DRDO, PSU and Private Defence Sector News

[Corvus Splendens]

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?

Armed helis making gun runs in open seas can work well when the enemy has zero credible anti air capabilities. No terrain/elevation cover in open water to abuse. Helicopters otherwise are always very fragile to counterfire owing to their lumbering pace. ECM spoofing won't stop heat seekers, chaff and flare will confuse it, but the heli doesn't move fast enough to get clear of the bag of rapid flying frag exploding in proximity. It's just a bad idea flying a heli close in even moderately saturated airspace over open waters.

 

[Azaad]

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.

You've to elaborate on the role you envisage for such hptrs. I've already commented on where one can deploy such hptrs.

 

[Johny_Baba]

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.

i'm not that well read on electronics warfare part so pardon me for my naivity,
but let's say a small CBG with a corvette can probably carry Rudram salvo to take care of that ? then a swarm of combat + kamikaze drones to take care of other remaining ground based anti-aa targets or any other high value targets along with them, and sending gunships in for sweeping remaining ?
of course, i'm not sure if it's possible to make ship-based canisterised (?) version of Rudram or if we could use any other ARM instead for AWACS and related targets if any...

 

[Gyyan]

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.

In case someone forgot they have a C variant too

 

[Samej Jangir]

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?

There is no absolute countermeasure for air defence/BVR missiles. There can be limited countermeasures but that will require the aircraft to confuse the enemy missile while also making a run for it. Helicopters being slow, can never make a run fast enough.

Also, as for as drones are concerned, getting a lock on for AAM missile is very difficult from a drone. Also, drones are slow too and hence are as easy a target as helicopters.

 

[no smoking]

IAF and USAF disagree with you. They have spotted them using MKI radars and AWACs from hundreds of miles away.

Really? Looks USAF don't agree with you.
Quote:
Due to the growing threat posed by PRC fifth- and sixth-gen fighter development, we must use a portion of our daily fifth-generation aircraft today at Langley, Elmendorf, Hill, Eielson, and now Nellis, to replicate adversary fifth-generation capabilities. Precisely because we have this credible threat, when we do replicate a fifth-gen adversary, it has to be done professionally. That’s the Aggressors,” General Mark Kelly, the commander of the U.S. Air Force’s Air Combat Command (ACC), said in a press release.

The Air Force Is Using 'Aggressor' F-35s to Simulate Fighting China's J-20 - 19FortyFive

 

[Haldilal]

Ya'll Nibbiars

Ajaykumar916pP.

 

[Super Flanker]

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

It is a myth that stealth aircraft are stealth only from the front and not from any other aspect. F-22 and F-35 have all aspect stealth. It is correct that any given stealth aircraft's radar signature from the frontal aspect is the lowest and this is an established fact but that doesn't mean that if a modern radar such as 92N6E (or 92N2E) that works as the main tracking radar of S400 air defence system for example were to point towards an F-22 or F-35 flying sideways then F-22 or F-35 would light up on the radar like a Christmas tree and the S-400's radar would easily get a lock and destroy the aircraft.

For e.g, the F-35 is able to greatly reduce its thermal signature from behind and also has employed various other means of reducing its RCS from the rear. The F-35 engine's exhaust nozzle is shaped as such so as to allow least return of radar reflection from side ways or from front, with this, not just the RCS of the aircraft is reduced from the back and side aspect but it's thermal signature is also reduced greatly as a result too. Same case is with the F-22 too and other stealth aircraft.

Your assumption to think that stealth aircrafts are only stealth from the front aspect and not from side/rear/up/down aspect is outright baseless. Do you really think that any air defence radar will always be pointing towards the front of an aircraft such that all its radar waves will only deflect from the aircraft's nose? For e.g, we will take a theoretical scenario involving several S-400 batteries and one F-35. The S-400 batteries are located all around the F-35 such that we have one battery in every direction be it north, south, west, east, north east, south east etc, basically the F-35 is surrounded by S-400 air defences all around in its flight envelope, if your theory was correct then the F-35 would immediately be an easy target but no, the F-35, like the F-22 has all aspect stealth to deal with this scenario. Even in a realistic war like scenario, we will be air defences scattered all across the enemy airspace and not just in one point to which a stealth aircraft will move towards while keeping its nose pointed in that direction.

