launch customer of the NRUAV. Up to 40 of them will be procured. With due respect, there's no need to ask Russia or anyone else: Russia is years behind India when it comes to operational use of UAVs.
I meant in the sense that they're patently acquiring Israeli UAVs in order to reverse engineer them, that's all. And IAI was apparently "convinced" by the Israeli foreign ministry to comply for larger geopolitical reasons (Iran basically). RE the NRUAV, it seems like a rather ad-hoc approach to a significant future market. How useful will the MALAT suite be for the VTOL UAV market in general, without being coupled with a dedicated platform? I'm clearly not an expert, but it seems to me that developing an innovative, dedicated platform would've been smarter in the long run...
To Nava: I don't think reverse-engineering was the deciding factor. The Russians can definitely design a high-end UAV's fuselage and make the reqd new-generation flight-control systems and mission sensors. That's not what the Ruskies are after. What they want is to understand and implement network-centric warfare techniques and technologies. This is something that eludes them till today. Even way back in 1997 when i was talking to Russian helicopter producers like Ulan-Ude, Kazan and Rostvertol they did not even understand what health and usage management system (HUMS) was all about!!! So, imagine their horror when India insisted that a South African HUMS suite be installed on board the Su-30MKI! Even their latest Su-35BM and Su-34 till today does not have any locally developed HUMS on-board.
Now, regarding the NRUAV and other shipborne rotary-winged UAVs, the costs of developing a dedicated platform for a shipborne UAV will drive costs through the roof and even the US has discovered this. Therefore, both the NRUAV and the Northrop Grumman-developed shipborne VTOL-UAV make use of existing single-engined helicopter platforms. For countries like India where both the Alouette III and Lama helicopters are available in large numbers and their MRO reqmts are catered entirely domestically, choosing such helicopter platforms is the best and most economical solution as they will be able to remain n service even beyond the next 20 years. Believe me, their selection as platforms was not ad hoc by any chance.
Now, with regard to Iranian geo-strategic ambitions and the consequent perceived existencial threat to Israel, I have my own take of this issue that is at variance with what most Israelis would like to believe. The Iranians, having had a civilisational existence, will never be so stupid as to engage in direct hostilities--whether conventional or nuclear--with Israel. The way I see it, all this Iranian posturing since 2003 is primarily aimed at 'breaking out' of the sectarian boundaries set up earlier by the Sunni-dominated Muslim world and what better way of doing it than by championing the cause of the Palestinians be it through Hezbollah or Hamas or any other Muslim community (like those in Iraq and Sudan) that feels to have been 'betrayed' by the Sunni Arabs. In other words, Shia Iran wants to portray itself as the ultimate protector of 'Islamic' rights and dignity, instead of the Sunni Arabs. That's wghat it is all about. Whenever Iran raises the verbal rhetoric against Israel it is actually meant to score points vis-a-vis the Sunni Arabs. Bottom line: it is not about Iran versus Israel, but about Shia Iran against the Sunni Arabs, and the ultimate clash for domination of the Islamic ummah will be between the Shias and Sunnis. Israel will be used from time to time or will be dragged in just as the excuse to light the match.
there have been crashes of all these new-generation combat aircraft but they crashed either when they were being developed (in prototype stage) or when they were in the process of induction
------------------------------
foolish comment
f22 crashed this year and it was inducted in 2005
rafale crashed last year and it was inducted in 2000
typhoon also crashed last year it was inducted in 2003
To Anon@1:27PM: Before you reach any further 'foolish' conclusions, do try to distinguish between type-induction and squadron-level induction and then try to place the air crashes you've highlighted in either of those two categories. Only then will you realise the challenges of operational flight conversion and the enormous preparatory demands made on training tools like simulators.
