- Joined
- May 26, 2010
- Messages
- 31,122
- Likes
- 41,041
Last edited by a moderator:
ADA Tejas (LCA) News and Discussions
- Thread starter nitesh
- Start date
- Status
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2011
- Messages
- 7,029
- Likes
- 8,764
What ever he is , he has no sense of honesty and no knowledge about any thing aerodynamic. Thats why he ranted like a fool when Soumit battacharjee asked him,"how could 6G 20 deg AOA limited tejas mk1 could do a vertical loop in 20 seconds ".
if he doesn't know the importance of this question he could have asked some one who knew something about aerodynamics and could have given a good answer. The fact he did not do it raises serious questions about his honesty. And has the FM set aside 18000 crores advance to be given to dassault in case MMRCA deal is signed by July as he claims?
If this quake is so full of confidence why should he delete 10 of my contentious comments and let one small comment to stand? he could have either deleted all my comments and ignored me in full. Or he could have used his knowledge to rebut them. he didn't do both.
Instead He faked about attending press conferences where he knew everything like "no one in ADA is talking about mk2 because with out active canards none of the IAF requirements will be met " and no design was finalized for mk2 contrary to common knowledge that NP-2 itself has significant airframe redesign, many of which will go into naval tejas version.
His latest BS to fool the viewers,
Quakes like prasoon senguptha never understand the fact that in close combat do fights fighters wont be brimming with fuel in all their external tanks and their pylons full with max weapon loads, under these conditions most combat fighters wont be able to pull more than 5gs at all.
This quake is letting out even more irrelevant stuff like su-27s flying stripped down in airshows!!! Didn't any one in the secret press conference tell him the tejas that flew even had flight data sensors on (white tapes !!!) SO why is he trying to color it as if the tejas that flew was a stripped down version?
Even rafale did the vertical loop in aeroindian 2013 in the same 20 odd seconds. Was it alsoa stripped down version flying on Guptha guys well wishes alone with no fuel?
What is outrageously preposterous is this quake still has no idea about consulting any one who knows something useful to answer a simple question from a person posting comment about tejas mk1 doing a vertical loop in aeroindia 2013 with 6G and 20 deg AOA restriction,
Last edited by a moderator:
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2011
- Messages
- 7,029
- Likes
- 8,764
opposed to quakes like Prasun SEn gupths confusing people by saying that nobody is talking about tejas mk2 because without active canards IAF specs wont be met,
and claiming to have attended top secret press conferences to vouch for his arguments,
The following is a brilliant factual post by Karthik in BR,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Here are some snippets from my conversations with ADA guys at AI-'15. Once again a long post, but I wanted to put it all down before I forget these points.
-Navy LCA Mk2 is not going to be derived from the IAF LCA Mk2. This was made clear by a young gentleman. He said that ADA and the Navy decided to go with a design to meet the IN's needs, even if it means somewhat radical changes from the IAF LCA Mk2, which is further ahead in design phase. The Navy is fully supportive of this approach. They want a variant that works best for their specific needs and requirements, even if it takes more time and effort.
-Navy LCA Mk2 first flight targeted for end-2018 or early 2019 and entry into service by 2023-24.
-The reason for the hump behind the cockpit canopy is due to area ruling. Spoke to a very senior ADA person who works primarily in aero and was associated with the Tejas program since its inception days and he confirmed this. He mentioned that this was done in close consultation with some consulting agency- most likely Airbus Defense and Space (previously EADS), but this he didn't confirm.
- I asked if the design could be more streamlined or a bubble canopy like that on the MiG-29KUB/K couldn't be used instead of the current design. The gentleman said that the design is not finalised as yet though..further aerodynamic streamlining may occur in the future since they haven't yet tested a wind tunnel model of the Navy LCA Mk2. They will be using the HAL wind tunnel for this, since its considered to be quite good.
-The reason for the hump was that the Navy LCA Mk2 actually has become wider and significantly longer than the Navy LCA Mk1. Add to that the LEVCONS that add to the cross sectional area just fore of the wing join, and they needed a smoother blend and to avoid the sudden cross-sectional area change as seen in the IAF Tejas Mk1.
-That hump will be eventually used for something. Not certain as yet, but likely to be some avionics.
-The reason for the Navy LCA Mk2 having even greater length than the IAF LCA Mk2 was explained to be drag and internal fuel volume related. They wanted more to be carried internally and the designers of the Navy LCA Mk2 wanted to improve the fine-ness ratio.