@StealthFlanker, hey you are the expert, correct me if I wrote anything wrong.

 

[Samej Jangir]

It is a myth that stealth aircraft are stealth only from the front and not from any other aspect. F-22 and F-35 have all aspect stealth. It is correct that any given stealth aircraft's radar signature from the frontal aspect is the lowest and this is an established fact but that doesn't mean that if a modern radar such as 92N6E (or 92N2E) that works as the main tracking radar of S400 air defence system for example were to point towards an F-22 or F-35 flying sideways then F-22 or F-35 would light up on the radar like a Christmas tree and the S-400's radar would easily get a lock and destroy the aircraft.

View attachment 231113
For e.g, the F-35 is able to greatly reduce its thermal signature from behind and also has employed various other means of reducing its RCS from the rear. The F-35 engine's exhaust nozzle is shaped as such so as to allow least return of radar reflection from side ways or from front, with this, not just the RCS of the aircraft is reduced from the back and side aspect but it's thermal signature is also reduced greatly as a result too. Same case is with the F-22 too and other stealth aircraft.

Your assumption to think that stealth aircrafts are only stealth from the front aspect and not from side/rear/up/down aspect is outright baseless. Do you really think that any air defence radar will always be pointing towards the front of an aircraft such that all its radar waves will only deflect from the aircraft's nose? For e.g, we will take a theoretical scenario involving several S-400 batteries and one F-35. The S-400 batteries are located all around the F-35 such that we have one battery in every direction be it north, south, west, east, north east, south east etc, basically the F-35 is surrounded by S-400 air defences all around in its flight envelope, if your theory was correct then the F-35 would immediately be an easy target but no, the F-35, like the F-22 has all aspect stealth to deal with this scenario. Even in a realistic war like scenario, we will be air defences scattered all across the enemy airspace and not just in one point to which a stealth aircraft will move towards while keeping its nose pointed in that direction.
View attachment 231116

@StealthFlanker, hey you are the expert, correct me if I wrote anything wrong.

I am not speaking of thermal or heat signature. I am speaking of RCS. Heat signature is lowered to prevent AAM/SAM missiles with IR seekers from locking on while the plane is fleeing back. But that is not what I am talking about. Let us focus solely on RCS.

As for RCS is concerned, to make design which has low RCS across all sections, one will need to make huge compromises on aerodynamics across all dimensions which will make the plane slow, difficult to maneuver, inefficient or something undesirable. Even 1 directional RCS reduction takes a huge toll on aerodynamics because of which stealth planes need much larger engines for their MToW weight and are neither fuel efficient nor maintenance friendly. This does not mean F35 will look as bad as Su30 or F15 from the sides or behind. F35 still has RAM coating & composite frames whereas Su30 & F15 have metal frames with little RAM coatings. However, F35 radar signature from sides & behind will still be clearly visible from much higher distances than what can be seen from the front.

The scenario in which enemy radars are all around a plane is very rare and not normal. In any wars, the first operations are SEAD & DEAD which is done in a systematic manner where the enemy radars and air defences are taken out layer by layer from the borders. Since a country can place radars only within their borders, if a plane is approaching from outside the border, the radars can't be placed all around it. Only cases where radars can be placed around is when the border is wedge shaped and in such cases, the SEAD & DEAD operations will first take out the nearby radars and only then move into such places.

If you are thinking of a scenario where deep strikes are made using stealth planes like F35, that does not work in reality. Only weak states like Syria, Iraq, Yemen or even Brazil, Argentina etc which don't have sophisticated air defences can be hit that way. If one is fighting bigger or more advanced states like France, India, Russia, China, USA or even states armed by these big states like SKorea, Japan etc, it is impossible to do deep strikes using stealth planes.

 

[Super Flanker]

I am not speaking of thermal or heat signature. I am speaking of RCS. Heat signature is lowered to prevent AAM/SAM missiles with IR seekers from locking on while the plane is fleeing back. But that is not what I am talking about. Let us focus solely on RCS.

For your information, I was discussing RCS itself, the reason I brought in the topic of "thermal reduction/heat signature" was because the techniques used by F-35/F-22 to decrease their RCS from back also helps in reducing their overall thermal signature at the same time, so of course I had to bring up the topic of thermal signature reduction but the main point of my post was to speak on the topic of RCS, because I was refuting your earlier comment.

