The above four slides explain what exactly is the Integrated Platform Management System (IPMS), which L-3 MAPPS is supplying for the Indian Navy's three Project 17 FFGs, three Project 15A DDGs and four projected Project 15B DDGs. The Bangalore-based subsidiary of L-3 MAPPS was set up in early 2002 to specifically undertake systems integration-related applications software development for interfacing the IPMS with the Ukraine-based Zorya/Mashproekt M36E gas turbine-based propulsion plants of the Project 15A and Project 15B DDGs. All 10 warships will also have on board the EMDINA combat management system (CMS) originally co-designed by the Indian Navy's Weapons and Electronic Systems Engineering Establishment (WESEE) and TATA Power as part of project MEDINA for further details, proceed to: http://trishulgroup.blogspot.com/2009/03/cms-radars-vls-modules-of-project-11356.html). The EMDINA CMS is a follow-on to the EMCCA Computer Aided Action Information System (CAAIS), also co-developed by WESEE and TATA Power, under Project MECCA and is presently on board the three Project 16 FFGs, three Project 16A FFGs and three Project 15 DDGs.--Prasun K. Sengupta
22 comments:
Nice Pics
Sorry Prasun, its me again with totally unrelated questions.
Now that the RMN's Inderapura is gutted and the government is forced to accelarate its efforts to find a replacement, which design do think stands a good chance of receiving a contract, the Dodko, Mistral or S. Korean Makassar?
Does the IN intend on equipping its future Scorpenes with a towed array? Also, for the IN's needs, wouldn't an ocean going SSK the size of a Kilo suit its operational needs better? The Scorpene like the Type 209 is rather small and is more suited for inshore, littoral work.
Does the RMN's Scorpenes have the same sonar suite as that of Chile?
And has the RMN actually placed an order for SM-39 Exocets yet?
Apart from standard HE and smoke rounds, did the Malaysian army source any base bleed rounds for its G-5s?
Is Starsteak as serious contender to replace the Malaysian army's Starburst? As always, thank you.
To Faris: Thed KD Inderapura was a logistics vessel and as such acquisition of LPD or LHD as the replacement will be an overkill. I'm sure there are additional surplus vessels (identical to the KD Inderapura) being held in storage by the US Navy which could, if asked for, be put up for sale to Malaysia.
All six Indian Scorpenes will have thin-line towed-array sonars. But the Scorpenes will not be used for ocean-going patrols. They will instead be employed for coastal or littoral warfare. For operations in deeper waters the Indian Navy will be acquiring six to 10 SSKs in future, for which Fincantieri's S-800A and DCNs' SMX-24 are on offer.
The sonar suites of the Chilean and Malaysian Scorpenes (and the Indian ones) are rhe same. The SM-39s were ordered along with the Scorpenes in May 2002. No base-bleed 155mm rounds have yet been ordered for the G-4 Mk2000 towed howitzers.
Yes, the THALES Starstreak is a contender, along with the Boeing Avenger and CPMIEC's FB-6A.
Prasun da,
Thanks.
The front-end AESA antenna to be accommodated on the modified BARS radar will come from AESA that is being developed for the PAK-FA.Am i right?
Russian MIRES AESA for the FGFA???
Never heard of it. Will you please explain.
Is the uprated 117S variant of the AL-31FP turbofan an intermediate solution to power the FGFA with even more advanced 5th+ gen. engine planned for it later or is this the final solution that will power both the prototypes and the final production variants?
Will a longer range mark2 variant(preferably ram-jet variant)of Astra BVAAM be developed tin order to take on PL-21 ram-jet propelled BVAAM that is being developed for the PLAAF?
Regarding BROADSWORD's latest contention that "A drawback in the Astra ... 100kg only" THANKS for your explanation because i was also confused.
Prasun da,
If the internal weapons-bay of the to-be upgraded SU-30 MKIs cannot accommodate the Brahmos,then from where will the air-launched variant of Brahmos will be fired?
Why the EL/M-2052 flight qualified AESA is not chosen to go on-board the FGFA?I think it would have been more cost-effective as it would be entering the production line to go onboard the Tejas.What do you think?
Will weapons payload of the FGFA be the same as that of the PAK-FA?
