Imported Single Engine Fighter Jet Contest

[Pandeyji]

I don't agree...we can't expect only defensive approch in war...we shpuld not fire first but if we are fired upon we must assure before enemy pulls trigger for second bullet we make our magazime empty on it and reliad fast enough so that friend of enemy doesn't get te to shoot back....

We must ensure...
1) We have fleet large enough to be overwhelm over enemy air defence system
2) Capability to establish aerial dominance defeating enemy air power, so that air to ground attack of us be massive enough to cripple enemy ground forces...this will allow our ground forces to mobilize much faster and will help in facing less trouble
3) When our air force is busy in one front , we should have enough power remain not only to confront healthy fight in another sector but also capability to scramble minimum no of jets in a third minor front

Against just Pakistan we must have 30 Sqrdns dedicated, and 15-16 Sqrdns dedicated to China centric front. 1-2 For minor action . 45 Sqrdns strength is minimum.

I agree. In fact I have stated that we should have atleast 42 squadrons.

 

[Sancho]

F16 & Gripen are solutions to a problem which doesn't exist. There is no fighter shortfall

Really? The fact that we phase out Mig squads without replacements, or that we had to divert 4 x MKIs (I repeat 4!!!) to Hasimara air base, because we don't have the MMRCAs yet, that were meant to replace the Mig 27s their, shows how deep we are in trouble today. All we have to fight against China are a few MKI squads, that basically have to cover the whole north east. So there should be no denial about the necessity of MMRCAs, the problem remains getting them.

 

[Pandeyji]

Really? The fact that we phase out Mig squads without replacements, or that we had to divert 4 x MKIs (I repeat 4!!!) to Hasimara air base, because we don't have the MMRCAs yet, that were meant to replace the Mig 27s their, shows how deep we are in trouble today. All we have to fight against China are a few MKI squads, that basically have to cover the whole north east. So there should be no denial about the necessity of MMRCAs, the problem remains getting them.

And this is why we are going to have one more squadron with just the current procurement plans?

 

[Sancho]

I just hope they diddle on this MMRCA long enough that Rafale is able to fill it along with AMCA in the future.

Well if you want to give China free hand we can do just sit and wait of course, but they certainly are not waiting for us as their operations along our borders and at their Tibetian bases show.
There is also nothing short term, about a requirement that started in the early 2000s, just as we can't ignore the financial situation of the forces with limited budgets and increasing fixed costs.

SAAB agent or not, there are people here that do bear a grudge.

:biggrin2: There are people that prefer to be blinded by pride and ignore facts. I certainly don't belong to them. I know how important the LCA programme is, just as I know where the limitations of Tejas are. Some people simply can't take the reality and by the lack of arguments, have to come up with something, be it calling names or baseless bans. I don't care much about them, all I care about is IAF / the forces and their capability to defend the country and that's not possible by dreaming about capabilities that doesn't exist or that might be available somewhere in future.
We have to act to improve the forces and if the industry can't deliver what we need, the only way is to import.

 

[Sancho]

Why 90 MMRCA?

Because numbers on paper doesn't translate into capability in war times. On paper IAF will have 6 x Jaguar + 1 LCA IOC squad, that however are of no use to counter enemy fighters, because they are limited to a single role only.

That's why IAF requested 126 fully multi role capable fighters, that can be delayed all around the country and provide all the necessary capabilities to protect the country.
Initially the aim was on 126 Mirage 2K-5, because they were more capable than light class fighters, offer full medium range multi role capabilities and were fast and easy to induct, since they already were operational. The same required got delayed for various reasons and went via the MMRCA tender to the SE MMRCA now. So IAFs requirements for the class of fighters, the operational capabilities, nor the numbers had changed over the years.

Meanwhile they can have additional 2-3 Squad of Su and Mig 29.

