DRDO, PSU and Private Defence Sector News

[Blood+]

One with pseudo superiority complex and no technical reasoning won't understand mate
Better treat them as jokers

A Preliminary Assessment of Specular Radar Cross Section Performance in the Chengdu J-20 Prototype

APA Analysis Paper APA-2011-03; Title: A Preliminary Assessment of Specular Radar Cross Section Performance in the Chengdu J-20 Prototype; Abstract: This study has explored the specular Radar Cross Section of the Chengdu J-20 prototype aircraft shaping design. Simulations using a Physical Optics...

www.ausairpower.net

I don't know, my man. It's just that I'd rather overestimate my opponent and over-train than underestimate him and then find myself wanting...…..has been my credo since I was a kid, can't change now.

 

[Blademaster]

https://warriormaven.com/china/chinas-stealthy-5th-gen-j-20-a-jet-without-a-mission#:~:text=The%20extent%20of%20the%20J,to%20others%20in%20situations%20like

China's J-20 stealth fighter jet flies without Luneburg lens, shows combat readiness

The J-20, the most advanced, stealth-capable fighter jet of the Chinese People's Liberation Army (PLA) Air Force, has entered the next level of combat readiness, analysts said on Monday, after the aircraft was spotted flying without a Luneburg lens, a small device used to intentionally expose a...

www.thestar.com.my

If they were flying without luneberg lenses and IAF and USAF could detect them nowadays what does that tell you?

 

[Samej Jangir]

LOL
Once again - ''EW like Spectra'' is useless
Still you don't understand -
Both spectra and F35 EW suite are useless
Spectra, F35 EW suite and F18G EW suite are useless
Do you know why, becz it designed to counter, attack RF signals not EO signals
Hence the question is - DO you know the difference between EO EMW nd RF EMW ???
FYI - Rafale having OSF, which is immune to Spectra
Rafale F5 comes with more advanced OSF and new BVR with EO seeker to hunt down stealth aircraft
EOTS can see the 50sqm covered in think smoke, and can strike the source of smokie, becz it uses multiple sensors. Bottom line - your EW stealth is useless against EOTS.

Why are you going Gung-ho about EOTS? EOTS has very low range. It can't detect faraway objects like a radar can. The whole idea of stealth is so that enemy radars like the ground based ones and AEWACS can't spot a fighter jet approaching them before it gets too late. A LO fighter jet is stealth only from the frontal view. Side & hind-view is not at all stealth as the aim is to penetrate enemy defenses and once strikes are made, it does not matter if the plane is detected while flying back. EOTS is completely useless in preventing enemy planes from approaching closeby. Once the plane is close enough to target, it will simply drop a glide bomb and EOTS detection will serve no purpose.

EW is used to prevent radars from getting a lock on by creating confusing location signals. But the problem with EW is that it is lights up the approximate location. EOTS is not even in consideration when it comes to stealth or detection

 

[johnj]

Why are you going Gung-ho about EOTS? EOTS has very low range. It can't detect faraway objects like a radar can. The whole idea of stealth is so that enemy radars like the ground based ones and AEWACS can't spot a fighter jet approaching them before it gets too late. A LO fighter jet is stealth only from the frontal view. Side & hind-view is not at all stealth as the aim is to penetrate enemy defenses and once strikes are made, it does not matter if the plane is detected while flying back. EOTS is completely useless in preventing enemy planes from approaching closeby. Once the plane is close enough to target, it will simply drop a glide bomb and EOTS detection will serve no purpose.

EW is used to prevent radars from getting a lock on by creating confusing location signals. But the problem with EW is that it is lights up the approximate location. EOTS is not even in consideration when it comes to stealth or detection