How good is the EL/M-2052 AESA, which will go on-board the Tejas Mk2, compared to RBE2 AESA,APG-79 & APG-80 radars?
What is the difference between the Block 60 F-16 of the UAE AF and the F-16I Super Viper?
Please answer.
Thank you.
Prasun
Surely you must know that the LM2500 GT powerplant has been selected for the P-15B ships. Please mention this in your excellent scoop on IPMS.
Hello !
Any news about the recent Indo-Russian summit for the futur projects on the Su-30MKI ?
Thanks !
To Anon@11:30AM: Thus far, only the three P-17 FFGs and the solitary IAC will have the LM-2500 on board. The P-15B will have more than 80% commonality in terms of on-board systems with the P-15A FFGs, as confirmed by two different interviews of Navy HQ officials and CMD of Mazagon Docks Ltd, published by FORCE earlier this year.
To Anon@7:55PM: For additional info on MIRES AESA go to: 7:55:00 PM
Regarding future powerplants for fifth-generation combat aircraft originating from Russia, the AL-41F has long been talked about and Russian officials still insist that it will eventually power the PAK-FA. For the FGFA, however, the 117S will be the definitive powerplant. FGFA is not the same as PAK-FA. They are two different designs in two different weight categories.
Prasun da,
I didn't understand what the following line means-
For additional info on MIRES AESA go to: 7:55:00 PM
To Anon Above: You can find additional info on MIRES at: http://trishulgroup.blogspot.com/2009/09/selected-literature-in-russias-pesa.html
To Anon@9:39PM: The BrahMos will be carried by the Su-30MKI under the belly, and not inside an conformal weapons carrier. The reason the EL/M-2052 will not be on the FGFA is due to the fact that the MIRES AESA has already been pre-selected by Russia and the entire avionics suite (including the navigation-and-attack system and the defensive aids suite) has already been designed around MIRES. Therefore, introduction of the EL/M-2052 AESA at this stage will only cause further delays in developing the FGFA. The EL/M-2052 was developed by IAI/ELTA as a drop-in installation on board combat aircraft like the F-16, Gripen and Tejas Mk2 and is best installed at a time when an aircraft is being subjected to a comprehensive avionics upgrade process, thereby keeping the R & D costs under control. In case of the Tejas Mk2 the entire mission avionics architecture will be radically different from what is now flying with the Tejas PVs and LSPs. Systems like AESA, IRST, defensive aids suite, AESA-based miniaturised directional jammers etc will go on board.
AS regards differences between the F-16E/F Block 60 Desert Falcon and the F-16IN Super Viper, the main difference will be in the area of customised mission software and avionics architecture, which will guarantee full operational sovereignty to the IAF.
Prasun da,
Thanks for the reply.
So then in case of the Tejas Mk2 the entire mission avionics architecture will designed around the EL/M-2052 AESA just as of the FGFA around the MIRES AESA.
Will not the close proximity of UAE to Pak give them the know-how of the F-16IN in case of an Indo-Pak war if the IAF goes for the F-16IN?
Will the modified BARS radar on the SU-30MKI ,which will accommodate the front-end AESA antenna ,be also upgraded to the Bars-29 version of the NO11M Bars PESA or to the Irbis-E standard?
Prasun da,
What is the difference between , the AL-41F and the 117S engines?
The recent reports on various newspapers that the FIRST prototype of the Indo-Russian PAK-FA will fly early next year are all false since the PAK-FA is fully a Russian venture unlike the Indo-Russian FGFA which is still on the design board since recently India & Russia has signed a contract to design & develop the FGFA during AK Anthony's visit to Russia.Am i right?
But you didn't write whether there will be a a longer range mark2 variant(preferably ram-jet variant)of Astra BVAAM and whether the EL/M-2052 AESA is as good as the RBE2 AESA,APG-79 & APG-80 radars?
Please answer.
Thanks again.