IAF wants to reduce the numbers of types and the dependence on heavy class twin seat MKIs, that need a lot of man power, logistics and have higher operation costs than medium class fighters. We already are top heavy, because there is hardly any capable fighter in the fleet, that covers that many roles as MKI. It would had been great if we could have got 126+ Rafales, but that's out of the question now and with a government, that doesn't provide the necessary funds for modernisations, IAF has to look at more cost-effective MMRCAs again. So more MKIs are out of question, just as new Migs, that would be newly produced. But I still say MoD should shift the Mig 29Ks to IAF and buy more naval fighters for IN instead. Those Migs are already available in India, IAF can induct 2 squads right away and IN could reduce types too. A short term fix for IAF and along term solution for IN.

 

[Sancho]

At Lockheed Martin’s helm, Vivek Lall set to get India-US defence ties in full-fire mode

...Lall, 48, now faces the daunting task of selling over 200 fighter jets to India to augment the squadron strength of the Indian Air Force. Lockheed Martin is keen to sell its latest F-16 Block 70 to India even as it has committed to shift its entire production line to India from Fort Worth, Texas, where the F-16s are presently manufactured from.

India’s Defence Ministry has short-listed F-16 Block 70 of Lockheed Martin and SAAB’s Gripen E fighter jet for the Indian Air Force’s $10-billion single-engine fighter jet deal.

In such a situation, Lall’s job will not only be challenging to keep the demand for these warplanes growing but also dynamic as he explores customers around the world. However, being a person of Indian origin, it may be a tad easy for him to carry on his business development mandate in India, at a time when the Air Force faces a two-front challenge from Pakistan in the West and China in the East.

Even when he was with General Atomics, Lall enabled the US government to sell Category 1 drones to India after the country became a member of the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR) and not the Category 3 drones

http://www.thehindubusinessline.com...ce-ties-in-full-fire-mode/article22744929.ece

 

[Sancho]

F16 upgrades, not part of the Block 70:

Sieh dir den Tweet von @AirRecognition an:
Sieh dir den Tweet von @AirRecognition an:

 

[Adioz]

Really? The fact that we phase out Mig squads without replacements, or that we had to divert 4 x MKIs (I repeat 4!!!) to Hasimara air base, because we don't have the MMRCAs yet, that were meant to replace the Mig 27s their, shows how deep we are in trouble today. All we have to fight against China are a few MKI squads, that basically have to cover the whole north east. So there should be no denial about the necessity of MMRCAs, the problem remains getting them.

Well if you want to give China free hand we can do just sit and wait of course, but they certainly are not waiting for us as their operations along our borders and at their Tibetian bases show.
There is also nothing short term, about a requirement that started in the early 2000s, just as we can't ignore the financial situation of the forces with limited budgets and increasing fixed costs.

Are the Rafael not enough to replace the MiGs?
So Tejas is not enough to replace MiG-27? Even after all the new PGMs and stand-off weapons in the pipeline?

See, if you only want to think in terms of "we retired X fighters of a certain type and now we need to replace them with X fighters of a newer generation but same type ", you end up not taking into account the real facts.

Fact is, MiG-27 was a strike fighter. So we lost our offensive capability. Now, in the context of the air force, offense is synonymous with defence more often than not. But consider the rising capability of Army in terms of interdiction (Brahmos and Nirbhay). Also considering our vastly improved Air Defence network, we should be able to feel more secure against the PLAAF. But why does the Air Force not factor in these capability accretions that should be able to balance a falling squadron strength? Because it plans to fight its own war and its plans are not integrated with the plans of Army.

And I hope you can agree that MiG-21 can be replaced solely by Tejas. Its only the MiG-27 that needs SE MMRCA, then why are we talking of 200 SE MMRCA? At its peak, we only had 135 MiG-27. So where does this number of 200 come from?

We have to act to improve the forces and if the industry can't deliver what we need, the only way is to import.