LOL
Its about EOTS and started with post about DAS for AMCA
FYI- ETOS can detect targets 100s km, and it exceed multiple light years also and depend on the power and sensitivity of the seeker
rafale FSO can detect target in excess of 100km, F35 ETOS . not sure and i think in excess of 200km
Also I'm nit talking about stealth or RF waves but counter stealth tech, just opposite what you are saying
FYI - EOTS is the only sensor helpful in detecting stealth aircraft at long distance, and TFX having 2 OSF.ETOS to counter f35.
You are totally wrong about every thing, stealth aircar rarely use EW, matter of fact all fighter rarely use EW, and the perfect stealth aircraft against all sensor don't need EW and EOTS is only sensor and the first sensor when it comes to stealth detection and very important sensor for strike, MAWS, long range identification etc
Do you have any idea what are you talking about ??
US developed stealth tech to avoid detection using X band RADAR, and added more bands to it means stealth tech help to avoid or reducing chance of detecting using RADAR
Stealth and invisibility are two different thing, if US developed invisibility insisted of stealth, then aircraft becomes impossible to seen using human eye, making ETOS partially useless but it still can sport the aircraft
EW mainly developed to counter RF signals, not humans vision means one a kill stealth aircraft silently using ETOS and DEW . Currently only su57 having DICM [EW for countering IR] in fighter jets EW suite in aircraft is very less powerful compared to land/sea based ones - stealth is always better than EW

 

[Love Charger]

Very high level and serious stuff is being discussed here , carry on.
I was just passing by .

 

[patriots]

Tejas with a pair of aaraam

 

[Chinmoy]

Alpha thinks it already flew @Chinmoy what's your take bhaiya?

Where he mentioned that it flew??

 

[NoobWannaLearn]

Where he mentioned that it flew??

Not delayed = On time , was supposed to fly by this July then by this year's end that's why I asked

 

[NoobWannaLearn]

And that is why we don't go for F35s just shinny expensive plannes who would cost a alot to just repair

 

[samsaptaka]

it's not the vision that's the issue, it's about commentariat not acknowledging the real world complexities, complexities that predate the leadership at any point in time. the higher you go up the leadership ladder in this country, the more it's like playing multiplayer chess game.

View attachment 229607

in this case, folks who solely focus on defence as a vertical, usually do not take into account other factors influencing the decisions. every constituency feels, their agenda deserves highest priority, even within defence vertical.

within defence these are the primary hindrances in my view:

1) Resource crunch
2) three decades of backlogs
3) cannot hurry engineering solutions, they have their own time lines
4) defensive doctrine

if folks want peace of mind while being an observer of defence related matters in India, they have to keep their areas of interest horizon broad, specific and be willing to look at things for a prolonged period of time.

Realism is your best friend.

You should also add:
1. Unaccountable DPSUs and their sarkar Babu work culture
2. Refusal of IA to place large orders of indigenous products , thus not amortizing costs and production lines lying idle.

 

[Tridev123]

What's scope of putting Prachand or Rudra-like attack helis on various OPV or Corvette style vessels here ? I mean for attacking nearby shore-based threats and all

Though I appreciate your passion in the idea of utilising armed helix from ships for conducting offensive operations, the first thing that strikes me is its obvious vulnerability to MANPADS.
Probably unless they have a very good Defensive Aids Suite which can deflect IR(heat signature) missiles. They usually are not used in areas whose airspace has not been sanitised.Ship borne or land based radars can be jammed or taken out using anti radiation missiles.
But how do we detect small portable MANPADS systems. In case one such missile is fired against the helix, then everything depends on how effective your heli based Defensive Measures system is.

And helicopters do fly at low altitude as compared to planes and hence usually within range of shoulder fired Sam's.

You can even call them sitting ducks for SAM missiles.

Though unrelated, one example is that of the Stinger MANPADS system which virtually made the highly destructive(weapons payload) HIND Mi 24 helicopter gunship irrelevant in Afghanistan. A turning point in the war.

Probably one solution is that it is equipped with long range stand off weapons and stays at a safe distance.

On a different point
We know that ground based radars supporting SAM's will be among the first to be destroyed by enemy anti radiation missiles in a war situation. . Making the SAM's ineffective.

But can an airborne radar like the AWACS(which are more difficult to neutralise) provide the initial and mid course targeting guidance to the Surface to Air missile which can be fired into the air. In other words taking over the role of the ground based radar.

