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

[Stephen Cohen]

@Dillinger

Rafale deal will bring in some TOT ; but first let us sign the deal

What is the point in having defective planes for some other technological gains
And if the French are un willing to give some assurances ; then we will
be saddled with defective Rafales

For LCA mk1 there is no point in re doing the radar indigeniously
now that it is working

If we are able to get a AESA for the Mk2 ; then all will be forgotten

 

[Dillinger]

@Dillinger

Rafale deal will bring in some TOT ; but first let us sign the deal

What is the point in having defective planes for some other technological gains
And if the French are un willing to give some assurances ; then we will
be saddled with defective Rafales

For LCA mk1 there is no point in re doing the radar indigeniously
now that it is working

If we are able to get a AESA for the Mk2 ; then all will be forgotten

Of course it will bring in some ToT. The problem is with the definition of ToT.

What do you think ToT is?

 

[Stephen Cohen]

Of course it will bring in some ToT. The problem is with the definition of ToT.

What do you think ToT is?

Obviously we would be asking for things that we dont know or cant do yet

Every programme helps in upgrading our knowledge

Even the upgradation of Mig 29 and Mirage 2000 is being done in India

The Su 30 programme has been the most useful so far in terms of
knowledge enhancement

Prior to that the Jaguar / Mig 27 and Mig 21 licenced production did not benefit us much

 

[amardeep mishra]

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,

Hi @Dillinger
You are absolutely correct on this one,Dr varadrajan in his lecture also appraised us the projects they are working on notably the foliage penetration radar for UAV payloads.
Anyways ,my point is(which is actually based on my correspondence with seniors and my interaction with some of these prominent scientists at seminars), a lot has been achieved in terms of developing algorithms for look down modes and several of these have been implemented on couple of LRDE designed systems like
(a)SV-2004
(b) AEWCS
(c) SAR payload for rustom-2
(d)and the ongoing L-273
During the interview,Dr varadrajan clearly stressed on the point that they have a clear cut road map to implement the SAR mode that they developed for rustom 2 to other airborne radars and he was alluding to L273

Here are some of the SAR modes that have been achieved by LRDE for their SAR payload for rustom-2(AGAIN from that very same slide)

@Dillinger
Here is a research paper from ISRO regarding their RISAT-1,notice how succinctly it explains the indigenous SAR satellite
http://www.ursi.org/proceedings/procga05/pdf/F08.6(01643).pdf

Here i will briefly explain two methods that were developed as a part of SAR developemnt program for rustom-2.These methods are prominently used in airborne radars for GMTI(ground moving target detection).
1)PPIM(prominent point identification method)-
This method is applicable to spotlight SAR mode only.It is actually a method to compensate for the roatational and translational motion between antenna phase centre and the target.In the first stage the translational motion between antenna and the target is estimated and itz effect eliminated.In the 2nd stage the rotational motion between the antenna and the target is estimated by selecting a 2nd prominent point and compressing its signal history in range, tracking the motion of this point in the phase history

Picture courtesy: DRDO seminar

2)Block matching algorithm
It is an elegant way of GMTI.It generates images at different times of the same location,therefore the clutter apears static whereas the position of the target changes from image to image.This method lets you determine precise displacement and velocity vectors of the targets as can be seen from the picture below

PS:all the pictures contained herein are from open source publications of DRDO whereas the explanation is all mine

 

[greatone]

Of course it will bring in some ToT. The problem is with the definition of ToT.

What do you think ToT is?

ToT has a different meaning in each deal.
In some cases it means ability to manufacture commonly needed spares and service the machine in-house and in other cases it means transfer of certain manufacturing processes which can easily be replicated in other projects.

Within the ambits of MMRCA deal, GoI wanted all manufacturing to be done in India.
For example, to make a certain engine part for the M88 engine used in Rafale, you a need special type of casting that India does not have the technology to build.