No. What we need is patience and true introspection. We have a formidable Air Force. What we don't have is formidable planning. World over, forces have to make do with less than ideal situations. They adapt. Hell, we adapted in the past, and came out on top (Assal Uttar). Pakistan itself adapts in the face of an Army twice is size (look at their infantry organisation). Lets stop with this fear mongering. Its perfectly acceptable if we rationalise our squadrons for a decade and focus instead on improving joint-warfare. Right now, the Air Force is turning a blind eye towards this, even though this is perfectly doable. Air Force should stop acting like a spoilt child that can't even make future-proof plans, and demands foreign wares at the drop of a hat without considering the budget constraints that we face. Air Force is not even thinking that the Army and Navy are also in dire need of modernization. It would hog all the funds from its sister services just to cover the fact of its own incompetence in planning. It should have adopted a multi-pronged modernisation strategy with fail-safes. If it had done so, it would not be crying for SE MMRCA right now.

 

[Sancho]

Are the Rafael not enough to replace the MiGs?
So Tejas is not enough to replace MiG-27? Even after all the new PGMs and stand-off weapons in the pipeline?

The same old wrong question! It doesn't matter what fighter will be replaced, what matters is, what is the current state of capabilities and what is the capability of potential enemies?
Rafale has obviously the technical capability to fight modern enemies, but not with just 36 of them! We needed at least 126 to properly defend against China and prepare for a 2 front war. So "because" we are 90+ fighters short, we need SE MMRCAs to fill the gap and to be capable enough to fight modern enemies.

Fact is, MiG-27 was a strike fighter. So we lost our offensive capability. Now, in the context of the air force, offense is synonymous with defence more often than not.

Not really, because we inducted a far more capable MKI and upgraded Mig 29 or M2Ks even beyond the strike potential of Mig 27 or jags. That once again shows how outdated single role strike fighters are, when even an upgraded Mig can do CAS, strike, SEAD and maritime attack now.

But why does the Air Force not factor in these capability accretions that should be able to balance a falling squadron strength?

Because that's a fantasy to think we can keep China in check with ground launched Brahmos, or air defences that can be taken out as well.
Air power in any war is the prime capability to attack or defend. We can't afford to wait till PLAAF is already over Indian airspace, but have to take out their airbases to counter their numerical superiority. We have to bring war to them and make them understand that it will cost them a lot. That's why IAF and also our nuclear subs will be the main deterrence against China, since they are the only assets that can hurt them at their own soil.

And I hope you can agree that MiG-21 can be replaced solely by Tejas.

As explained above, your benchmark is wrong, since we are not fighting 2nd gen Mig 21s anymore, but modern 4th and 4.5th gen fighters.

 

[Adioz]

The same old wrong question! It doesn't matter what fighter will be replaced, what matters is, what is the current state of capabilities and what is the capability of potential enemies?
Rafale has obviously the technical capability to fight modern enemies, but not with just 36 of them! We needed at least 126 to properly defend against China and prepare for a 2 front war. So "because" we are 90+ fighters short, we need SE MMRCAs to fill the gap and to be capable enough to fight modern enemies.



Not really, because we inducted a far more capable MKI and upgraded Mig 29 or M2Ks even beyond the strike potential of Mig 27 or jags. That once again shows how outdated single role strike fighters are, when even an upgraded Mig can do CAS, strike, SEAD and maritime attack now.



Because that's a fantasy to think we can keep China in check with ground launched Brahmos, or air defences that can be taken out as well.
Air power in any war is the prime capability to attack or defend. We can't afford to wait till PLAAF is already over Indian airspace, but have to take out their airbases to counter their numerical superiority. We have to bring war to them and make them understand that it will cost them a lot. That's why IAF and also our nuclear subs will be the main deterrence against China, since they are the only assets that can hurt them at their own soil.



As explained above, your benchmark is wrong, since we are not fighting 2nd gen Mig 21s anymore, but modern 4th and 4.5th gen fighters.

Not a word about the lack of joint planning between IAF and IA? Good way to avoid questioning the IAF on the most critical shortfall in our defence preparedness.

So Brahmos and Nirbhay are not enough for interdiction, but somehow, fighter jets are? And what exactly is the state of PLAAF airfields facing us? Too damn high to make any difference. The ones they are going to use to attack us are going to be near Chengdu, or towards the South from Guangzhou MR. Its clear that we have a major geographical advantage. Add to that the fact that IAF has better combat sortie rate. All that is enough to counter their supposed numerical air superiority. And what exactly is their numerical superiority?

