MRCA News & Discussions

[DMLA]

---

---

Avionics, not even sure about engine ToT, cause only Eurojet stated yet they would provide ToT if we take EJ 200 for LCA.

Because any useful ToT will improve our indigenous developments for future, which is the most important point if we want to be selfreliant, but I agree that not any full ToT offer is useful.
Mig 35 for example offers only ToT of the upg RD 33 that HAL already produces and knows and compared to western engines, the Russians aren't on par anyway. The only useful ToT from them imo, would be AESA radar and from OLS, but that alone doesn't equalise all its disadvantages.


We do develop our own AESA, but IAF already stated that it is not good enough, even for LCA!
That is why they now searching for a foreign partner for a JV. Even the MMR wasn't developed alone, so I guess that's makes clear that we are still far away from catching up China, Russia or western nations and why we need any ToT, JV, or co-development we can get to improve ourself.

Yes and all that has nothing to do with IAF per say. IAF only cares for a system which fits/ exceeds its needs. It does not matter if DRDO fails to develope a good AESA for LCA. IAF would simply ask DRDO to integrate a scalable AESA (Northrop Grummen is already putting up SABR as an option)
That's my point. IAF will ask for system integration where it gets the best technology available (example the french & israeli systems available when mki was being finalized!)

[sancho]

Regarding Radar - Just bcoz Aesa dont have Moving Antenae dosent mean they wont get damaged and what then???????.

Actually some has! The Selsex swashplate AESA has a movable plate and that's why it gets a wider field of detection and that is pretty contrary to the inital reason of going to AESA techs, because one of the advantages of AESA was less maintenance, because of less moving parts!
I guess that's exectly why the EF members still can't decide for a AESA radar type, UK wants swashplate, Germany a fixed version.

And i dont buy the fact that Europens wont be able to build Radar upto US level,
I personally oppose Europe bcoz they wont get in time and price is a question otherwise if given money and time till 2013-2014 they would definately deliver Aesa Equivalent to US level.
I mean a 1200 micro array AESA not a 600 mmic what Russia / Us is offering.

RBE 2 AESA is said to have 1000 TR modules, the EF AESA should get even more, not sure how many the Selsex radar in Gripen NG will have, but it should get less than the EF, because of less nose diameter. Btw, Russia had offeren an improved version of Zhuk AE for Mig 35, with higher diameter, so also more T/R modules.

[sancho]

Yes and all that has nothing to do with IAF per say. IAF only cares for a system which fits/ exceeds its needs. It does not matter if DRDO fails to develope a good AESA for LCA. IAF would simply ask DRDO to integrate a scalable AESA (Northrop Grummen is already putting up SABR as an option)
That's my point. IAF will ask for system integration where it gets the best technology available (example the french & israeli systems available when mki was being finalized!)

I disagree! Of course it matters IAF too, because they have to use the techs in war times and if they are inferior it will be a matter for our security. Also the LCA development and the fact that we had to get help from other nations on many parts, was the reason for the delays, which caused the death of several pilots, because they still must use old fighters. So with more knowledge (ToT) and experience the next development won't be so delayed, not to mention the extra costs we had to get foreign help and techs.

[DMLA]

I disagree! Of course it matters IAF too, because they have to use the techs in war times and if they are inferior it will be a matter for our security. Also the LCA development and the fact that we had to get help from other nations on many parts, was the reason for the delays, which caused the death of several pilots, because they still must use old fighters. So with more knowledge (ToT) and experience the next development won't be so delayed, not to mention the extra costs we had to get foreign help and techs.

In my earlier posts, this is what I say. It will not matter to IAF provided "they get the technology they want". If IAF is a professional organization (which it is), they will go for the best possible systems (as per requirements). That's all there is to it! Thus my point is if IAF makes sure that the decisions made (through RFP/ etc) are done keeping in mind the possible threats, the force should do fine (DPSU's or no DPSU's).

Most western companies have excellent after sales services. Offsets also act as a way to make sure after sales services become smoother. Thus I believe that atleast with MMRCA, offset will not cause any issues!

[KEETARP]

Actually some has! The Selsex swashplate AESA has a movable plate and that's why it gets a wider field of detection and that is pretty contrary to the inital reason of going to AESA techs, because one of the advantages of AESA was less maintenance, because of less moving parts!
I guess that's exectly why the EF members still can't decide for a AESA radar type, UK wants swashplate, Germany a fixed version.

