Aesa Radar ” Uttam ” for Tejas MK-II been tested Air-to- Air mode

[Stephen Cohen]

@sancho

Rafale has TWO M88 Engines ; Eurofighter has Two EJ 200
J10 has AL 31

LCA mk 2 will have GE 414 ; which can help power AESA

 

[sancho]

Rafale has TWO M88 Engines ; Eurofighter has Two EJ 200
J10 has AL 31

And all of them are the same engines as in the earlier versions, that had puls doppler or PESA radars, so more power is not a necessity for AESA radar.

 

[amardeep mishra]

DRDO don't try to include Thales in the development to speed up or simplify things.

Hi
Are you really that naive to think that french or for that matter israelis will simply give LRDE their codes or the algorithms for various look down modes? Let me tell you some ground realities,none of the countries SHARE their critical tech that they feel critical with anyone(expecting a country to share their CRITICAL tech is akin to expecting a guy who has toiled 2 years for JEE mains to show you his answers in the JEE mains exam),the tot is a misnomer at best,and is always 'partial' in nature.the slotted planar array MMR of LCA was developed lately,although the reason why IAF prefers 2032 has something to do with the integration of israeli missiles(source codes).Had they waited for astra and MMR to mature,it would have added to the delays.
A lot has been achieved in terms of developing algorithms for various look down modes since the MMR,Dr varadrajan himself appraised us about the ongoing projects.
You must understand that modern day radar design and development is more software -algorithm intensive than what i was 20-30 years back.At some point during the design phase,the software (algorithmic) challenges supersede your hardware requirement- Especially in modern AESA where apart from time and frequency,designers go for STAP-space-time adaptive processing(to enhance GMTI).This added dimension of processing adds to computational challenges manifold

 

[Echo_419]

Of course, any help is welcomed and the Israelis helped DRDO a lot in the radar field. But first we must get them on board and they need US approval to share anything from the 2052, till then we remain limited to what DRDO develops and before the puls doppler MMR is ready and proven with good performance, it's pointless to put too much hopes on an AESA development.
Still amazed how little use we take from French companies, that will divert similart techs and systems through MMRCA to India anyway and focusing on commonalities, rather making LCA more interational than it already is.



Not necessarily, Rafale, EF or J10B will have AESAs withouth changing the engines.

Looks like they are once again trying to develop every single damn thing on their own

 

[Dillinger]

Hi
Are you really that naive to think that french or for that matter israelis will simply give LRDE their codes or the algorithms for various look down modes? Let me tell you some ground realities,none of the countries SHARE their critical tech that they feel critical with anyone(expecting a country to share their CRITICAL tech is akin to expecting a guy who has toiled 2 years for JEE mains to show you his answers in the JEE mains exam),the tot is a misnomer at best,and is always 'partial' in nature.the slotted planar array MMR of LCA was developed lately,although the reason why IAF prefers 2032 has something to do with the integration of israeli missiles(source codes).Had they waited for astra and MMR to mature,it would have added to the delays.
A lot has been achieved in terms of developing algorithms for various look down modes since the MMR,Dr varadrajan himself appraised us about the ongoing projects.
You must understand that modern day radar design and development is more software -algorithm intensive than what i was 20-30 years back.At some point during the design phase,the software (algorithmic) challenges supersede your hardware requirement- Especially in modern AESA where apart from time and frequency,designers go for STAP-space-time adaptive processing(to enhance GMTI).This added dimension of processing adds to computational challenges manifold

At best ToT is the know how and never the know why. Or, to put it in more accurate terms, M-ToT. Allows maintenance and overhaul, even so many of the components have to be sourced from the OEM, or at least the raw material (special alloys), or well the machines used in the assembly themselves since they have to be certified by the OEM. The details are staggering and most jingos just can't grasp them.

 

[sancho]

Hi
Are you really that naive to think that french or for that matter israelis will simply give LRDE their codes or the algorithms for various look down modes?

As long as DRDO doesn't get it right, money talks and then it doesn't matter whom we pay for help, Israelis for DRDOs radar problems, Germans for DRDO's navalisation problems, French for DRDO's engine problems, the Brits for nose and refuelling probe...
What's more important though is, that DRDO starts taking on these problems with a little more logical sense and not just wait till everything went the wrong way and then desperately search for help, that will be costly. Do you think asking Chobham for help to fix the nose and refuelling proble issue will be cheap? That they won't take benefit from DRDO's incompetence and ask for premium costs for support and licence production? And that when we negotiating the Rafale deal, with licence productions of similar parts or systems, that we need for LCA, which rather makes it logical to aim on commonality, to ease production and reduce costs!

the slotted planar array MMR of LCA was developed lately,although the reason why IAF prefers 2032 has something to do with the integration of israeli missiles(source codes).