• PLAAF vs IAF
• Heavy: 296 J-11 vs 270 Su-30 MKI
• Medium: 236 J-10 vs 36 Rafale + 66 MiG-29 + 41 Mirage 2000
• Light: 388 J-7 + 96 J-8 vs 250 MiG-21 Bison/ Tejas (replacement)
• Heavy attack: 70 JH-7 vs --------
• Medium Attack: 118 Q-5 vs 84 MiG-27 + 95 Jaguar

Now this was a rough comparison of the entire air fleets of both countries. Consider how many fighters each country can actually deploy. Add to that the fact that any medium aircraft in PLAAF inventory would have to be stationed on the plateau in order for it to be able to participate in the war. We know how much these will contribute (not much). The on station time of all Indian fighters will be much more given the fact that our airbases are very close to the border. And to top it all off, we have a slight technological advantage and a major advantage in the level of pilot training.

Now, take another look at the air fleets of both countries. Try and grasp the fact that almost all the Chinese fighters are indigenous. Also, China has a much larger military budget. Now take a look at the Indian air fleet. Imports galore. You want us to maintain an air fleet comparable to China's despite the fact that we have a much lower budget and our planes are all imported? If all those extra Chinese J-10 really scare the IAF that much, I suggest the IAF throw its weight behind indigenous goods (Tejas) which can compete directly with J-10 because the J-10 taking off from Tibet is going to have a limited payload capacity (hence it losses its heavier payload capacity advantage) and it will have to fly further than Tejas to reach the front (hence J-10 looses its larger combat radius advantage). The cost advantage of Tejas vis-a-vis any other imported fighter aircraft would mean we can raise enough squadrons of these without breaking the bank.

I agree that 36 Rafale might not be enough. But I also believe that there is going to be a follow-up order of at least 36 more Rafale. And I think the Air Force can make do with 72 MMRCA instead of 126 if it gets its act together.

 

[Vinod DX9]

To get F-35s IAF must buy F-16s clears Lockheed Martin

 

[Pulkit]

Because numbers on paper doesn't translate into capability in war times.

Yes, true its no longer a number game but Numbers do boost you up and give confidence.

On paper IAF will have 6 x Jaguar + 1 LCA IOC squad, that however are of no use to counter enemy fighters, because they are limited to a single role only.

Again I do not get the point here we need single role aircraft who are the working horse of the IAF which are cost effective cheap and maintenance friendly. One can say Tejas is not any of those but with the ramp up in production it can be achieved. Medium range Multi role aircrafts were never the first choice of IAF till the early 2000's Why? Because they never made sense. neither they can do what heavy aircrafts can do and what they do of lighter ones it is not worth it.

That's why IAF requested 126 fully multi role capable fighters,

why they needed that is still a mystery to me. I did understand why they wanted Mirage but the new tender they launched once the deal failed to get moe of them failed made no sense to me.

that can be delayed all around the country and provide all the necessary capabilities to protect the country.

I don't feel so.

Initially the aim was on 126 Mirage 2K-5, because they were more capable than light class fighters, offer full medium range multi role capabilities and were fast and easy to induct, since they already were operational.

That was just due to Kargil effect. They said they needed Mirage because it performed better in himalayan region.

The same required got delayed for various reasons and went via the MMRCA tender to the SE MMRCA now. So IAFs requirements for the class of fighters, the operational capabilities, nor the numbers had changed over the years.

so one can argue lets drop allothers and focus on getting gen 5 . who needs 1000's even 100 will do based on the budget we have

IAF wants to reduce the numbers of types and the dependence on heavy class twin seat MKIs, that need a lot of man power, logistics and have higher operation costs than medium class fighters.