France wanted India to import the casting and then manufacture the engine part here in India.But India wants the casting to be made here as well and the technology to manufacture the casting transferred !

Thats is the crux of argument regarding MMRCA deal - GoI wants Dassault to guarantee the transfer of know how of all manufacturing processes so it can't back out at a later date stating lack of maturity of HAL to make the casting in India.

In other words guarantee that HAL does not run into any trouble trying to make Rafale in India.
Many people don't understand this fact when they talk about GoI's insistence of Dassault taking responsibility for HAL's work.

GoI is asking Dassault to guarantee the transfer of all techs in a timely fashion, not guarantee that the chaps at HAL will work hard

And GoI is taking all this trouble to include everything in the contract because our fingers have been burnt before by the French and even the Russians who promised technology transfer only for us to be left standing with an egg on our faces.

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?

Its funny that you bring the example of Kaveri to elucidate your point.
If you remember France point blank stated that any co-development of Kaveri would be based on the M-88 core.
In other words, they asked to be paid to further develop their own engine

GoI is taking up joint projects where it finds there are gains to be made like in Brahmos, Barak8, FGFA etc.
How can you criticize DRDO for not taking more joint projects when you don't know the demands of the supplier or the needs of the consumer ?
R & D, by nature, implies there will be some successes and some failures.

 

[amardeep mishra]

in other cases it means transfer of certain manufacturing processes which can easily be replicated in other projects.

This is where the fallacy lies,and sadly this is rarely the case,when you can morph their technology into our products

 

[greatone]

This is where the fallacy lies,and sadly this is rarely the case,when you can morph their technology into our products

GoI wants or rather wanted Rafale to be such rare case.
Lets see what April brings...

 

[sancho]

Its funny that you bring the example of Kaveri to elucidate your point.
If you remember France point blank stated that any co-development of Kaveri would be based on the M-88 core.
In other words, they asked to be paid to further develop their own engine

What nonsense, it was based on the ECO demonstrator core, because only that offered the required thrust, which the normal M88 core doesn't. Not to mention that the so called hybrid puls doppler radar was meant to be based on EL 2032, or Brahmos is based on Yakhont P800, or as the Shakti engine is based on a Turbomecca base engine... So how is using an available foreign tech base, to get the development done, rather than wasting time an money be bad?
The problem is only, the timing! We put ourselfs in the bad position, because the foreign vendors knew that DRDO had messed up the radar or engine developments and is desperate for help now. Had we included them from the start instead, we would had been in the better position for negotiations or even to choose from different options. See the Shakti engine case now for HAL's LUH, where Turbomecca had to go through a tender first and was forced to propose a competitive offer according to our demands!

How can you criticize DRDO for not taking more joint projects when you don't know the demands of the supplier or the needs of the consumer ?

How can a foreign supplier demand things from us, when we want to start a joint development, based on our requirements and demands? We set up the rules and either they can comply or not, but with Israeli, French, German and of course Russians as options for partnerships in many fields, we can choose and are not limited to what most of them were ready to offer us in the 1970 to 80s. Today WE (DRDO) are the limiting factor, while we have access to anykind of techs and partners. Why do you think even the US are changing their policies towards us on weapon sales, restrictions or even ToT? Because we have the market and they are in competetition to all the others on the market. We only have to choose the best that suits our demands!

R & D, by nature, implies there will be some successes and some failures.

Excatly and as long as it is limited to "some", it's not an issue. But if it turns out as in the Kaveri project, as a complete failure, or as even amardeep mishra had to admit in the puls doppler radar, where it's basically an Israeli radar no, with if at all minor Indian parts, it simply is a problem that can't be ignored anymore. Therefor making LCA MK2 dependent on an LRDE AESA development, without the necessary know how or at least an experienced partner, is just repeating the same mistakes again and must bother anybody that hopes for a successful LCA MK2 development.

 

[greatone]

What nonsense, it was based on the ECO demonstrator core, because only that offered the required thrust, which the normal M88 core doesn't.