So you basically confirm that the radar is not a hybrid, but mainly the EL2032 and if at all includes only minor
customisations from DRDO. So LCA with Israeli radar, upgraded Jags with the same Israeli radar because of the same A2G modes that DRDO is not able to develop for their own puls doppler radar and that's most likely also the reason why DRDO will need foreign help in the AESA development, even more so if the focus lies on N-LCA MK2 and naval modes.

Looks like they are once again trying to develop every single damn thing on their own

Why change a policy when nobody takes you accountable for your mistakes? When it goes wrong, we ask for foreign help and let MoD pay the bill. The Airbus consultancy alone AFAIK costed us $20 millions, who knows what we paid the Israelis or now the Brits?

 

[Echo_419]

As long as DRDO doesn't get it right, money talks and then it doesn't matter whom we pay for help, Israelis for DRDOs radar problems, Germans for DRDO's navalisation problems, French for DRDO's engine problems, the Brits for nose and refuelling probe...
What's more important though is, that DRDO starts taking on these problems with a little more logical sense and not just wait till everything went the wrong way and then desperately search for help, that will be costly. Do you think asking Chobham for help to fix the nose and refuelling proble issue will be cheap? That they won't take benefit from DRDO's incompetence and ask for premium costs for support and licence production? And that when we negotiating the Rafale deal, with licence productions of similar parts or systems, that we need for LCA, which rather makes it logical to aim on commonality, to ease production and reduce costs!


So you basically confirm that the radar is not a hybrid, but mainly the EL2032 and if at all includes only minor
customisations from DRDO. So LCA with Israeli radar, upgraded Jags with the same Israeli radar because of the same A2G modes that DRDO is not able to develop for their own puls doppler radar and that's most likely also the reason why DRDO will need foreign help in the AESA development, even more so if the focus lies on N-LCA MK2 and naval modes.



Why change a policy when nobody takes you accountable for your mistakes? When it goes wrong, we ask for foreign help and let MoD pay the bill. The Airbus consultancy alone AFAIK costed us $20 millions, who knows what we paid the Israelis or now the Brits?

Agreed accountability needs to brought in & did you read today's paper(Indian Express) Govt is going to introduce some structural reforms in DRDO

 

[amardeep mishra]

As long as DRDO doesn't get it right, money talks and then it doesn't matter whom we pay for help, Israelis for DRDOs radar problems, Germans for DRDO's navalisation problems, French for DRDO's engine problems, the Brits for nose and refuelling probe

Hi,
It seems you have developed a VERY STUNTED perception of what really a "tot" is.And that is not surprising because i am guessing you have neither interacted with any decent DRDO research engineer or have attended their seminars.Anyways,let me throw some light,as someone above,i guess dillinger just mentioned,the TOT is always partial and it comes with a plethora of clauses(for instance TOT lets you produce certain systems,but in most cases it forbids you from morphing it into your product,so in essence it doesnt ENABLE the local industry).Secondly money has it's limits as to what it can buy in terms of someone's else strategic technologies.
And NO,the israelis DONT HELP THE WAY you have come to believe- they just let you use their systems never telling or shall i put it ENABLING indian industry to develop our own- i seriously dont know your level of qualifications or the degree of exposure to defence research,but your "assumptions" regarding french help in engines is PATENTLY FALSE,because take it from me,NO country on this earth will share with you things like-
(a) Single crystal blades
(b) thermal barrier coating
(c)Blisk forging etc etc

 

[Indo-guy]

@amardeep mishra it will be much better if you just stick to the topic than stress on VERY STUNTED perceptions or PATENTLY FALSE assumptions of members here which is very condescending in manner ...we agree that nobody is perfect and knows everything...that's why the discussions . I hope you do not pretend to know everything either ...

 

[amardeep mishra]

DRDO is not able to develop for their own puls doppler radar and that's most likely also the reason why DRDO will need foreign help in the AESA development, even more so if the focus lies on N-LCA MK2 and naval modes

Now you are wasting my time with your own imagined stories, DRDO WAS once struggling to develop look down modes,but they have overcome it in various look down modes,the reason why they dont use MMR has something to do with integration of israeli missiles requiring source code as our own astra wasnt ready on time.
I am simply baffled by the way you write because, LRDE has actually implemented various look down modes in their AEWCS system particularly GMTI and ranging modes.
Here are some of the radars for which LRDE developed look down modes -
(a)SV-2004
(b)AEWCS
(c)SAR payload for rustom-2
(d)L-273(under development)
Before i end this discussion i would strongly urge you to read about AESAs and indian research efforts, for LRDE at present is working on various decisive algorithms,namely the STAP that will enhance GMTI by a huge margin.
here is space tume spectrum of side looking array that was developed by LRDE for one of their air-borne radars

Here is an elegant picture elucidating filter requirements to remove clutter and jamming

I hope you do not pretend to know everything either ...

my replies bears testimony to what i know and what i dont,i dont have to listen to someone who knows absolutely nothing about AESAs and next time do write ELABORATE technical explanations to make your point instead of advising someone else- that would bear a hell lot more weight!
thanks in advance!