Light aircraft will need lesser than medium.Even in Rafale deal the main issue was availability guarantee which is directly linked to maintenance

We already are top heavy, because there is hardly any capable fighter in the fleet, that covers that many roles as MKI. It would had been great if we could have got 126+ Rafales,

IAF would have gone Bankrupt if not just due to acquisition cost but maintenance and armament

but that's out of the question now and with a government, that doesn't provide the necessary funds for modernisations,

We have funds yes lesser than even I will say is good but its manageable if we donot delay things

IAF has to look at more cost-effective MMRCAs again.

We cannot afford them if we are able to we will kill Tejas and future AMCA

So more MKIs are out of question,

I would prefer them instead of choosing and ordering any new aircraft

just as new Migs, that would be newly produced. But I still say MoD should shift the Mig 29Ks to IAF and buy more naval fighters for IN instead. Those Migs are already available in India, IAF can induct 2 squads right away and IN could reduce types too. A short term fix for IAF and along term solution for IN.

They wont let that happen Mig 29 is also a better option but they are not good at availability we need to work on that front.

 

[Pulkit]

By 2025, our fighter fleet strength is projected to increase by atleast a squadron, assuming we don't have any new acquisition and just continue with current plan.

Kindly share the maths behind it. I would love to know how that happens.

My own personal thoughts are that 42 is just a number, nothing else. This many squadrons would've been necessary in 80's but not now (but I still support getting 42 squadrons).

It should be first targeted benchmark.

 

[Pandeyji]

Okay here is the breakup, just going by what we have & what is approved already, w/o delving into what we are going to or planning to induct.

Current capabilities

• Su30 MKI -15 squadrons
• Jaguars - 6 squadrons
• Mig29 - 3 squadrons
• Mirage2k - 2 (or 3) squadrons
• Mig27 UPG - 2 squadrons
• Mig21 Bison - 4 squadrons

Projected by 2025, assuming only the plans approved now are followed without any new addition

• Su30 MKI - 17 squadrons
• Jaguar - 6 squadrons
• Mig29 - 3 squadrons
• Mirage2k - 2 (or 3) squadrons
• Rafales - 2 squadrons
• Tejas MK1- 2 squadrons
• Tejas MK1A - 4 squadrons

The usual fear-mongering of "17 squadrons by 2032" is based on assuming that we don't induct a single plane till then i.e. just a good sales pitch by LM & Saab.

 

[Adioz]

To get F-35s IAF must buy F-16s clears Lockheed Martin

I really hope someone would give the actual source who said the IAF is pushing for F-35. As far as I can tell, the author of this article is lying through his teeth, or LM is lying. They are most likely misconstruing a statement made by some IAF official. AFAIK, there is no way F-35 is coming to India.

From a technological standpoint F-35 makes sense, 'cause it is a formidable aircraft. But from no other standpoint does this make any sense.

• It is a medium aircraft => Bye bye AMCA
• LM won't sell F-35 unless we pull out of FGFA => Bye-bye Rooskie-India "friendship" and bye-bye heavy 5th gen capability
• There is not going to be any TOT or domestic production (a step back from Su-30 MKI)
• We will have to purchase substantial number of F-16 first. These are not needed.
• F-35 will take a lot of time in arriving in India (3000 are on order for other air forces which will be given a higher priority). So our F-35 will only come post-2030. By then we can have AMCA ready for induction with substantial numbers of FGFA/Su-57 MKI already inducted.
• This will require us to sign CISMOA, and will require regular visits by US officials to keep tabs on whether we are leaking this technology to someone else.
• Wartime use of F-35 will require approval from US of A.
• Seriously, if we buy F-35, we are over relying on a very new partnership and a very unstable one. We already have C-17, C-130J, P-8I, Drones, AH-64, CH-47, EMALS, etc. Frankly, I think we are moving way too fast here. We are not taking into account the possibility of a US U-turn on its new-found India-friendliness.
• When we replace Russian equipment with indigenous one, we hear some angry retorts and some weak tries to sabotage our indigenous projects. Imagine in the long future, a couple of decades later, when we want to replace any American origin equipment with an Indian equivalent, what kind of a PR war campaign do you think the LM and either US defence contractors will start? US can also go so far as to threaten trade barriers for Indian goods in case we don't buy their equipment. And our import-loving air force is certainly going to end up buying a 6th generation American fighter again. We cannot let the Americans march in and destroy the indigenous industry we are trying to incubate.
• The Americans look at us as cash cows and a frontline state to reign in Chinese influence so that they can keep their influence supreme. By offering us their wares with obvious strings attached, they plan to sabotage our indigenous capability. This kills two birds with one stone: the only two countries capable of challenging American hegemony (India and China) are taken care of.