-I asked the ADA gentleman working on the Navy Mk2 as to why the IAF LCA Mk2 didn't get a 1m fuselage plug instead of 0.5m and he wasn't sure..another HAL designer had earlier said that the 0.5m plug was to improve maintainability and access to certain LRUs. Not because of drag issues..clearly, not all folks at ADA and HAL are in the know and their knowledge or info is silo based. They know about their subject but very little about some other department's issues..I asked if they compare notes amongst each other as the Navy Mk2 and IAF Mk2 groups are different. He said they do know what is happening in each other's programs but the collaboration may not be very deep.
-The senior ADA gentleman who was associated with the LCA program since the 1980s said that the IAF requirement was for the LCA to be as small as possible and definitely no bigger than a MiG-21.
This confirms what certain other posters on BRF have stated- that the IAF required that the LCA had to able to fit into hangars sized for MiG-21's and use existing base infrastructure, (while carrying significantly more and to a greater distance). And so the ADA guys went further and made it even smaller in length- the MiG-21Bis length w/o pitot is 14.1m, whereas the LCA Mk1 is 13.2m long without pitot. That was clearly a mistake on the part of ADA and is only now being rectified.
-The reason for the wider fuselage is what we already know- to accomodate the landing gear with its new fairing. Additional fuel tanks will also be accomodated.
-Regarding the F-16 style air-brakes- apparently it was considered but they found it to not be feasible since the structure in that region is not strong enough to withstand the heavy aero loads that will be encountered if the split airbrakes are operated. The beefing up would add weight, so as of now they're going ahead with the current air brakes. However, there is a study underway to see if the airbrake could be moved to a dedicated surface under the wing.
-Harpoon AShM is also going to be integrated to the Navy LCA Mk2 in addition to Kh-35E.
-Derby BVR missile is confirmed for the Navy Mk2 but strangely the person I spoke to wasn't sure about Python 5. Perhaps he just wasn't in the know. Another gentleman confirmed that the IAF Mk2 will get both Derby and Python5..he wasn't so sure about the Astra. By the way I snapped a pic of a Tejas config with the Derby and Python 5, at the Rafael stand..have to figure out how to upload all the pics I've taken, which include a bunch of AMCA snaps.
-I've uploaded the LCA Mk1 ground based gun firing trials video onto youtube..just search for "Tejas LCA gun firing trial". It's a short 5 sec clip. The gun trials were conducted to validate the vibration characteristics and to check whether structures, internal avionics and electronics can withstand it. No issues were seen during the trials.
-L-273 Uttam AESA radar will be the likeliest radar for the Navy LCA Mk2. This clears my confusion from last Aero India where the Deputy PD said that the Elta 2032 would be the radar on the Navy Mk2. Clearly, 2 years is a long time and lot has progressed since.
-No IRST requirement from the IAF or IN as yet. ADA guy said that they won't propose new equipment if the user doesn't have a requirement for it.
-Further work to be done for shaving off another 200 odd kgs from the landing gear weight for the Mk2
-There is no change in the height of the vertical fin. The additional height of the Navy LCA Mk2 has to do with the longer stroke length of the oleos. It just sits higher than the IAF variant.
-Regarding the weights, I'll post separately.
-N-LCA Mk1 bring back max weight is in the ~10,500 kgs range..with an empty weight of almost 7900 kgs thanks to the beefed up structure, arrestor hook and new landing gear, the corresponding payload that can be safely brought back (coupled with enough fuel for a couple of missed traps on the carrier) will be in the range of ~2000 kgs. Fuel dump system hence is a mandatory feature for the Navy LCA in case of an emergency soon after take-off. But I'm a little hazy on this part of the conversation so don't quote me on this as the final figures are not in the public domain as yet.
-We will likely see 8G capability for the Navy LCA Mk2 and not 9G. Thanks to the added structural weight over the IAF LCA Mk2. But the gentleman remarked that even the MiG-29K is not 9G capable and the Super Hornet is 7.5G capable thanks in part to the added weight and in part to the wing folding mechanism that they feature. So the IN may have no issues with 8G capability. AFAIK, only the Rafale M is a 9G naval fighter.
-No wing folding mechanism required for the Navy LCA Mk2 even with the additional wing span (viz. thanks to the fatter fuselage) since it is still quite a small aircraft by comparison to other navy fighters
-Navy LCA Mk2 air intakes will be bigger for sure to cater to the higher mass flow rate of the F-414 engine. The air intake duct will also been lengthened.
-LEVCONs for the Navy LCA Mk1 are currently only used in 1 position..but the FCS will eventually allow for 4 positions- +30 deg, 0 deg, -10 deg and -20 deg.