As for RCS is concerned, to make design which has low RCS across all sections, one will need to make huge compromises on aerodynamics across all dimensions which will make the plane slow, difficult to maneuver, inefficient or something undesirable. Even 1 directional RCS reduction takes a huge toll on aerodynamics because of which stealth planes need much larger engines for their MToW weight and are neither fuel efficient nor maintenance friendly. This does not mean F35 will look as bad as Su30 or F15 from the sides or behind. F35 still has RAM coating & composite frames whereas Su30 & F15 have metal frames with little RAM coatings. However, F35 radar signature from sides & behind will still be clearly visible from much higher distances than what can be seen from the front.

My previous post was in response to your earlier comment in which you said that Stealth aircraft are only Stealth from the front and not at all stealth from the side and back. So basically your logic was that they are not stealth because there is higher reflection of radar from the side/back as compared to front. Now what is stealth according to you? Is there an RCS limit that states that an aircraft which has more RCS than a given value is non Stealth?

I think you do not understand how radars operate in the first place. Most radar energy is transmitted and subsequently received through/via a main lobe aligned with the antenna’s boresight, but small amounts of radar energy enter through sidelobes which point in almost all possible directions. Radar performance degrades at viewing angles where a target must be distinguished from background clutter. Clutter can enter the receiver via the sidelobes, and the processor has no way of knowing the return did not come from the main lobe. Such returns can mask that of the target. Modern radars mitigate this phenomenon with Doppler processing. A pulse-Doppler radar records the time of arrival of a return and also compares its phase with that of the transmitted wave. The difference between the two reveals the target’s radial velocity. The computer creates a 2D range/velocity matrix of all returns, which puts approaching targets in cells with no stationary ground clutter. This is why airborne radars exhibit their best detection ranges against approaching targets. But if the target is being chased, its radial velocity will match some of the ground clutter, and it will be harder to detect.

The scenario in which enemy radars are all around a plane is very rare and not normal. In any wars, the first operations are SEAD & DEAD which is done in a systematic manner where the enemy radars and air defences are taken out layer by layer from the borders. Since a country can place radars only within their borders, if a plane is approaching from outside the border, the radars can't be placed all around it. Only cases where radars can be placed around is when the border is wedge shaped and in such cases, the SEAD & DEAD operations will first take out the nearby radars and only then move into such places.

The reason I brought up such a scenario was to refute your earlier comment that Stealth aircrafts are stealth only from the front and not from any other aspect. So that is why I give you that scenario. I just said, let's take a hypothetical scenario and yes such a scenario is indeed rare and most of the times in a given full fledged war, no aircraft would encounter a scenario where it would have to deal with air defences all around it. But even if we take a given border, let us say that there is an integrated air defence exactly in front of the aircraft, then we would still have various other radars in the north east/north west direction of the approaching aircraft and transmitting radar waves in the direction of the aircraft's side profiles, this is how combat works, and I am not just speaking about air defence radars such as those found in Patriot, S-400 but we would have several other stand alone radar units in direction of the aircraft's side because we would have radars placed such that no matter at what angle an aircraft approaches, there will be radars pointing at it in more than one direction.

If you are thinking of a scenario where deep strikes are made using stealth planes like F35, that does not work in reality. Only weak states like Syria, Iraq, Yemen or even Brazil, Argentina etc which don't have sophisticated air defences can be hit that way. If one is fighting bigger or more advanced states like France, India, Russia, China, USA or even states armed by these big states like SKorea, Japan etc, it is impossible to do deep strikes using stealth planes

No country is foolish enough to perform deep strike missions deep inside enemy territory regardless of the sophistication of the enemy's air defence. It is for the same reason that USA are not foolish to send F-35 deep inside Russia or Russia with their Su-57 into NATO airspace.

 

[Chinmoy]

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

Could you provide the news item where ADE said that Archer-NG will fly in July?

 

[NoobWannaLearn]

Could you provide the news item where ADE said that Archer-NG will fly in July?