I don't think this BS will fly, but if it does, I am going to loose all hope in this country. Seriously.

 

[Vinod DX9]

Well said.
Besides there is no official proof on this. Business Standard reported, and they too said no words from IAF officials.

 

[Galaxy 7]

Well said.
Besides there is no official proof on this. Business Standard reported, and they too said no words from IAF officials.

Ajai shukla was former Indian army official turned lobbyist. These guys works for whoever pay money.

 

[Sancho]

Again I do not get the point here we need single role aircraft who are the working horse of the IAF which are cost effective cheap and maintenance friendly.

When you need 1 fighter to carry strike weapons and on 2nd fighter in escort config, because the 1st one have low self defence capability, there is nothing cheap and maintenance friendly about it.

2 x fighters => 2 x pilots => 2 times logistics

 

[Sancho]

Not a word about the lack of joint planning between IAF and IA? Good way to avoid questioning the IAF on the most critical shortfall in our defence preparedness.

Lol, because as explained, the one has nothing to do with the other.

If a civil airliner lose contact to ground control, do you send a fighter or a SAM?
If you have to support ground forces with CAS, do you send a fighter or Brahmos?
If you want to counter a PLAAF CBG, do you send MKIs with Brahmos to them, or do you wait till they are close enough for shore based missles?

The fact that IAF integrates Brahmos itself, should make you understand, that there are operational advantages, because a missile launched at high altitude has longer range, than launched from the ground and the missile can be carried further to the target, which greatly increase the strike range.

So we can put your whole theory about IA missiles instead of fighters to rest.

And what exactly is the state of PLAAF airfields facing us?

You obviously are not following the news or satellite imagery about their operations:

https://theprint.in/2018/02/14/tibet-sees-jump-in-chinese-air-force-activity-after-doklam-standoff/

For more PLAAF vs IAF please use a dedicated thread.

IAF that much, I suggest the IAF throw its weight behind indigenous goods (Tejas)

Another statement that makes no sense!
A fighter by design has certain limitations, be it radar size, that is limited by the nose diameter, internal space for avionics or fully integrated EW, external space for IRST, EW sensors, hardpoints, hardpoint limitations due to size and weight limits...

A light class fighter therefore is limited "by design" to lower capabilities, than medium or heavy class fighters and no matter how much wishful thinking you add, you can't beat the design limitations just like that.
That's even why the MK2 needs an extended airframe, to counter at least parts of these limitations. Not to mention that the priority of the MK2 upgrade, is to give Tejas the flight performance, to be a useful interceptor in the first place.

To counter J10s, with a high manoeuvrable design, good flight performance, a medium class radar, IRST, that also is supported by AWACS and tankers, you need an MMRCA, with at least comparable performance, sensors and weapons, if not better!
That's why more Rafales or EFs would had been great, or why the Gripen E is the better choice than F16 B70.

I agree that 36 Rafale might not be enough. But I also believe that there is going to be a follow-up order of at least 36 more Rafale. And I think the Air Force can make do with 72 MMRCA instead of 126 if it gets its act together.

Which still wouldn't change a thing, because the additional 36 would be placed at the same 2 air bases, so you have 36 against north western enemies and 36 against north eastern, but none to the south west, or along the cost lines.
Which means we remain dependent on the MKI and that means high operational costs.

 

[Sancho]

Older report, but a great read to understand the importance of GaN technology for EW and jamming!