No doubt you have a point about Israel being used in order to strengthen Iran's standing in the Arab world, facilitate its ascent to regional power status, reinvigorate the Islamic revolution Ideology and such. And the chances that Iran would attack Israel and thus incur nuclear annihilation are remote. But one cannot underestimate certain factors:
1.Israel's people are especially alarmed by Iran's virulent rethoric
due to their past.
2.Iran has taken this whole invented conflict with Israel to new levels, doing things that no longer seem expedient (e.g the UN speech).
3. Cynicism aside, one cannot discount the extremism of the regime and their severe antisemitism.
4. As you surely realize, the "nuclearization" of Iran will have far reaching, deeply destabalising
effects on the region even if Iran
tones down the insane rethoric and keeps its nukes away from its various attack dogs (most realistic
disastrous scenario).
With RE to Russia's UAV capabilities:
Is NCW such a big obstacle? I mean, with all due respect, if they have no problem with the technology, then why can't they build even a reasonable tactical UAV? Which advanced NC capabilities involved elude them? Russia is certainly capable of producing UAVs in terms of the country's general scientific prowess, but it seems that they've neglected the area completely and it'll take them some time to catch up. The fact that it's (correct me if I'm wrong) an avionics driven field-at least at the tactical level- will make it harder.
With RE to the NRUAV- do you see any significant export potential?
To Nava: Iran is still several years away from nuclear weaponisation. This is because, although it has the delivery systems like ballistic missiles, it does not as yet have the technology to produce either the required fissile materials, nor the capability to design a nuclear warhead. The Iranians realised long ago that the path to n-weaponisation was not what Pakistan had initially adopted but discarded later (i.e. by producing highly enriched uranium), but by setting up the facilities for producing weapons-grade plutonium. This is because of warhead miniaturisation, which cannot be achieved with n-weapons using highly enriched uranium as the fissile core. Consequently, there's no need to worry about Iran's uranium enrichment programme which in any case is not geared to produce highly enriched uranium, but only industrial-scale enriched uranium. What will be worrisome will be the heavy water research reactor at Araq and its related plutonium reprocessing plant but even here it will take at least another decade before this facility can produce enough weapons-grade plutonium. And now with a similar facility (the clandestine Syrian facility) already destroyed by the IDF-AF, it will be safe to assume that Iran's capability for fabricating plutonium-based n-warheads have been severely eroded. Be that as it may, I still believe that Iran's quest for nuclear deterrence is aimed primarily against its traditional Sunni Arab enemies. After all, throughout the 1980s, when Iran faced an existential threat from the combined Sunni Arab might led by Iraq, it was only Israel that stood by Iran and supplied it with the much-needed spares required for Iran's US-built military hardware. I'm sure the powers that be in Teheran have not yet forgotten this.
To Nava: Unfortunately for the Russian military-industrial complex, their RMA stopped to take a pause with the demise of the USSR. So even now they're stuck with the Soviet concept of waging sequential warfare that gradually escalates into all-out nuclear warfare as envisaged by the USSR during the Cold War. The concept of limited war with limited objectives never really entered the Russian psyche and that's why the Ruskies paid a heavy price in the Caucasus (Chechnya) and again in Georgia. Simply put, intellectual and doctrinal evolution within the Russian armed forces simply became stagnant for entire part of the last decade. Consequently, the operational art too became hopelessly obsolete and unfit for the post-Cold War era. This is the crux of the problem. Now, NCW really took off in the late 1990s and it enabled the world's tech-savvy armed forces to engage in parallel warfare or hyperwar, which entails the waging of simultaneous full-spectrum battles in multiple dimensions and multiple levels of efficiency. And what brought about this 21st century RMA was not the advances in hardware, but in processing power brought about by incremental advances in applications software. This is the root of NCW and was first demonstrated by the US Navy's cooperative engagement capability. ALL of this has gone past the post-USSR Russia. That's why the Russian armed forces are now trying to play catch-up. By the way, if you want to seriously know what hyperwar is all about, then you must study Phase 1 of OP Peace for Galilee in 1982, especially how the Syrian AAA sites were monitored and obliterated by the IDF via a combination of field artillery fire-assaults and airborne precision strikes (by the way, post-1973, the IDF's unique warfighting doctrine calls for the IDF ground forces--and not the IDF-AF--playing the critical role in physically destroying hostile ground-based AAA assets) over a 72-hour period. I got a first-hand account of this entire operation way back in 1990 from Maj Gen (Ret'd) Aviem Sella when I met him in Singapore. In 1982 he was the Colonel who planned the entire operation against the Syrian AAA sites in the Bekaa Valley. He was so down-to-earth that after the operation was over, no champagne bottles were uncorked, and he simply went back to doing his daily job as a strategic targeteer.