-the LCA Mk1 has ~180 kgs of ballast just aft of the nose, below the pilot. Done to be able to keep the CG within a defined range for different configs of weapons and drop tank loadouts. This may be targeted for reduction on the Mk2, possibly by using the space for some equipment. Got this from a young HAL guy.
-Navy LCA Mk2 will get a fixed probe, not a retractable one as per one gentleman. Last Aero India I was told it would be a retractable one. Unfortunately, Cmdr Sukesh Nagaraj wasn't there on the day I visited, otherwise we'd have got even more info.
-Currently the LCA Mk1 uses flares similar to what the MiG-21, MiG-27 and MiG-29 (I may have gotten this list wrong, not completely sure) use. It is an indigenously developed flare that works in one part of the spectrum..but a new multi-spectral flare is being developed that covers a wider band for enhanced protection. This will likely be ready for the Mk2.
-Saw a new pylon adapter that has been developed for the Jaguar- to carry, in the words of the gentleman displaying it, "a boxy type weapon" (he didn't know what it was though, perhaps the CBU-105 Sensor Fuzed Weapon?). The new rack uses pneumatics instead of pyro bolts and consequently is easier to maintain since the pryo leaves behind residue that needs to be cleaned. Plus this one is less than 1/3rd the cost of the imported pylon adapters. I asked him if a multiple ejector rack was being developed and he said no. But if a requirement arose, they could do so.
-Saw the LCA Mk2 cockpit simulator and the cockpit displays. Excellent clarity and they were significantly bigger than on the Mk1. The cockpit itself is a tight fit (I waited for my turn to get to sit inside but some HAL employee's relatives were given a much longer than usual demo and I was running out of time). The simulator graphics were excellent. Not a full motion sim, but perfect for newbie pilots to get accustomed to the cockpit and the general flying characteristics of the Mk1/2.
-Navy LCA Mk2 will have a wider angle HUD, as it's a Navy requirement. The IAF has no such requirement, but a new HUD is being developed with better characteristics..not sure what those characteristics are since the person didn't tell. If jingos want a frameless HUD, ala Gripen or Rafale, they're going to be disappointed. That ain't happening.
-HUD symobology is good..been developed in close collaboration with NFTC Test pilots..it took me ~ 10-15 seconds to figure out what was being displayed on the HUD (since it was being displayed on the screen in front of us we all could see it) but that was primarily flight parameters. Since I didn't get a chance to sit in the cockpit, I couldn't ask them to run me through different radar modes, or to ask about data fusion or how such data will be displayed. Perhaps it's too early to ask about data fusion for the Mk2 program. It will most likely be an IAF and IN requirement though.
Regarding the IAF Tejas Mk2's performance, all I got was it will be a 9G fighter. I asked a young ADA guy about its STR and ITR rates and he said he worked on CFD so he didn't know those figures..pointed to another lady and she didn't remember. "
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
and claiming to have attended top secret press conferences to vouch for his arguments,
The following is a brilliant factual post by Karthik in BR,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Here are some snippets from my conversations with ADA guys at AI-'15. Once again a long post, but I wanted to put it all down before I forget these points.
-Navy LCA Mk2 is not going to be derived from the IAF LCA Mk2. This was made clear by a young gentleman. He said that ADA and the Navy decided to go with a design to meet the IN's needs, even if it means somewhat radical changes from the IAF LCA Mk2, which is further ahead in design phase. The Navy is fully supportive of this approach. They want a variant that works best for their specific needs and requirements, even if it takes more time and effort.
-Navy LCA Mk2 first flight targeted for end-2018 or early 2019 and entry into service by 2023-24.
-The reason for the hump behind the cockpit canopy is due to area ruling. Spoke to a very senior ADA person who works primarily in aero and was associated with the Tejas program since its inception days and he confirmed this. He mentioned that this was done in close consultation with some consulting agency- most likely Airbus Defense and Space (previously EADS), but this he didn't confirm.
- I asked if the design could be more streamlined or a bubble canopy like that on the MiG-29KUB/K couldn't be used instead of the current design. The gentleman said that the design is not finalised as yet though..further aerodynamic streamlining may occur in the future since they haven't yet tested a wind tunnel model of the Navy LCA Mk2. They will be using the HAL wind tunnel for this, since its considered to be quite good.
-The reason for the hump was that the Navy LCA Mk2 actually has become wider and significantly longer than the Navy LCA Mk1. Add to that the LEVCONS that add to the cross sectional area just fore of the wing join, and they needed a smoother blend and to avoid the sudden cross-sectional area change as seen in the IAF Tejas Mk1.