GaN-Based AESAs Enable U.S. Navy’s Next-Generation Jammer

...The contract called for standoff jamming technology that brings next-generation jamming assets to the U.S. Navy—hence the project name, the next-generation jammer or NGJ. Raytheon, which was awarded the contract, will implement a highly efficient AESA-based (actively electronically steered array) jamming system with powerful and wideband gallium-nitride (GaN) technology...

...“Stand-off jamming” implies another layer of defense separate from a self-protect system, which is only capable of individual aircraft defense or stand-in systems that only defend aircraft within a limited escort range. The stand-off system would be able to mask an entire fleet of airships from an extremely long range.

The Role Of NGJ

The NGJ is being designed to break the acquisition cycle of radar installations in the search or early-warning phase of detection. S-band radar installations are the threat most often considered, as they are used in most surface-to-air (SAM) missile systems and other anti-access/area denial (A2/AD) systems. “As that would be your queen on the board, you would want to protect those high-value assets. If you remove the Growlers, you remove the cover and everyone is exposed,” says Andy Lowery, the NGJ chief engineer for Raytheon

To provide these features, the current AN/ALQ-99 Tactical Jamming System (TJS) required replacement. The ALQ-99 is a ram-air, turbine-powered mid-band jamming array that uses mechanically steered technology. It comprises mostly analog technology and delivers turbine power to roughly 27 kW. The power conversion and RF-transmission electronics in the ALQ-99 were designed with older technology. As a result, it cannot use the turbine-generated power in a highly efficient manner. This limits both range and target suppression abilities.

To cover the ultra-high-frequency (UHF) to X-band range, the band-appropriate, mechanically steered antenna arrays require time-consuming installation. This missionization structure only allows a Growler to offer EW capability for a single narrow-frequency range. The NGJ program is designed to reinvent the methods used for jamming technology to eliminate these drawbacks...

...The array modules include electronics that use GaN high-power amplifiers (HPAs). Those amplifiers drive the power signals through the circulators and apertures to the array elements. The AESAs can therefore form high-energy RF beams with advanced signal capability that can be steered by a highly advanced and rapidly reprogrammable computer.

“Due to the nature of it being an AESA, you can form many beams or a super beam with a lot of energy. It is agile, so you can dart from one system to another system on the ground almost instantaneously,” says Lowery...

http://www.mwrf.com/mixed-signal-se...aesas-enable-us-navy-s-next-generation-jammer

=>

http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/...ighter-jet-contest.78028/page-93#post-1382014

=>

AREXIS airborne attack

Saab (Stand N2-230) has unveiled details of a future fast jet airborne electronic attack (AEA) capability concept combining a high-power escort jamming pod, long-range air-launched decoys, and advanced electronic warfare (EW) operator control and fusion techniques...

...Central to Saab’s thinking is the development of a self-contained (in cooling and power) electronic attack (EA) pod suitable for two-seat variants of the JAS 39 Gripen or other twin-crew fighter aircraft. EA pod concept studies and design, including the build of engineering mock-ups, have been founded on the reuse of technology building blocks previously developed for the Gripen E’s internal self-protection EW suite. The pod design developed by Saab incorporates VHF and UHF antennas in fin surfaces, with L-band and S-band active electronically scanned array antennas, based on gallium nitride technology, fitted front and rear.

The second element of the triad is a miniature air-launched decoy to perform both distraction and stand-in jamming. Saab has conceptualised a small, long-range, long-endurance decoy vehicle with an EW payload that can locate and identify threats and targets, and distract enemy air defence resources. The decoy will support an attack on a target defended by surface-to- air missile systems by acting as a stand-in jammer.

The third piece of the new concept is the development of a back-seat electronic warfare officer (EWO) station embodying advanced sensor data fusion and decision support techniques.

Saab has already prototyped the EWO human machine interface in the simulator, and has shown it to the Swedish Air Force.

http://www.janes.com/article/74074/arexis-airborne-attack-dsei17d4


No matter if we talk about self protection jammers for LCA, or advanced internal jammers in Gripen E, up to escort jamming pods for Gripen E, Rafale or MKIs , this would be a great addition of technological capability to IAF!