 

[Azaad]

Though I appreciate your passion in the idea of utilising armed helix from ships for conducting offensive operations, the first thing that strikes me is its obvious vulnerability to MANPADS.
Probably unless they have a very good Defensive Aids Suite which can deflect IR(heat signature) missiles. They usually are not used in areas whose airspace has not been sanitised.Ship borne or land based radars can be jammed or taken out using anti radiation missiles.
But how do we detect small portable MANPADS systems. In case one such missile is fired against the helix, then everything depends on how effective your heli based Defensive Measures system is.

And helicopters do fly at low altitude as compared to planes and hence usually within range of shoulder fired Sam's.

You can even call them sitting ducks for SAM missiles.

Though unrelated, one example is that of the Stinger MANPADS system which virtually made the highly destructive(weapons payload) HIND Mi 24 helicopter gunship irrelevant in Afghanistan. A turning point in the war.

Probably one solution is that it is equipped with long range stand off weapons and stays at a safe distance.

On a different point
We know that ground based radars supporting SAM's will be among the first to be destroyed by enemy anti radiation missiles in a war situation. . Making the SAM's ineffective.

But can an airborne radar like the AWACS(which are more difficult to neutralise) provide the initial and mid course targeting guidance to the Surface to Air missile which can be fired into the air. In other words taking over the role of the ground based radar.

Ship based hptrs are normally used for ISR especially for submarines & for faster smaller boats like OPV or fast moving crafts . They're rarely deployed against larger ones like corvettes , frigates or even destroyers & cruisers.

 

[Johny_Baba]

Though I appreciate your passion in the idea of utilising armed helix from ships for conducting offensive operations, the first thing that strikes me is its obvious vulnerability to MANPADS.
Probably unless they have a very good Defensive Aids Suite which can deflect IR(heat signature) missiles. They usually are not used in areas whose airspace has not been sanitised.Ship borne or land based radars can be jammed or taken out using anti radiation missiles.
But how do we detect small portable MANPADS systems. In case one such missile is fired against the helix, then everything depends on how effective your heli based Defensive Measures system is.

And helicopters do fly at low altitude as compared to planes and hence usually within range of shoulder fired Sam's.

You can even call them sitting ducks for SAM missiles.

Though unrelated, one example is that of the Stinger MANPADS system which virtually made the highly destructive(weapons payload) HIND Mi 24 helicopter gunship irrelevant in Afghanistan. A turning point in the war.

Probably one solution is that it is equipped with long range stand off weapons and stays at a safe distance.

On a different point
We know that ground based radars supporting SAM's will be among the first to be destroyed by enemy anti radiation missiles in a war situation. . Making the SAM's ineffective.

But can an airborne radar like the AWACS(which are more difficult to neutralise) provide the initial and mid course targeting guidance to the Surface to Air missile which can be fired into the air. In other words taking over the role of the ground based radar.

Hmm i see,
so in case, unless we arm Prachand-N (supposed Naval variant for now) with strong countermeasures against MANPADs like Igla and Stinger and all, and arm it with fire-and-forget style AGMs+ATGMs it's redundant to go ahead with this ?
say, in close conjunction with naval armed drones or kamikaze drones can it be achived ? like, drones going first in neutralizing anti-AA threats and then the gunships sweeping the floor with remaining ground targets?

 

[Tridev123]

Ship based hptrs are normally used for ISR especially for submarines & for faster smaller boats like OPV or fast moving crafts . They're rarely deployed against larger ones like corvettes , frigates or even destroyers & cruisers.

Helis used for ISR purposes is ok.Usually they don't need to go very close to any enemy vessel assuming that the sensors are good enough to detect objects of interest from several kilometers away.

Even a small patrol boat can have one person fielding an MANPAD system. All that is needed is for the approaching Heli to come within the combat range of the MANPAD.For example the IGLA has a 5km operational range.

The heli must necessarily have weapons being capable of being fired from greater than 5km away in order to be safe.

It doesn't matter whether it's a 10,000 tonnes cruiser/destroyer or a 200 tonnes small boat.
After all most MANPADS weigh less than 20 kgs.