If I can find it I will post about it

 

[StealthFlanker]

Your assumption to think that stealth aircrafts are only stealth from the front aspect and not from side/rear/up/down aspect is outright baseless. Do you really think that any air defence radar will always be pointing towards the front of an aircraft such that all its radar waves will only deflect from the aircraft's nose? For e.g, we will take a theoretical scenario involving several S-400 batteries and one F-35. The S-400 batteries are located all around the F-35 such that we have one battery in every direction be it north, south, west, east, north east, south east etc, basically the F-35 is surrounded by S-400 air defences all around in its flight envelope, if your theory was correct then the F-35 would immediately be an easy target but no, the F-35, like the F-22 has all aspect stealth to deal with this scenario. Even in a realistic war like scenario, we will be air defences scattered all across the enemy airspace and not just in one point to which a stealth aircraft will move towards while keeping its nose pointed in that direction
@StealthFlanker, hey you are the expert, correct me if I wrote anything wrong.

Generally speaking, stealth or RCS of an aircraft is not a fixed value. It change significantly along with direction and frequency. You will not have an aircraft that remain at a fixed RCS value at all direction/frequencies.

A picture worth a thousand words, so let look at an example:
This is the frontal radar scattering map of a Rafale armed with 4 Meteors.

Rafale-C radar scattering simulation

Introduction Rafale is a French twin-engine, canard delta wing, multirole fighter aircraft designed and built by Dassault Aviation. Rafale was developed as the 4.5 generation fighter intended to re…

basicsaboutaerodynamicsandavionics.wordpress.com

This is frontal radar scattering map of F-35 armed with 4 AIM-120 internally and 2 AIM-9X externally

F-35A Radar scattering simulation

Introduction F-35 is the backbone of American stealth fighter fleet, it is intended to replace F-16, F-18C/D, Harrier and A-10. There are currently 3 versions of F-35 which are F-35A, F-35B and F-3…

basicsaboutaerodynamicsandavionics.wordpress.com

It is important to note that: these 2 simulations consider the outer surface of both aircraft to be perfect electric conductor (metal), the only section with RAM is inside the inlet. So essentially, we are only comparing their shape here, and the actual RCS of the real aircraft will be lower due to Radar absorbing material on the fuselage surface. With that being said, we can easily see stealth aircraft are different from conventional aircraft in the sense that they focused their reflections into certain narrow sector, so that the majority of their arcs can have lower RCS and therefore it is much easier for them to manage their signature.

Most stealth aircraft would have their radar scattering map looks somewhat like a bow tie, with the head on get the most RCS reduction followed by the tail aspect, while the side often have the highest RCS value.

 

[StealthFlanker]

Now, of course, knowing that stealth aircraft focused their low RCS arcs at the frontal and high RCS arcs at the side, many would be curious and ask that: :” if stealth aircraft only have very low RCS at a small angular sector, how can they deal with radars viewing the aircraft from multiple direction?”.
There are 2 reasons for that:
1- It very hard to create big angular different at long range. For example: let say you put your 2 radars stations 10 km from each others. To the F-35 at 200 km away, the angular separation between 2 radar is only 2.8 degrees. To the F-35 at 70 km away, the angualr separation between 2 radars is only 8 degrees. In both case, it rather simple for the stealth aircraft to keep adversary within their low RCS arc. Given that dedicated anti radar weapons such as AARGM-ER can reach 300 km and jamming decoys like Spear-ew, Mald-N can reach 480-500 km, engagement often happen at long range, so the low scattering arcs of stealth fighter can cover a massive area

2-Higher RCS value does not always mean longer detection range.When looking at radar scattering graph of aircraft, one common mistake is to assume that aircraft will be detected by radar at a significantly longer distance from the side aspect or tail aspect because radar scattering charts often show much higher radar cross section values for beam aspect and tail aspect compared to the frontal aspect of aircraft. That misconception raised from the fact that most enthusiasts treat radar return as equally valuable regardless of aspect angle. That is not the case, however.
When thinking about radar beam, people often imagine it look like a beam from your flashlight. In reality, it looks more like the photo below:

You have your main lobe ( where the most of your power concentrated, and useful to you). But some power will leak into side lobes, back lobes (those small stack up shape in the photos). These sides lobes and back lobes create clutter. Modern radar distingush actual aircraft return from ground clutter by taking advantage of the Doppler shift phenomenon, when target moving toward you or aways from you, it shift the frequency of the reflection by a certain amount. The faster the rate of closing or retreating, the higher the Doppler shift amount, the easier it is to find target. When aircraft moving perpendicular to your radar, there is almost no closing or opening rate, therfore, your return blended into the ground clutter. Now you understand why having big side RCS is not a major concern and why notching is useful to evade RF guided missiles

 

[Corvus Splendens]

Greek Army is upgrading their Leo 2A4 fleet with the ASPIS ERA package.