-That hump will be eventually used for something. Not certain as yet, but likely to be some avionics.
-The reason for the Navy LCA Mk2 having even greater length than the IAF LCA Mk2 was explained to be drag and internal fuel volume related. They wanted more to be carried internally and the designers of the Navy LCA Mk2 wanted to improve the fine-ness ratio.
-I asked the ADA gentleman working on the Navy Mk2 as to why the IAF LCA Mk2 didn't get a 1m fuselage plug instead of 0.5m and he wasn't sure..another HAL designer had earlier said that the 0.5m plug was to improve maintainability and access to certain LRUs. Not because of drag issues..clearly, not all folks at ADA and HAL are in the know and their knowledge or info is silo based. They know about their subject but very little about some other department's issues..I asked if they compare notes amongst each other as the Navy Mk2 and IAF Mk2 groups are different. He said they do know what is happening in each other's programs but the collaboration may not be very deep.
-The senior ADA gentleman who was associated with the LCA program since the 1980s said that the IAF requirement was for the LCA to be as small as possible and definitely no bigger than a MiG-21.
This confirms what certain other posters on BRF have stated- that the IAF required that the LCA had to able to fit into hangars sized for MiG-21's and use existing base infrastructure, (while carrying significantly more and to a greater distance). And so the ADA guys went further and made it even smaller in length- the MiG-21Bis length w/o pitot is 14.1m, whereas the LCA Mk1 is 13.2m long without pitot. That was clearly a mistake on the part of ADA and is only now being rectified.
-The reason for the wider fuselage is what we already know- to accomodate the landing gear with its new fairing. Additional fuel tanks will also be accomodated.
-Regarding the F-16 style air-brakes- apparently it was considered but they found it to not be feasible since the structure in that region is not strong enough to withstand the heavy aero loads that will be encountered if the split airbrakes are operated. The beefing up would add weight, so as of now they're going ahead with the current air brakes. However, there is a study underway to see if the airbrake could be moved to a dedicated surface under the wing.
-Harpoon AShM is also going to be integrated to the Navy LCA Mk2 in addition to Kh-35E.
-Derby BVR missile is confirmed for the Navy Mk2 but strangely the person I spoke to wasn't sure about Python 5. Perhaps he just wasn't in the know. Another gentleman confirmed that the IAF Mk2 will get both Derby and Python5..he wasn't so sure about the Astra. By the way I snapped a pic of a Tejas config with the Derby and Python 5, at the Rafael stand..have to figure out how to upload all the pics I've taken, which include a bunch of AMCA snaps.
-I've uploaded the LCA Mk1 ground based gun firing trials video onto youtube..just search for "Tejas LCA gun firing trial". It's a short 5 sec clip. The gun trials were conducted to validate the vibration characteristics and to check whether structures, internal avionics and electronics can withstand it. No issues were seen during the trials.
-L-273 Uttam AESA radar will be the likeliest radar for the Navy LCA Mk2. This clears my confusion from last Aero India where the Deputy PD said that the Elta 2032 would be the radar on the Navy Mk2. Clearly, 2 years is a long time and lot has progressed since.
-No IRST requirement from the IAF or IN as yet. ADA guy said that they won't propose new equipment if the user doesn't have a requirement for it.
-Further work to be done for shaving off another 200 odd kgs from the landing gear weight for the Mk2
-There is no change in the height of the vertical fin. The additional height of the Navy LCA Mk2 has to do with the longer stroke length of the oleos. It just sits higher than the IAF variant.
-Regarding the weights, I'll post separately.
-N-LCA Mk1 bring back max weight is in the ~10,500 kgs range..with an empty weight of almost 7900 kgs thanks to the beefed up structure, arrestor hook and new landing gear, the corresponding payload that can be safely brought back (coupled with enough fuel for a couple of missed traps on the carrier) will be in the range of ~2000 kgs. Fuel dump system hence is a mandatory feature for the Navy LCA in case of an emergency soon after take-off. But I'm a little hazy on this part of the conversation so don't quote me on this as the final figures are not in the public domain as yet.
-We will likely see 8G capability for the Navy LCA Mk2 and not 9G. Thanks to the added structural weight over the IAF LCA Mk2. But the gentleman remarked that even the MiG-29K is not 9G capable and the Super Hornet is 7.5G capable thanks in part to the added weight and in part to the wing folding mechanism that they feature. So the IN may have no issues with 8G capability. AFAIK, only the Rafale M is a 9G naval fighter.