In my opinion-
Moving part will have a larger field of vision ,
But resolution wise and tracking also it will be less accurate bcoz when it directs a beam in one particular plane it will track all targets in that quadrant, but as soon as antennae rotates its beam will allign in a different field loosing the track of that object.
I mean simultaneously engaging and tracking capability will be less accurate.
This is my thinking- may be wrong / illogical

RBE 2 AESA is said to have 1000 TR modules, the EF AESA should get even more, not sure how many the Selsex radar in Gripen NG will have, but it should get less than the EF, because of less nose diameter. Btw, Russia had offeren an improved version of Zhuk AE for Mig 35, with higher diameter, so also more T/R modules.

Any source Sancho
As per my information rafale was to get <1000 TR module array
Eu was planning for a larger Aesa

[Dash]

Well with a little research I found this link. Its about Gripen's radar.

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckBlogPage=BlogVie wPost&newspaperUserId=27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3a9f6f828e-4f32-42d9-be7e-54daa51b1634&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=b logDest

I am not sure of the advantages of a fixed one over a swashplate, however I can see some advantage of a swashplate than a fixed one.

The main reason is you are able to track a target while doing a 90 degree manuever.

what is written over there is"
With a 200 degree field of regard in azimuth and elevation, the swashplate AESA is strong in off-boresight performance, an area where the fixed AESA is weak - because the latter loses performance off-boresight and can't scan more than 120 degrees at all. And it does it all with one mechanical bearing, which is much less highly loaded than the gimbals of a mechanically scanned radar.

So I can say there is some advantage. Moreover in AESA you can have modules or antennas directed to seperate targets while being at the same azimuth. and when the swashplate rotates then its not necessary that you loose the target in that quadrant , coz you might be operating in same azimuth.

lets say a 200 degree azimuth then, if yore target is within 200 degree of your quadrant then you dont loose it, buy te time the antenna has moved you already have the target acquisition.

Not sure if this helps you but it might bring some light...

[Dash]

Another link to teh same.

http://www.gripen.com/NR/rdonlyres/8...AESA_Radar.pdf

[Dash]

In my earlier posts, this is what I say. It will not matter to IAF provided "they get the technology they want". If IAF is a professional organization (which it is), they will go for the best possible systems (as per requirements). That's all there is to it! Thus my point is if IAF makes sure that the decisions made (through RFP/ etc) are done keeping in mind the possible threats, the force should do fine (DPSU's or no DPSU's).

Most western companies have excellent after sales services. Offsets also act as a way to make sure after sales services become smoother. Thus I believe that atleast with MMRCA, offset will not cause any issues!

I agree....I think that even if IAF has to think what's best in its interest, GOI will think whats best in the nations interest. here there are 2 interests.

TOT is what is the need of hour, coz thats where you can actually hold the DRDO responsible which is more about delays than results.

If you think practically then the LCA project is actually going no where, even as of now,we are trying to induct the underpowered LCAs.

Me thinks if the GOI or the IAF were so confident on LCA then, they shouldnt have even look for so many foreign fighters. Look at NAVY. they have infused money but they also have their own RFI and RFP to follow.

I guess the whole point is get the LCA engine done, gain the knowledge and get done with the whole 20 year long story.

without TOT this is impossible. looking from this POV TOT holds more value than any liberty of IAF in choosing what they want.

[KEETARP]

Well with a little research I found this link. Its about Gripen's radar.

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckBlogPage=BlogVie wPost&newspaperUserId=27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog&#37;3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3a9f6f828e-4f32-42d9-be7e-54daa51b1634&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=b logDest

I am not sure of the advantages of a fixed one over a swashplate, however I can see some advantage of a swashplate than a fixed one.

The main reason is you are able to track a target while doing a 90 degree manuever.

what is written over there is"
With a 200 degree field of regard in azimuth and elevation, the swashplate AESA is strong in off-boresight performance, an area where the fixed AESA is weak - because the latter loses performance off-boresight and can't scan more than 120 degrees at all. And it does it all with one mechanical bearing, which is much less highly loaded than the gimbals of a mechanically scanned radar.

So I can say there is some advantage. Moreover in AESA you can have modules or antennas directed to seperate targets while being at the same azimuth. and when the swashplate rotates then its not necessary that you loose the target in that quadrant , coz you might be operating in same azimuth.

lets say a 200 degree azimuth then, if yore target is within 200 degree of your quadrant then you dont loose it, buy te time the antenna has moved you already have the target acquisition.

Not sure if this helps you but it might bring some light...