Air Force says DRDO stalling Tejas fighter engine | Business Standard News
Snecma, the IAF charges, has already developed the heart of the engine it is offering, an uprated derivative of the M88-2 engine that powers the French Rafale fighter. The DRDO, therefore, will not co-develop the engine, but merely provide Snecma with an indigenous stamp.
Your link ?

Not to mention that the so called hybrid puls doppler radar was meant to be based on EL 2032, or Brahmos is based on Yakhont P800, or as the Shakti engine is based on a Turbomecca base engine... So how is using an available foreign tech base, to get the development done, rather than wasting time an money be bad?
The problem is only, the timing! We put ourselfs in the bad position, because the foreign vendors knew that DRDO had messed up the radar or engine developments and is desperate for help now. Had we included them from the start instead, we would had been in the better position for negotiations or even to choose from different options. See the Shakti engine case now for HAL's LUH, where Turbomecca had to go through a tender first and was forced to propose a competitive offer according to our demands!

Are you suggesting India develop a turbofan in joint collaboration with countries like US or Russia who are far ahead of us ? Like we did with Brahmos ?
What will we offer them in return ?Is anyone even interested ?
I say why the fcuk not if we are able to find a sucker to piggyback on.
That will accelerate our indigenous turbofan program by 2 to 3 decades
Can you prove that there is line of countries standing outside MoD willing to transfer turbofan tech to India ?

How can a foreign supplier demand things from us, when we want to start a joint development, based on our requirements and demands? We set up the rules and either they can comply or not, but with Israeli, French, German and of course Russians as options for partnerships in many fields, we can choose and are not limited to what most of them were ready to offer us in the 1970 to 80s. Today WE (DRDO) are the limiting factor, while we have access to anykind of techs and partners. Why do you think even the US are changing their policies towards us on weapon sales, restrictions or even ToT? Because we have the market and they are in competetition to all the others on the market. We only have to choose the best that suits our demands!

Bro who told you that everyone is offering joint development of all kinds of tech to India for free ?
What if they come with political strings like voting in UNSC, applying sanctions on countries like Iran ?
Before you accuse DRDO of turning away joint development options, check how many offers are actually on the table.
Then, if you are a citizen of India, you can file a PIL asking DRDO the grounds of rejection for each offer .
Good luck !

Excatly and as long as it is limited to "some", it's not an issue. But if it turns out as in the Kaveri project, as a complete failure, or as even amardeep mishra had to admit in the puls doppler radar, where it's basically an Israeli radar no, with if at all minor Indian parts, it simply is a problem that can't be ignored anymore. Therefor making LCA MK2 dependent on an LRDE AESA development, without the necessary know how or at least an experienced partner, is just repeating the same mistakes again and must bother anybody that hopes for a successful LCA MK2 development.

Kaveri is not a total failure.
it can fly the the Tejas.Sure it will be under powered, but it 'll fly.
It gives us leverage over other countries when negotiating to buy a foreign engine and can be counted upon to be available in every situation.
Anyways the point is moot since I don't think any other country will teach us how to make a turbofan.
Kaveri is a step in the right direction.

 

[sancho]

Your link ?

Link for what? Your quote says exactly what I stated, since the uprated derivative is the M88 ECO demonstrator and not the current version that powers the Rafale, which however was not enough to be used on LCA.

Are you suggesting India develop a turbofan in joint collaboration with countries like US or Russia who are far ahead of us ?

Obviously not with the US, since they don't do joint developments or tech share, but the Russians, the French, even Sweden could had been choices back then, today you have Brazil that already started their own fighter engine development, Japan seareched for an option to power their coming stealth fighter and a joint developmen was considered...
So the options were and are there, just as we had options to fix Kaveri with foreign help (Snecma, Klimov, Eurojet).

Bro who told you that everyone is offering joint development of all kinds of tech to India for free ?