-No wing folding mechanism required for the Navy LCA Mk2 even with the additional wing span (viz. thanks to the fatter fuselage) since it is still quite a small aircraft by comparison to other navy fighters
-Navy LCA Mk2 air intakes will be bigger for sure to cater to the higher mass flow rate of the F-414 engine. The air intake duct will also been lengthened.
-LEVCONs for the Navy LCA Mk1 are currently only used in 1 position..but the FCS will eventually allow for 4 positions- +30 deg, 0 deg, -10 deg and -20 deg.
-the LCA Mk1 has ~180 kgs of ballast just aft of the nose, below the pilot. Done to be able to keep the CG within a defined range for different configs of weapons and drop tank loadouts. This may be targeted for reduction on the Mk2, possibly by using the space for some equipment. Got this from a young HAL guy.
-Navy LCA Mk2 will get a fixed probe, not a retractable one as per one gentleman. Last Aero India I was told it would be a retractable one. Unfortunately, Cmdr Sukesh Nagaraj wasn't there on the day I visited, otherwise we'd have got even more info.
-Currently the LCA Mk1 uses flares similar to what the MiG-21, MiG-27 and MiG-29 (I may have gotten this list wrong, not completely sure) use. It is an indigenously developed flare that works in one part of the spectrum..but a new multi-spectral flare is being developed that covers a wider band for enhanced protection. This will likely be ready for the Mk2.
-Saw a new pylon adapter that has been developed for the Jaguar- to carry, in the words of the gentleman displaying it, "a boxy type weapon" (he didn't know what it was though, perhaps the CBU-105 Sensor Fuzed Weapon?). The new rack uses pneumatics instead of pyro bolts and consequently is easier to maintain since the pryo leaves behind residue that needs to be cleaned. Plus this one is less than 1/3rd the cost of the imported pylon adapters. I asked him if a multiple ejector rack was being developed and he said no. But if a requirement arose, they could do so.
-Saw the LCA Mk2 cockpit simulator and the cockpit displays. Excellent clarity and they were significantly bigger than on the Mk1. The cockpit itself is a tight fit (I waited for my turn to get to sit inside but some HAL employee's relatives were given a much longer than usual demo and I was running out of time). The simulator graphics were excellent. Not a full motion sim, but perfect for newbie pilots to get accustomed to the cockpit and the general flying characteristics of the Mk1/2.
-Navy LCA Mk2 will have a wider angle HUD, as it's a Navy requirement. The IAF has no such requirement, but a new HUD is being developed with better characteristics..not sure what those characteristics are since the person didn't tell. If jingos want a frameless HUD, ala Gripen or Rafale, they're going to be disappointed. That ain't happening.
-HUD symobology is good..been developed in close collaboration with NFTC Test pilots..it took me ~ 10-15 seconds to figure out what was being displayed on the HUD (since it was being displayed on the screen in front of us we all could see it) but that was primarily flight parameters. Since I didn't get a chance to sit in the cockpit, I couldn't ask them to run me through different radar modes, or to ask about data fusion or how such data will be displayed. Perhaps it's too early to ask about data fusion for the Mk2 program. It will most likely be an IAF and IN requirement though.
Regarding the IAF Tejas Mk2's performance, all I got was it will be a 9G fighter. I asked a young ADA guy about its STR and ITR rates and he said he worked on CFD so he didn't know those figures..pointed to another lady and she didn't remember. "
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Khagesh
New Member
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2015
- Messages
- 1,274
- Likes
- 870
On the differences in the different versions of LCAs following is the minimum that shows how they are almost like making 3 different Blocks of one aircraft. I think they should be commended for their daring.
Specs"¦"¦"¦"¦"¦"¦.. /// LCA TEJAS MK-1 /// LCA TEJAS MK-2 /// LCA NAVY MK-2
Wing Span"¦."¦."¦ /// 8.20 m"¦."¦"¦"¦.. /// 8.20 m"¦"¦"¦"¦"¦ /// 8.9 m [earlier reported 8.2m]
Length"¦"¦"¦."¦"¦ /// 13.2 m"¦"¦.."¦"¦. /// 13.7 m"¦"¦"¦"¦"¦ /// 14.56 m [earlier reported 13.7m]
Height Overall.. /// 4.40 m"¦"¦"¦"¦... /// 4.40 m"¦"¦"¦"¦"¦ /// 4.64 m [earlier reported 4.52m]
Max 'g'"¦"¦"¦... /// +8 to -3.5,,,,,,,,, /// +9 to -3.5,,,,,,,, /// +8g!? to -4.5
Then there is the statement by one of the honchos that only about 25% of the Mk-1 and Mk-2 parts are identical. They have covered or will cover a lot of distance that is not easily seen.