To Anon@7:02PM:
"So then in case of the Tejas Mk2 the entire mission avionics architecture will designed around the EL/M-2052 AESA just as of the FGFA around the MIRES AESA."----YES
"Will not the close proximity of UAE to Pak give them the know-how of the F-16IN in case of an Indo-Pak war if the IAF goes for the F-16IN?"---NO, because the various modes of operation of the radar (and their operating frequencies and allocated bandwidth) will be customised to IAF operational specifications, and the most vital part of the network-centric operating system--operational data link (ODL) that will be used to communicate with both the PHALCON AEW & C, tactical UAVs and ground-based forward fire-direction observers--will use IAF-proprietary 'object codes' which only the IAF will be able to pre-programme into the aircraft's mission computers and ODL. The US has already done such an arrangement with the UAEAF and the source codes for pre-programming those computer processors that will use such object codes will be shared 100% with the IAF, with absolutely no interference from any US party.
"Will the modified BARS radar on the SU-30MKI ,which will accommodate the front-end AESA antenna, be also upgraded to the Bars-29 version of the NO11M Bars PESA or to the Irbis-E standard?"---Once the NO-11M Bars is upgraded into an AESA (by accepting the AESA antenna originally developed for the MIRES) it will be far more advanced that the existing BARS-29 and IRBIS-E PESAs.
To Anon@7:39PM: The AL-41F is touted by Russia as being equal to contemporary Western turbofans now powering the Rafale, EF-2000, Gripen, Super Hornet, and Block 60 F-16. As such, Russia is trying to play catch-up with technologies that were developed in the West almost 20 years ago!
According to India, the first prototype of the tandem-seat FGFA will begin flight-tests in only 2017. Regarding the LRAAM variant of the Astra BVRAAM, there are no plans at present to develop the LRAAM variant. On paper, the EL/M-2052 is a contemporary design and relies of proven LRUs of the EL/M-2032 and is therefore seen as one of the least risky AESA-based multi-mode radars available at affordable prices. As for how advanced it is when compared to its US and European counterparts, that depends on how many modes of operation it has, and the efficiency of its environmental control system. These will all be proven once it enters the flight-test stage on the Tejas Mk2 M-MRCA. But with IAI/ELTA already having a formidable reputation in developing and supplying AESA-based radars for AEW & C as well as for warships, there's every reason to believe that the EL/M-2052 will perform as advertised.
Prasun da,
Whaaa..t? the first prototype of the tandem-seat FGFA will begin flight-tests in only 2017.Why so late?
Going by the reports published in various newspapers and other defence columns i thought that the first squadron of the FGFA would enter the IAF by 2017.Now it seems that the IAF would not see the FGFA till 2020 or after that.Am i right?
Since the 117S power-plant is less powerful than the AL-41F engine does it mean the FGFA will be less powerful than the EF-2000, Super Hornets& the F-35s.The Super Hornets & the F-35s will be driven by even more powerful engines in the future which will have 20-30% more thrusts than the present ones.Why the more powerfulAL-41F engine is not selected as the power-plant for the FGFA also if it will fly so late?
So the MIRES AESA will be developed for both the PAK-FA & the FGFA.
Thanks again.
To Anon@1:42AM: The technical and performance parameters for the FGFA were only conveyed by IAF HQ to the MoD last month and only earlier this month the MoD officially handed them over to Rosoboronexport State Corp (this further proves that the FGFA will not be the same as the PAK-FA). Only now can prototype design and development begin, which will be a four-year process, after which the first four flying prototypes will be fabricated. That is how one derives the 2017 figure. I'm tokd that even the Russian PAK-FA's initial prototypes will use the 117S as interim powerplants, as the AL-41F's developmental cycle continues to lag behind. But in terms of thrust output, the AL-41F will not offer any significant advantage over the 117S, but will offer greater reliability and increased technical service life. One must also note that the FGFA will have a high composites content in fuselage construction and airframe skin and will therefore be much lighter than the heavier PAK-FA, which, like the Su-30/35, will continue to make high use of titanium.
Prasun da,
In your article on the upgradation of Sukhois in the July 2009 issue of Tempur magazine you have written that both the twin-engined tandem-seat FGFA & the upgraded Su-30MKIs will be powered by twin uprated versions of the NPO Saturn/UMPO AL-31FP turbofans which will provide non-afterburning supersonic cruise speeds & will have a 6,000-hour technical service life.
Is the 117S powerplant the name for the uprated version of the NPO Saturn/UMPO AL-31FP turbofan?