I'm telling you, you're underestimating these people's religious zeal. The media there is drenched with antisemitism and Holocaust denial;Israel hatred seems to have become a national obsession.
I don't know how serious they are, but I do know that any decision they'll make will have nothing to do with remembering past Israeli "favors" or anything of the sort.
Thanks for the in-depth explanation, I'll look into it.
To Nava: Believe me, all this anti-Israeli rhetoric is good only for Thursday evenings and Friday afternoons during and after the prayer-time. Based on my personal interactions with several visiting Iranian tourists as well as govt officials over the years, the average Iranian gives a damm about what's happening outside the country. He/she is more worried about daily survival. As for the more informed and politically connected folks, Shia Iran's greatest mortal enemies have been and are the six US-supported Gulf Cooperation Council member-states led by Saudi Arabia, for it was these GCC member-states that armed and financed Saddam Hussein and encouraged Baghdad at that time to wipe out Shia Iran if possible. That is the closest Iran came to extinction in recent times and therefore Teheran is determined never again to be cornered in this manner. So, the best way to divide the Muslim world is to portray the Sunni Arabs as being anti-Palestinian. And the Iranians have splendidly succeeded in this while waging proxy wars through Hamas (within Egypt) and Hezbollah in Lebanon. Forget Israel for the time-being and just try to understand the severe headaches the Egyptians are suffering from due to Hamas! This is the Persian way of encircling the 'enemy' (which is not Israel in this case!). I cannot but give due credit to the Persians for having invented the game of chess.
then prasun where in this great game of chess as you put it we(INDIA) stands? The Indo-Isaraeli relations have been preety strong (especially in defence) and the overall indian policy seems to be to move gradually away from Iran.
i saw the released video of first P-8A flight when do you think the P-8I will begin flight tesing?
The LM demonstrated AEGIS system to IN what is your take on this?
One photo from Time magazine is still remember vividly from the
80's, were a group of disabled Iranian veterans on wheelchairs, clutching their Uzis at an anti-Zionist/US rally.
Can ny1 tell d su-30 crashed, belongs 2 d those which were assembled by HAL, or it directly came in flyin condition 4m russia?
To Anon@3:53AM: As you may be aware, AFS Pune in Lohegaon is where the Su-30MKI's operational flight conversion activities take place. That said, both No8 Sqn and No31 Sqn are converting to the Su-30MKI there. It could well be that the crashed Su-30MKI was one of the licence-assembled ones. But the Board of Inquiry (BoI) will be able to get to know the probable causes of the crassh fairly soon as all Su-30MKIs come equipped with the flight data recorder and cockpit voice recorder, both of which are part of the on-board HUMS suite. It would be quite unusual if engine failure is identified as the probable cause as that would point towards the catastrophic failure of the AL-31FP engines' dual FADEC, which is connected to the digital flight control computer (DFCC). And it would be highly unusual if the entire DFCC suffered from catastrophic failure. Malfunctioning NiCad batteries could also be one of the probable reasons. That was how the Royal Malaysian Air Force lost its first MiG-29N.
Prasun, In your article "Challenging Radars" published in the latest issue of FORCE you have mentioned RBE-2 AESA is being offered for Su-30MKIs. Since French are reportedly asking $40 million to upgrade each Mirage2000 in IAF service with RBE-2 radar, how much RBE-2 AESA equipped Su-30MKI is going to cost?