Specs"¦"¦"¦"¦"¦"¦.. /// LCA TEJAS MK-1 /// LCA TEJAS MK-2 /// LCA NAVY MK-2
Wing Span"¦."¦."¦ /// 8.20 m"¦."¦"¦"¦.. /// 8.20 m"¦"¦"¦"¦"¦ /// 8.9 m [earlier reported 8.2m]
Length"¦"¦"¦."¦"¦ /// 13.2 m"¦"¦.."¦"¦. /// 13.7 m"¦"¦"¦"¦"¦ /// 14.56 m [earlier reported 13.7m]
Height Overall.. /// 4.40 m"¦"¦"¦"¦... /// 4.40 m"¦"¦"¦"¦"¦ /// 4.64 m [earlier reported 4.52m]
Max 'g'"¦"¦"¦... /// +8 to -3.5,,,,,,,,, /// +9 to -3.5,,,,,,,, /// +8g!? to -4.5
Then there is the statement by one of the honchos that only about 25% of the Mk-1 and Mk-2 parts are identical. They have covered or will cover a lot of distance that is not easily seen.
grampiguy
New Member
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2015
- Messages
- 140
- Likes
- 145
I think you mean "Quack" ??
Lions Of Punjab
New Member
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2013
- Messages
- 652
- Likes
- 926
Russian co offers Joint development of active phased array radar (AFAR) Radar for Tejas MK-2
During Aero India 2015, a delegation of Concern Radio-Electronic Technologies (KRET), a part of Rostec State Corporation, held a series of negotiations with the representatives of Indian companies on the modernisation of the country's air force fleet. At the end of the meetings, many agreements on developing cooperation with potential customers were struck.
India is one of priority markets for KRET. The military-technical cooperation between the two countries goes back half a century, and the Indian Air Force is widely using Russian equipment, Nikolay Kolesov, General Director of KRET, said. KRET is ready for broad cooperation with local companies, including the development of joint projects within the 'Made in India' policy framework, announced by the country's leadership.
KRET products have generated great interest among Indian professionals from leading companies, including Bharat Electronics Limited, DARE (Defence Avionics Research Establishment), HAL, Indian Avitronics and DEFSYS. A number of them have signed joint cooperation protocols.
Questions of import substitution and after-sale service of Russian MiG-29K and MiG-29UPG, Su-30MKI and Ka-31 helicopters were the key issues during talks between KRET and the representatives of Samtel and Data Patterns. In particular, the company Data Patterns and KRET discussed the possibility of joint development of AFAR-equipped radar for the Indian aircraft LCA MK2 (Tejas), as well as the integration of IFF systems developed by Data Patterns. KRET specialises in latest innovations in the system of Identification of friend or foe.
During their meetings, KRET and the representatives of Indian Avitronics and DEFSYS touched upon the questions of modernisation of avionics on Soviet and Russian-made aircrafts. The negotiations resulted in the decision of the Indian side to send KRET the inquiry regarding the possibility of upgrading the helicopters Mi-8, Mi-17 and Ka-31 and aircrafts Su-30MKI and MiG-21. In particular, the KRET offered the Indian side the new onboard indicators for the Mi-8 and Mi-17, inertial navigation system INS-2000 for Ka-31 and the MK-Compass routing system for MiG-21.
KRET products are well known in India due to India-Russia military-technical cooperation. KRET is developing the onboard systems for the FGFA (Fifth Generation Fighter Aircraft) for the Indian Air Force. DuringAero India-2015. The Concern was able to attract attention to its civil products as well. For instance, the forum's hosts showed much interest in the onboard data acquisition systems for civil aircraft of MZBN type (the black box). The technical characteristics of KRET's flight recorders are comparable with foreign counterparts by L3 Communications (USA), TELEDYNE CONTROLS (USA), Curtiss-Wright (USA).
The aero show also saw KRET presenting several unique developments such as President-S complex, created for the aircrafts and helicopters defence from missiles with infrared homing, and the on-board radar Zhuk-AE with active phased array antenna designed for the new generation fighter jets. KRET drew the attention of the host country to the large number of radars like Kopye-21I (Spear-21I) and Zhuk-ME, which are currently in service at the National Air Force, and invited it to modernize the outdated radars in India. This prospect kindled interest in one of the local companies. The two parties considered it rational to sign a memorandum of cooperation in the framework of the proposed projects.