When did I ever stated that it would be for free? We want high techs and we will have to pay for it in the one or the other way, but today we have the level to turn things in our favour and to demand things, instead just to beg for things. In the 80s we begged for Tornados or F16s and were rejected, today THEY offer us to partner in the EF, the whole production line of F16 and even more advanced weapons and systems the US offers to Pakistan. Times have changed and things are in our favour, we just have to use the advantage.

Kaveri is not a total failure.
it can fly the the Tejas.Sure it will be under powered, but it 'll fly.
It gives us leverage over other countries when negotiating to buy a foreign engine and can be counted upon to be available in every situation.

You are kidding right? DRDO has scrapped the development, most likely under pressure of the new government, but it won't power a single fighter. A project that after decades of developments and millions of cost, was scrapped without any application...is a failure!

 

[kaku1]

Obviously not with the US, since they don't do joint developments or tech share, but the Russians, the French, even Sweden could had been choices back then, today you have Brazil that already started their own fighter engine development, Japan seareched for an option to power their coming stealth fighter and a joint developmen was considered...
So the options were and are there, just as we had options to fix Kaveri with foreign help (Snecma, Klimov, Eurojet).

if you ask me, then still best option is Snecma, Eurojet. But not Kilmov, what the use of creating a frame of plane whose expectancy is so much high that require overhaul many time of jet engine. The Technical Life of Russian turbofan is lowest in world.

You are kidding right? DRDO has scrapped the development, most likely under pressure of the new government, but it won't power a single fighter. A project that after decades of developments and millions of cost, was scrapped without any application...is a failure!

Yes, same like Trishul, Indian Radar and many more.

 

[sancho]

if you ask me, then still best option is Snecma, Eurojet. But not Kilmov, what the use of creating a frame of plane whose expectancy is so much high that require overhaul many time of jet engine. The Technical Life of Russian turbofan is lowest in world.

The fact that we could have an indigenous engine now, instead of having a failure. Of course the Russian engines are not as advanced as western counterparts, but why are "we" with no engine development know how whatsoever taking western engines as the benchmark? Shouldn't we aim on catching up to the Russians first? And what did we achieved with that mentality of looking to the west only? JF17, J10, J20 and J31 all using Russian engines, because China didn't made these fighter projects dependent on indigenous engine developments, but used the easy way and sticked to the proven Russian once. That's why China is successful in the aviation field and we aren't!
Couldn't we had developed Kaveri based on the RD33MK that Indian Navy's Mig 29Ks now use? It might not be on par with western counterparts, but offers the thrust LCA needed to achieve the performance goals.

 

[kaku1]

The fact that we could have an indigenous engine now, instead of having a failure. Of course the Russian engines are not as advanced as western counterparts, but why are "we" with no engine development know how whatsoever taking western engines as the benchmark? Shouldn't we aim on catching up to the Russians first? And what did we achieved with that mentality of looking to the west only? JF17, J10, J20 and J31 all using Russian engines, because China didn't made these fighter projects dependent on indigenous engine developments, but used the easy way and sticked to the proven Russian once. That's why China is successful in the aviation field and we aren't!
Couldn't we had developed Kaveri based on the RD33MK that Indian Navy's Mig 29Ks now use? It might not be on par with western counterparts, but offers the thrust LCA needed to achieve the performance goals.

There is other question also, definitely this path we may choose, after all what the hell turbofan is, when russian helped in building whole nuke sub.

But my question is not that. What the use of making an advanced airframe, with lots of composite, which has a life on the basis of western turbofan?

 

[greatone]

Link for what? Your quote says exactly what I stated, since the uprated derivative is the M88 ECO demonstrator and not the current version that powers the Rafale, which however was not enough to be used on LCA.

I rest my case.
First you you denied France offered M88 core and then you backtracked as usual.
Intelligent readers will make the correct inference.
I will not entertain anymore replies from you on this.

Goodbye.

 

[Malik Alashter]

Congrats, that's a great achievements for ndia.