RT, thx for article
But still leaves some doubt if you have such a wide FOS-field of scanning , how will a processing prioritize its target .
I mean instead of 200 if you have 800 targets how will it get priority list programmed,
This will again require huge amount of processing + Top notch Software to do it ,again requiring huge power & cooling system.

[sancho]

In my earlier posts, this is what I say. It will not matter to IAF provided "they get the technology they want". If IAF is a professional organization (which it is), they will go for the best possible systems (as per requirements). That's all there is to it! Thus my point is if IAF makes sure that the decisions made (through RFP/ etc) are done keeping in mind the possible threats, the force should do fine (DPSU's or no DPSU's).

Most western companies have excellent after sales services. Offsets also act as a way to make sure after sales services become smoother. Thus I believe that atleast with MMRCA, offset will not cause any issues!

So you want India to remain a simple buyer of arms and techs, with the reliance on others, that comes along with this? Also how should we ever be an equal partner in co-developments like Pak Fa / FGFA, or MRTA, if our defense industry is a decade behind?

[sancho]

Very interesting!

Any source Sancho
As per my information rafale was to get <1000 TR module array
Eu was planning for a larger Aesa

Here:

Thales’s RBE2 AESA radar successfully completes new series of tests

22 April 2009

Thales announced today that its RBE2 active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar has successfully completed a new series of tests on the Rafale at the Cazaux flight test centre in Southwest France from February to March. These tests, carried out jointly by Thales and the French defence procurement agency (DGA), provided functional validation of the radar’s operating modes.


This milestone marks the latest step towards qualifying the RBE2 AESA radars this year in readiness for delivery of the first two units to Dassault Aviation during the first quarter of 2010. The radars will be installed on the aircraft in 2011 for delivery to the French Air Force early in 2012.
The successful tests are the latest in a long line of key milestones. Thales began developing an AESA radar demonstrator in the 1990s and conducted exploratory tests at the flight test centre in 2002 and 2003 to refine the concept. In 2004, the French defence procurement agency DGA backed the project with a contract to develop a prototype of an operational active-module radar.

At the end of 2006, Thales completed its first active phased array, comprising some 1,000 gallium-arsenide T/R modules manufactured by European firm United Monolithic Semiconductors (UMS).

The active phased array, which replaces the passive array in the RBE2 currently operating on the Rafale, offers many advantages:

- range extended by over 50% for future compatibility with new weapon systems like Meteor
- higher module reliability for reduced cost of ownership (no array overhaul required for 10 years)
- waveform agility for high-resolution synthetic aperture (SAR) imagery in air-to-ground mode and better resistance to jamming.

Pierre-Yves Chaltiel, Senior Vice President in charge of Thales's Aerospace Solutions for Governments Sector, commented on the achievement of this new milestone: "The success of this latest series of tests on the RBE2 AESA radar consolidates Thales's European leadership position. Moreover, it will help to affirm the Rafale's technological superiority as the omnirole aircraft performs flight demonstrations for potential export customers, confirming its excellent performance as it has recently in Switzerland and the United Arab Emirates."

Thales?s RBE2 AESA radar successfully completes new series of tests

[sancho]

Well with a little research I found this link. Its about Gripen's radar.

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckBlogPage=BlogVie wPost&newspaperUserId=27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3a9f6f828e-4f32-42d9-be7e-54daa51b1634&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=b logDest

I am not sure of the advantages of a fixed one over a swashplate, however I can see some advantage of a swashplate than a fixed one.

The main reason is you are able to track a target while doing a 90 degree manuever.

what is written over there is"
With a 200 degree field of regard in azimuth and elevation, the swashplate AESA is strong in off-boresight performance, an area where the fixed AESA is weak - because the latter loses performance off-boresight and can't scan more than 120 degrees at all. And it does it all with one mechanical bearing, which is much less highly loaded than the gimbals of a mechanically scanned radar.

So I can say there is some advantage. Moreover in AESA you can have modules or antennas directed to seperate targets while being at the same azimuth. and when the swashplate rotates then its not necessary that you loose the target in that quadrant , coz you might be operating in same azimuth.

lets say a 200 degree azimuth then, if yore target is within 200 degree of your quadrant then you dont loose it, buy te time the antenna has moved you already have the target acquisition.

Not sure if this helps you but it might bring some light...

Can you check the link please, can't open it!

Regarding this 90° manuever, maybe I misunderstood it, but do you really need the radar for such shoots, because it seems, a latest missile, mabye combined with HMS can do the same:

[KEETARP]

So you want India to remain a simple buyer of arms and techs, with the reliance on others, that comes along with this? Also how should we ever be an equal partner in co-developments like Pak Fa / FGFA, or MRTA, if our defense industry is a decade behind?