The exhibition was attended by 12 KRET companies, including Avionika concern, Fazotron-NIIR corporation, Aerokosmicheskoe Oborudovanie corporation, KRRTI, Gradient RI, Electroavtomatika OKB, Aviaavtomatika im V.V. Tarasova, JSC Ramensky Instrument Engineering Plant, JSC Ramenskoe Design Bureau, NIIAO Institute of Aircraft Equipment, Ekran RI, Aeropribor-Voshod.
Russian co offers Joint development of active phased array radar (AFAR) Radar for Tejas MK-2 | idrw.org
During Aero India 2015, a delegation of Concern Radio-Electronic Technologies (KRET), a part of Rostec State Corporation, held a series of negotiations with the representatives of Indian companies on the modernisation of the country's air force fleet. At the end of the meetings, many agreements on developing cooperation with potential customers were struck.
India is one of priority markets for KRET. The military-technical cooperation between the two countries goes back half a century, and the Indian Air Force is widely using Russian equipment, Nikolay Kolesov, General Director of KRET, said. KRET is ready for broad cooperation with local companies, including the development of joint projects within the 'Made in India' policy framework, announced by the country's leadership.
KRET products have generated great interest among Indian professionals from leading companies, including Bharat Electronics Limited, DARE (Defence Avionics Research Establishment), HAL, Indian Avitronics and DEFSYS. A number of them have signed joint cooperation protocols.
Questions of import substitution and after-sale service of Russian MiG-29K and MiG-29UPG, Su-30MKI and Ka-31 helicopters were the key issues during talks between KRET and the representatives of Samtel and Data Patterns. In particular, the company Data Patterns and KRET discussed the possibility of joint development of AFAR-equipped radar for the Indian aircraft LCA MK2 (Tejas), as well as the integration of IFF systems developed by Data Patterns. KRET specialises in latest innovations in the system of Identification of friend or foe.
During their meetings, KRET and the representatives of Indian Avitronics and DEFSYS touched upon the questions of modernisation of avionics on Soviet and Russian-made aircrafts. The negotiations resulted in the decision of the Indian side to send KRET the inquiry regarding the possibility of upgrading the helicopters Mi-8, Mi-17 and Ka-31 and aircrafts Su-30MKI and MiG-21. In particular, the KRET offered the Indian side the new onboard indicators for the Mi-8 and Mi-17, inertial navigation system INS-2000 for Ka-31 and the MK-Compass routing system for MiG-21.
KRET products are well known in India due to India-Russia military-technical cooperation. KRET is developing the onboard systems for the FGFA (Fifth Generation Fighter Aircraft) for the Indian Air Force. DuringAero India-2015. The Concern was able to attract attention to its civil products as well. For instance, the forum's hosts showed much interest in the onboard data acquisition systems for civil aircraft of MZBN type (the black box). The technical characteristics of KRET's flight recorders are comparable with foreign counterparts by L3 Communications (USA), TELEDYNE CONTROLS (USA), Curtiss-Wright (USA).
The aero show also saw KRET presenting several unique developments such as President-S complex, created for the aircrafts and helicopters defence from missiles with infrared homing, and the on-board radar Zhuk-AE with active phased array antenna designed for the new generation fighter jets. KRET drew the attention of the host country to the large number of radars like Kopye-21I (Spear-21I) and Zhuk-ME, which are currently in service at the National Air Force, and invited it to modernize the outdated radars in India. This prospect kindled interest in one of the local companies. The two parties considered it rational to sign a memorandum of cooperation in the framework of the proposed projects.
The exhibition was attended by 12 KRET companies, including Avionika concern, Fazotron-NIIR corporation, Aerokosmicheskoe Oborudovanie corporation, KRRTI, Gradient RI, Electroavtomatika OKB, Aviaavtomatika im V.V. Tarasova, JSC Ramensky Instrument Engineering Plant, JSC Ramenskoe Design Bureau, NIIAO Institute of Aircraft Equipment, Ekran RI, Aeropribor-Voshod.
Russian co offers Joint development of active phased array radar (AFAR) Radar for Tejas MK-2 | idrw.org
- Joined
- May 26, 2010
- Messages
- 31,122
- Likes
- 41,041
^^ No thanks ..
- Joined
- May 26, 2010
- Messages
- 31,122
- Likes
- 41,041
Last edited by a moderator:
akshay m
New Member
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2014
- Messages
- 259
- Likes
- 345
not for you to say saar,
if the UTTAM can be improved with russian tech, then why not.
ego problems are not good.
i beleive it is for drdo to decide. if UTTAM is superior then no need to worry about.
if not they can use ruskii tech,until DRDO produces superior tech. spiral developement is good.
this is coming from an lca fanboy.and a proud supported of indegenously made weapons
Last edited:
akshay m
New Member
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2014
- Messages
- 259
- Likes
- 345
Last edited by a moderator:
- Joined
- May 26, 2010
- Messages
- 31,122
- Likes
- 41,041
There is no place for ego but logic ..