Will the 117S powerplant have 6,000-hour technical service life?
You have also written in Tempur October 2009 issue that HAL wants the percentage of composites in FGFA to increase to more than 65 per cent.Will it be possible considering that only 30 per cent of the fuselage of the PAK-FA will incorporate composite materials.
In the same issue you have also written that the ‘Bars’ will be upgraded ....following which, the ‘Bars’ will be equipped with an AESA front-end array.
Does it mean the NO-11M ‘Bars’radar of the SU-30 MKIs will be upgraded before accommodating the front-end AESA antenna of the MIRES X-band AESA radar?
Thank you.
To Anon@7:29AM: The 117S turbofan is the uprated version of the NPO Saturn/UMPO AL-31FP turbofan and it is now being further developed
to have 6,000-hour technical service life. One must also note that the FGFA will have a high composites content in fuselage construction and airframe skin and will therefore be much lighter than the heavier PAK-FA, which, like the Su-30/35, will continue to make high use of titanium instead of composites.
NO-11M ‘Bars’radar of the Su-30MKIs will be upgraded (to enable the antenna to be moved in azimuth and elevation) before accommodating the front-end AESA antenna of the MIRES X-band AESA radar.
Prasun da,
In your article on the AESA radars in the October 2009 issue of Tempur magazine you have written regarding Russian radars about-
1)the ‘smart skin’ concept in which the T/R modules can be located anywhere on board the aircraft to generate the relevant radiation fields required for almost 360-degree airspace surveillance coverage.
2)another novel concept at MAKS 2009 in which modular L-band and S-band T/R modules that can be housed within a combat aircraft’s forward wing and wing-root sections, as well as on the vertical tail sections. These T/R modules can be employed for secondary airspace surveillance, as well as for missile approach warning and directional jamming of airborne tactical data-links associated with BVRAAMs and AEW & C platforms.
My question-
1)Is both the ‘smart skin’ concept (in which the X-band, L-band and S-band AESA arrays are distributed into the airframe )and the modular L-band and S-band T/R modules same since both can be housed within a combat aircraft’s forward wing and wing-root sections, as well as on the vertical tail sections?
2)Can the modular L-band and S-band T/R modules replace the MAWS & jammers on the aircraft?
Lastly you have written that the Tikhomirov NIIP’s L-band AESA when fully matured can render narrowband stealth designs like the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter or some UCAVs, highly vulnerable to Su-30MK variants equipped with such AESA radars.
Does all the above paras mean that mean that the MIRES X-band AESA radar will be the primary radar and the modular L-band and S-band T/R modules will be used as the smart skin concept to be used for for IFF, international SSR and search radar functions.
Please explain your whole article on AESA.I am totally confused.
Thank you.
To Anon Above: Yes, that's the smart-skin concept, which you can also see on the EL/M-2085 CAEW & CS now flying with the Republic of Singapore Air Force. In an AEW & C aircraft where space is not much of a problem, instead of the smart-skin, conformal arrays over the fuselage accommodate the L-band and S-band AESA arrays. In a combat aircraft, where space is at a premium, X-band and L-band AESA arrays are spread throughout the airframe (wing root, wingtip and vertical tail sections).
Such arrays cannot replace the MAWS since the MAWS also caters to detection of laser-guided and IR-guided missiles and there are other countermeasures reqd to neutralise such threats. But such arrays can jam the active radars and data links on board BVRAAMs. Jamming pods are carried for neutralising the threats posed by ground-based fire-control radars for M-SAMs and SHORADS and therefore come in a different category altogether. Smart-skin AESA-based jammers therefore cannot replace the dedicated jamming pod.
It was during MAKS 2007 two years ago that Tikhomirov NIIP first claimed that its L-band AESA when fully matured can render narrowband stealth designs like the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter or some UCAVs, highly vulnerable to Su-30MK variants equipped with such AESA radars.
For combat aircraft like the FGFA, the X-band MIRES AESA will be the primary on-board sensor for fire-control purposes, while the L-band AESA arrays (on the wing-roots and vertical tails) will be used for long-range airspace surveillance and IFF). No S-band AESA arrays will be on board.
Post a Comment