What is your take on THALES claim that RBE-2 AESA is 5 years ahead of Caesar in development?
How far is EL/M-2052 into development?
Is SELEX Galileo’s Vixen 5000e AESA worth considering, isn't it a small radar?
Is there any chance of US offering APG-81 AESA for MMRCA, can we bargain for it?
To Harpreet: The IAF Mirage 2000s will have the RDY Mk3 monopulse multi-PRF radar, not the RBE-2. For the Su-30MKI the RBE-2 is only an option, and not a given. Tikhimirov NIIP too is developing AESA solutions for the Su-30MKI and it entered the laboratory-testing stage only last October.
Regarding the RBE-2's superiority over the Ceasar it is true as the Caesar has yet to be flight-certified on the EF-2000 Typhoon, just as the Selex-built Vixen 5000e AESA has yet to be qualified on the JAS-39IN. But the Vixen 5000e is definitely destined for the JF-17 Thunder and FC-20 of the PAF.
The EL/M-2052 has already been flight-qualified on the F-16 and let's see how it operates in the Tejas LCA's LSP. For the F-16IN Super Viper M-MRCA, Northrop Grumman SABR AESA is on offer. But the most crucial question that arises is: exactly how many air forces can fully exploit all the touted capabilities of AESA radars? For instance, to what extent will the air forces of Oman or Kuwait be able to fully employ all the modes of operation of the RBE-2 were they to opt for the Rafale?
To Harpreet: Read your comments on BROADSWORD. The thing to remember is that the MCA and FGFA are one and the same project. The MCA was conceived by the DRDO while the FGFA's R & D phase will be HAL-led. Hence all the talk now about the so-called joint committee to pool all the R & D resources together. But with ADA now having its hands full with the development of the Tejas LCA Mk2, there's no chance at all of the ADA being entrusted with the lead role in developing or redesigning the FGFA. Let a few more months pass and the new Govt of India will eventually clear the air of confusion regarding the MCA and FGFA. Until then, have a good laugh whenever one opens one's mouth claiming that the MCVA and FGFA are two separate projects (LOL!).
All these AESA radars sound impressive, but do you know any of their performance parameters?
To Nava: Anyone can download the brochures of these radars from the OEM's websites and can do one's own comparisons. It is fairly easy.
But they haven't revealed any definitive performance figures on the RBE2 or el\m 2052, for instance.
Which performance parameters in particular are you referring to?
All I'm looking for (and understand) are the basics:
RBE 2: range (for 1m RCS target), number of simultaneous targets tracked and engaged, number of TR elements, SAR resolution, peak power etc.
el/m 2052: basically the same except that the number of targets tracked is said to be 64. The (peak?) power is said to be between 4-10 KVA; isn't this rather low compared to the claimed power of near term Russian radars such as the Irbis-E?
Thanks Prasun, thats a relief. I think we should rope in the Israelis into MCA project. That would give them some option too as they have been restricted from tweaking F-35.
How does SABR AESA compare to AGP 80? Northrop Grumman is trying to breach $2 million mark for SABR. This should make F-16IN an extremely cost effective option for MMRCA.
$40 million for Mirage2000 upgrade to RDY Mk3! Don't we have a better option?
Do you have any price figures on competing MMRCA proposals?
Which radar LCA will be having MMR or EL/M-2052 ?
Hi Prasun, you have said that MARS-2 EL/I-3150 (which is indeed a ISR Architecture) landed at Delhi Palam Airport for a demonstration tour and during that time it flew a few ground surveillance tracks along India's western border,north-western border and reaching to Kochi.
It means Indian Airforce team also Accompanied with the Israeli crew and got the hand on experience with the technology. Can give us some details how Indian team found this technology useful.What is the feedback of the Indian Airforce.
Post a Comment