 

[sancho]

Agreed accountability needs to brought in & did you read today's paper(Indian Express) Govt is going to introduce some structural reforms in DRDO

Well sacking Mr Chander in this way had to have a reason, lets see what reforms they aim on, or if this is just another move to get more control to PMO.

Hi,
It seems you have developed a VERY STUNTED perception of what really a "tot" is.

I am stunned about that too, especially since I wasn't talking about ToT at all, but I understand that you have to say something in the light of the shown failures, avoiding to comment on them is quiet telling!

And NO,the israelis DONT HELP THE WAY you have come to believe- they just let you use their systems never telling or shall i put it ENABLING indian industry to develop our own-

Who said they would enable Indian industry? I said they fix problems in DRDO developments, if we pay for it, just as any other foreign company would do, by taking DRDO's failures to their advantage. When they have the upper hand, it's just logical, that they limit their support to the bare minimum, but the fact that they are in that position, lies on the fact that DRDO always tries it alone first and when they mess up, beg for help. If they would reach out for joint development partners from the start, they can choose who offers the best in return, with reasonable costs. So you can't blame the foreign companies for not diverting us full support or even techs, because DRDO is dependent on help.

 

[amardeep mishra]

Or, to put it in more accurate terms, M-ToT. Allows maintenance and overhaul, even so many of the components have to be sourced from the OEM, or at least the raw material (special alloys), or well the machines used in the assembly themselves since they have to be certified by the OEM

100% correct! There is no other go but to develop critical technologies in-house!

 

[greatone]

100% correct! There is no other go but to develop critical technologies in-house!

No! GoI should send @sancho to negotiate with England, France and Germany for co-development

 

[sancho]

No! GoI should send @sancho to negotiate with England, France and Germany for co-development

That has nothing to do with the government sadly (which should lead DRDO far more), but with DRDO desperately trying to prove that they are world class and that they can do anything on their own. However it's not 1980 or 90 anymore where we had to beg for any weapons let alone techs. Today we have huge chances for co-developments, we just need to use them and not let ourselfs blind with pride. The Israelis alone had offered us numerous potential co-developments, from drones, EWS, cruise missiles up to the Barak 8. Russia had offered us joint AESA radar and Kaveri engine developments, the French offered help with Kaveri, Thales and EADS were ready to jointly develop AESA too. So why is our pride limiting us?
A technically advanced country like Japan, is licence producing and modifying foreign aircrafts, or asking the Brits for a jointly developed METEOR missile version now. Turkey, S. Korea, Brazil...are doing the same in many fields, but we restrict ourselfs on nothing but the hope that DRDO will get it done someday?

 

[Dillinger]

100% correct! There is no other go but to develop critical technologies in-house!

Tell that to folks who still think, and I mean a lot of folks, that Rafale will somehow bring in AESA and engine "tech". Of course the moment you see the terms "tech" and "bringing" being thrown around you know there is a problem. Money doesn't "talk", not in this case, most of the nations treat these technologies as strategic assets and see no sense in parting with them for 20 billion dollars or 40 for that matter when said technologies and their derivatives can accrue similar and more revenue for them through the years.

As to your point about the MMR and the Israeli drop-in sensor that is fitted on the LCA. I got it, but you need to explain it step by step for the rest. Here is the thing-

lets say I want to fit a radar on the Tejas-

1) I need that radar in hand, as in now, if I wish to see it operational 5 years down the line.
2) When the folks decided upon the LCA's radar the MMR was not up to mark, and so the Israeli radar was picked up.
3) Had the Israeli radar not been picked up then the delay with the LCA would have added on the time required to finish the MMR's development/testing/qualification.
4) Today the MMR has achieved reasonable performance, but now it is too late. Simply because were we to now decide to use it on the LCA it would add the above required years (testing/qualification on the LCA) to the LCA's schedule for induction, not to mention it would not be economically feasible.

All the above points should clear the air up in a step by step manner, simple and succinct.

Lets now go to look-down mode and algos, it is a logical fallacy to equate our inability to integrate these modes with the MMR in the first decade of this millennium with some supposed continuing and present handicap. We have already integrated said modes on to multiple sensors, but, it is simply too late in the day to now use this expertise to replace the Israeli radar on the LCA at the moment.