Russian have nothing to provide useful or even they have ( Marginally better than their competitors at same or higher cost ) they don`t, They were never supported our National Defense development as they considered that is bad for their business and a competitor, They were responsible for not sharing any source codes of R-77 that could have been mated with Tejas MMR back in days and many more programs ..
Least said is better, I don`t like their presence in our defense procurement or JV matters ..
Russian have nothing to provide useful or even they have ( Marginally better than their competitors at same or higher cost ) they don`t, They were never supported our National Defense development as they considered that is bad for their business and a competitor, They were responsible for not sharing any source codes of R-77 that could have been mated with Tejas MMR back in days and many more programs ..
Least said is better, I don`t like their presence in our defense procurement or JV matters ..
akshay m
New Member
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2014
- Messages
- 259
- Likes
- 345
but we have bramhos don't we????????????
i think you are being too pessimistic
but for now
lets agree to to disagree on this matter (which usually doesn't happen) until further news and clarity comes .about what agreements were signed which the article said.
Kay
New Member
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2014
- Messages
- 1,029
- Likes
- 1,354
Brahmos is a con..we don't have seeker and engine tech in a supposedly JV project..
But I don't blame the Russians..no one will part with these technologies
I think Uttam radar should be used. Astra is already developed and is tested successfully. There is NO NEED for Russian radar.
Development of a technology takes years (like a 10 year cycle for a complex product) and Russian involvement now is unlikely to bring any benefit.
Another radar can be made with Russian help.
- Joined
- May 26, 2010
- Messages
- 31,122
- Likes
- 41,041
The new PJ-10 which reported to have 600km range is Pure Indian design and developed product, Russian are giving no assistance for mounting PJ-10 derivative to Tejas but their own kind, Result is what our people are now evaluating Nirbhay for Tejas ..
Their is no need for any new radar, This Radar AESA radar call Uttam can be mounted on Mir-2000mk2, MIG-29, SU-30MKI, besides just Tejas in coming days ..
The knowledge gain by designing and producing one has its own uniqe fruit to paid off ..
Their is no need for any new radar, This Radar AESA radar call Uttam can be mounted on Mir-2000mk2, MIG-29, SU-30MKI, besides just Tejas in coming days ..
The knowledge gain by designing and producing one has its own uniqe fruit to paid off ..
Dont you think Radars used on Indian aircrafts have really less range? Current Tejas mk1 can detect 5m2 rcs targets at just over 80 kms. Uttam can do as at just over 100 kms?
- Joined
- May 26, 2010
- Messages
- 31,122
- Likes
- 41,041
One of them is prioritized for front line fighter and another for marketing, Indian systems are always shown at minimum the same cannot be applied to the one getting for marketing ..
Engines ordered by HAL for LCA Tejas:
(1) The Indian ADA agency awarded General Electric a $105 million contract in February 2004 for development engineering and production of 17 F404-GE-IN20 engines
(2) HAL placed an order for 24 F404-GE-IN20 engines in February 2007 (fitted in LCA Tejas from LSP-2 (2008) onwards)
(3) 20/1/2013: India has finalized an agreement for 99 GE 414 engines to power its indigenous Light Combat Aircraft (LCA).
I am scratching my head - where are the engines for completing IAF order of 40 (20 IAC, 20 FOC standard)??
(1) The Indian ADA agency awarded General Electric a $105 million contract in February 2004 for development engineering and production of 17 F404-GE-IN20 engines
(2) HAL placed an order for 24 F404-GE-IN20 engines in February 2007 (fitted in LCA Tejas from LSP-2 (2008) onwards)
(3) 20/1/2013: India has finalized an agreement for 99 GE 414 engines to power its indigenous Light Combat Aircraft (LCA).
I am scratching my head - where are the engines for completing IAF order of 40 (20 IAC, 20 FOC standard)??
Last edited:
- Status
| Thread starter | Similar threads | Forum | Replies | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
AERO INDIA 2021 | Science and Technology | 308 | |
|
|
ADA Tejas Mark-II/Medium Weight Fighter | Knowledge Repository | 6 | |
|
ADA Tejas Mark-II/Medium Weight Fighter | Indian Air Force | 8939 | |
| P | ADA DRDO and HAL Delays a threat to National Security | Internal Security | 20 |