 

[Corvus Splendens]

View attachment 230759

https://x.com/RupprechtDeino/status/1730920121927925788?s=20

Some people really believed j16 would be limited to A2G ground role while j11 will be the one doing A2A fights.
Here is j16 with 10 AAMs and a freakin 1700+ trms AESA a composite airframe and RAM coatings.
Better and longer range AAMs.
These will eat the MKIs for breakfast.

The J-16s and later model J-11Bs were always superior to MKIs. Aside from AESA, very high degree of composites giving better T/W, RAM coating; they also come with a fully updated cockpit, superior avionics, better electronic capabilities, all aspect warning and countermeasure package, better IRST, leagues better mission computers. Su-35s are already outclassed by Chinese flankers, forget our MKIs. Only thing we got going better are the AL-31 engines that remain more reliable. Their A2A missiles outrange ours until the newer Astra missiles go into service.

 

[Azaad]

Helis used for ISR purposes is ok.Usually they don't need to go very close to any enemy vessel assuming that the sensors are good enough to detect objects of interest from several kilometers away.

Even a small patrol boat can have one person fielding an MANPAD system. All that is needed is for the approaching Heli to come within the combat range of the MANPAD.For example the IGLA has a 5km operational range.

The heli must necessarily have weapons being capable of being fired from greater than 5km away in order to be safe.

It doesn't matter whether it's a 10,000 tonnes cruiser/destroyer or a 200 tonnes small boat.
After all most MANPADS weigh less than 20 kgs.

Usually such hptrs are equipped with mounted guns to protect against small boats , guided / unguided rockets & derivatives of land based ATGMs to attack larger vessels like fast attack crafts , OPVs etc. apart from a self protection suite comprising of flares , chaf , Early Warning Systems like MAWS , EW , ECM , ECCM , etc . to cater to such MANPADS .

 

[Tridev123]

Hmm i see,
so in case, unless we arm Prachand-N (supposed Naval variant for now) with strong countermeasures against MANPADs like Igla and Stinger and all, and arm it with fire-and-forget style AGMs+ATGMs it's redundant to go ahead with this ?
say, in close conjunction with naval armed drones or kamikaze drones can it be achived ? like, drones going first in neutralizing anti-AA threats and then the gunships sweeping the floor with remaining ground targets?

Your contribution to the small arms thread and knowledge on personal defence weapons is appreciated by many members.

There is nothing wrong in wanting to use ship based armed helicopters for offensive purposes. But an suitable SOP(standard operating procedure)needs to be developed to minimize the risk and achieve the objective.

New ideas are always welcome.

 

[Blood+]

The J-16s and later model J-11Bs were always superior to MKIs. Aside from AESA, very high degree of composites giving better T/W, RAM coating obcourse; they also come with a fully updated cockpit, superior avionics, better electronic capabilities, all aspect warning and countermeasure package, better IRST, leagues better mission computers. Su-35s are already outclassed by Chinese flankers, forget our MKIs. Only thing we got going better are the AL-31 engines that remain more reliable. Their A2A missiles outrange ours until the newer Astra missiles go into service.

Very true and it will remain so till the GaN version of Uttam comes online.

 

[Tridev123]

Usually such hptrs are equipped with mounted guns to protect against small boats , guided / unguided rockets & derivatives of land based ATGMs to attack larger vessels like fast attack crafts , OPVs etc. apart from a self protection suite comprising of flares , chaf , Early Warning Systems like MAWS , EW , ECM , ECCM , etc . to cater to such MANPADS .

Yes,I agree.
If the Defensive Aids Suite is capable enough, the risk can be taken. I already mentioned that an very good Defensive System is a prerequisite for using armed helis in offensive operations.

 

[Tridev123]

Hmm i see,
so in case, unless we arm Prachand-N (supposed Naval variant for now) with strong countermeasures against MANPADs like Igla and Stinger and all, and arm it with fire-and-forget style AGMs+ATGMs it's redundant to go ahead with this ?
say, in close conjunction with naval armed drones or kamikaze drones can it be achived ? like, drones going first in neutralizing anti-AA threats and then the gunships sweeping the floor with remaining ground targets?

Any thoughts on the last part of my previous post. Regarding the technical feasibility of an AWACS aircraft guiding ground launched Surface to Air missiles towards an aerial enemy target.