 

[raju1982]

Generally speaking, stealth or RCS of an aircraft is not a fixed value. It change significantly along with direction and frequency. You will not have an aircraft that remain at a fixed RCS value at all direction/frequencies.

A picture worth a thousand words, so let look at an example:
This is the frontal radar scattering map of a Rafale armed with 4 Meteors.

Rafale-C radar scattering simulation

Introduction Rafale is a French twin-engine, canard delta wing, multirole fighter aircraft designed and built by Dassault Aviation. Rafale was developed as the 4.5 generation fighter intended to re…

basicsaboutaerodynamicsandavionics.wordpress.com

This is frontal radar scattering map of F-35 armed with 4 AIM-120 internally and 2 AIM-9X externally

F-35A Radar scattering simulation

Introduction F-35 is the backbone of American stealth fighter fleet, it is intended to replace F-16, F-18C/D, Harrier and A-10. There are currently 3 versions of F-35 which are F-35A, F-35B and F-3…

basicsaboutaerodynamicsandavionics.wordpress.com

It is important to note that: these 2 simulations consider the outer surface of both aircraft to be perfect electric conductor (metal), the only section with RAM is inside the inlet. So essentially, we are only comparing their shape here, and the actual RCS of the real aircraft will be lower due to Radar absorbing material on the fuselage surface. With that being said, we can easily see stealth aircraft are different from conventional aircraft in the sense that they focused their reflections into certain narrow sector, so that the majority of their arcs can have lower RCS and therefore it is much easier for them to manage their signature.

Most stealth aircraft would have their radar scattering map looks somewhat like a bow tie, with the head on get the most RCS reduction followed by the tail aspect, while the side often have the highest RCS value.
View attachment 231236

Is there any for J-20 or J-35?

 

[StealthFlanker]

Is there any for J-20 or J-35?

There is 1 for J-20 and 1 for Su-57

J-20 Radar scattering simulation

Introduction J-20 is the world’s third operational fifth-generation stealth fighter aircraft after the F-22 and F-35. It made China the second country in the world af…

basicsaboutaerodynamicsandavionics.wordpress.com

Su-57 Radar scattering simulation

Introduction Su-57 is the first aircraft in Russian military service designed with stealth technology, it is intended to replace Su-27/30/35 family and server as the Russian answer to the American …

basicsaboutaerodynamicsandavionics.wordpress.com

 

[raju1982]

IAF and USAF disagree with you. They have spotted them using MKI radars and AWACs from hundreds of miles away.

Please dont believe in fake jingoism from few officiers or media. Chinese science and tech moved way ahead. J-20 is an outstanding machine from massive Chinese MIC.

 

[vin bharat mahan]

There is 1 for J-20 and 1 for Su-57

J-20 Radar scattering simulation

Introduction J-20 is the world’s third operational fifth-generation stealth fighter aircraft after the F-22 and F-35. It made China the second country in the world af…

basicsaboutaerodynamicsandavionics.wordpress.com

Su-57 Radar scattering simulation

Introduction Su-57 is the first aircraft in Russian military service designed with stealth technology, it is intended to replace Su-27/30/35 family and server as the Russian answer to the American …

basicsaboutaerodynamicsandavionics.wordpress.com

thnku...india should work on more VHF/UHF radars nd over the horizon radars to track chinese j20. although they cant guide missiles. but who knows may be in future they can.
can someone tell us, how capable india's air space (radars nd sam missiles), to counter chinese j20.

 

[vin bharat mahan]

Please dont believe in fake jingoism from few officiers or media. Chinese science and tech moved way ahead. J-20 is an outstanding machine from massive Chinese MIC.

thats what american claiming to russian nd chinese about their f22 nd f35...but in reality, no one knows how effective they r.
american hv f22 from 2000 approx. did they claim anywhere, they were comfortable to engage in russian nd chinese airspace?? russian nd chinese were ready to face them with their huge RCS flankers.
same goes for IAF against j20. if we show specs of j20, our airforce is doomed. just like russian nd chinese airforce were doomed against american f22 nd f35. but reality is different. or we can say never proved.