I agree to that
Above all - Suppose there is a defect in Engine/radar/FCS then what if our Engineers don't have know how , we will be required to send these planes every now and then to respective country for even minute repairing.

My opinion are somehow acc to this link

Lack of Information Hampers Upgrades: DRDO Chief - Aero India - 2009

very much what i wanted to say.

Lack of Information Hampers Upgrades: DRDO Chief
Russia transfers production technology, not design knowledge, Natarajan says
By vivek raghuvanshi
Published: 13 Feb 03:53 EST (07:53 GMT)

BANGALORE - Indian scientists and engineers face problems with the upgrade and maintenance of Russian weaponry and equipment in service with the defense forces because the designs and other details are not transferred at the time of sale of these weaponry.

Addressing a news conference here, chief of India's Defence Research and Development Organisation [DRDO], M. Natarajan said the main problems with Russian platforms is that the Russians only transfer production technology, not design knowledge.

"Russia to date has only given us license production," Natarajan said.

To overcome these difficulties DRDO needs to build indigenous design capabilities in order to meet the future aerospace requirements of the country. As a result the DRDO is forging collaboration in several sectors including propulsion, sensors and other materials, he added.

The bulk of the armament in Indian defense force service is of Russian origin. Most of it, bought since the early 1970s, needs replacement or upgrading.

And only God knows - What will happen if we join list with
Iran-regarding F14
Iraq-All civilian jets were grounded
Pakistan - F16
Venezuela - F16( not sure abt this)

[DMLA]

So you want India to remain a simple buyer of arms and techs, with the reliance on others, that comes along with this? Also how should we ever be an equal partner in co-developments like Pak Fa / FGFA, or MRTA, if our defense industry is a decade behind?

When did I say that ? I said we should not hold the defence of the country hostage to DPSU's and their performance! All the talk of joint projects et al..... they never provide us with so called "technology". These projects invovlve the transfer of complete systems from the partner and the local agencies like DRDO do integration !
There are many examples with some of the latest being proposed SRSAM with french and barak with israel !!

There is no shortcut to this..... YES we are decades behind and we will take decades to catch up! My only contention is that the armed forces are tasked with a very important job. I don't feel it is right for them to go for compromises when they are putting their lives on the line everyday!

Added later: It is the job of DPSU's to develop necessary systems. Why should IAF be obliged to change its stance and go for inferior systems just so DRDO could get the technology? I agree that compromises can be made, but I hope IAF's choices (wrt MMRCA) are looked at favourably!!

All the talk about maintainance, aftersales support etc have been an issue with russians (maybe because they sold almost everything exclusively!)
If you look at my earlier post, I said that ToT should clarify what is required! If it says engine mfg in india, then there is no reason for all companies qualifying RFP to backtrack!!!

My assertion has been in response to the talk of "critical technology" coming our way! For example, how does it matter if USA sells us the inner workings of their ECCM/ECM systems on board the fighters - atleast to IAF. All they would care about is to be able to maintain threat libraries!!!

[DMLA]

---

---

I agree to that
Above all - Suppose there is a defect in Engine/radar/FCS then what if our Engineers don't have know how , we will be required to send these planes every now and then to respective country for even minute repairing.

My opinion are somehow acc to this link

Lack of Information Hampers Upgrades: DRDO Chief - Aero India - 2009

very much what i wanted to say.

Lack of Information Hampers Upgrades: DRDO Chief
Russia transfers production technology, not design knowledge, Natarajan says
By vivek raghuvanshi
Published: 13 Feb 03:53 EST (07:53 GMT)

BANGALORE - Indian scientists and engineers face problems with the upgrade and maintenance of Russian weaponry and equipment in service with the defense forces because the designs and other details are not transferred at the time of sale of these weaponry.

Addressing a news conference here, chief of India's Defence Research and Development Organisation [DRDO], M. Natarajan said the main problems with Russian platforms is that the Russians only transfer production technology, not design knowledge.

"Russia to date has only given us license production," Natarajan said.

To overcome these difficulties DRDO needs to build indigenous design capabilities in order to meet the future aerospace requirements of the country. As a result the DRDO is forging collaboration in several sectors including propulsion, sensors and other materials, he added.

The bulk of the armament in Indian defense force service is of Russian origin. Most of it, bought since the early 1970s, needs replacement or upgrading.

I am happy indians are incresingly looking at the Americans and Israelis!