Total Pageviews

Thursday, January 16, 2020

From LCA Tejas Mk.1 to LCA-AF Mk.2 to MWF to AMCA to TED-BF; From NLCA To MRCBF To TED-BF

Two Technology Demonstrators, five Prototype Vehicles and seven LSP-series aircraft (total of 14 aircraft) were built for the Bengaluru-based Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA) by Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL) for flight-testing and airworthiness certification taskings between 1997 and 2013. The IOC-1 period lasted 10 years, while the IOC-2 period lasted two years and the FOC period lasted six years—all in all 18 years.
In contrast, on June 26, 1974, Mikoyan OKB was selected to develop the MiG-29 M-MRCA and the first of 14 prototypes to be built made its maiden flight on October 6, 1977. It entered service in August 1983. The MiG-29K variant has an empty weight of 11 tonnes, 5.5-tonne weapons-load, and MTOW of 24.5 tonnes.
In late 1978 Dassault Aviation was contracted for development of Project ACT-92 (Avion de Combat Tactique). In October 1982, Dassault Aviation was contracted for building a technology demonstrator named Avion de Combat expérimental (Experimental Combat Airplane), or ACX. Construction of the 9.5-tonne demonstrator (Rafale-A) commenced in March 1984, was rolled out in December 1985 and made its maiden flight on July 4, 1986. After 865 flights with four pilots, the Rafale-A was retired in January 1994. On April 21, 1988, Dassault Aviation was contracted for building four Rafale prototypes: one single-seat Rafale-C, two carrier-based Rafale-Ms and one tandem-seat Rafale-B. The Rafale-C flew on May 19, 1991 while the Rafale-B flew on April 30, 1993. The first Rafale-M flew on December 12, 1991, followed by the second on November 8, 1993. The first production-series Rafale-M flew on July 7, 1999, while in December 2004, the French Air Force received its first three F2-standard Rafale-Bs. The Rafale-C has an empty weight of 9.85 tonnes, internal fuel capacity of 4.7 tonnes, 9.5-tonne weapons-load and MTOW of 24.5 tonnes.
TD-1 (KH-2001) first flew on January 4, 2001; followed by TD-2 (KH-2002) on June 6, 2002. This was followed by the PV-1 (KH-2003) flying on November 25, 2003; PV-2 (KH-2004) on December 1, 2005; PV-3 (KH-2005) on December 1, 2006; PV-4 (KHT-2009) on November 26, 2009; and PV-5 (KHT-2010) on November 8, 2014. These were followed by seven LSP-series LCAs, comprising LSP-1 (KH-2011) that took to the skies on April 25, 2007 and was powered by GE Aero Engines-supplied F404-F2J3 turbofan; LSP-2 (KH-2012) first flying on June 16, 2008 and being the first to be powered by F404-IN20 turbofan; LSP-3 (KH-2013) flying on April 23, 2010; LSP-4 (KH-2014) on June 2, 2010; SP-5 (KH-2015) fitted with NVG-compatible cockpit lighting and autopilot on November 19, 2010; LSP-7 (KH-2017) on March 9, 2012 with a reshaped APU air-intake; and LSP-8 (KH-2018) in March 2013.
Between October 1985 and 2003, the IAF had accorded permanent waivers to 22 of the requirements listed out in its ASQR.
October 25, 2007: Tejas Mk.1 PV-1 test-fired a R-73E SRAAM in a ballistic non-guided) mode off Goa.
December 11, 2007: Tejas Mk.1 PV-2 flew with Litening-2 LDP.
October 2009: Tejas Mk.1 PV-3 and LSP-2 completed air-to-surface weapons delivery trials.
April 23, 2010: LSP-3 flew with a hybrid version of the Elta EL/M-2032 multi-mode radar, a homegrown IFF transponder and homegrown chaff/flare dispensers.
November 30, 2010: Tejas LSP-4 fired a R-73E SRAAM guided by the Targo HMDS off Goa.
January 10, 2011: Tejas Mk.1 was accorded the Initial Operational Clearance-1 (IOC-1) Release to Service Certificate by the Centre for Military Airworthiness and Certification (CEMILAC) after 32 performance parameters were waived by the IAF.
December 20, 2013: Tejas Mk.1 was accorded the IOC-2 Release to Service Certificate after logging 2,587 sorties covering over 1,750 hours with 13 prototypes flown by 17 test pilots of the IAF and Indian Navy. There were then 53 significant shortfalls in the L-MRCA’s developmental effort. However, the post-IOC-2 service induction process at Sulur air base began only on January 17, 2015.
October 1, 2014: Tejas Mk.1 SP-1’s maiden flight took place.
January 12, 2015: Tejas Mk.1 PV-1 flew with an internally-mounted integrated EW suite (UEWS) developed by the Defence Avionics Research Establishment (DARE).
January 17, 2015: SP-1 officially handed over to the IAF. HAL delivered one SP-series in 2015-16; two in 2016-17; five in 2017-18 aircraft and eight in 2018-19. The SP-1 first flew on October 1, 2014; SP-2 on March 22, 2016; SP-3 on September 28, 2016; SP-4 on March 3, 2017; SP-6 on June 30, 2017; SP-5 on February 8, 2018; SP-8 on March 13, 2018; SP-9 on March 24, 2018; SP-10 on July 27, 2018; SP-11 on October 10, 2018; SP-12 on November 28, 2018; SP-13 on January 30, 2019; SP-14 on January 20, 2019; SP-15 on March 22, 2019; and SP-16 on March 12, 2019. SP-17 to SP-20 and SP-37 to SP-40 will be tandem-seaters. Each SP-series Tejas Mk.1 undergoes three test-flights undertaken by HAL’s Test Pilots followed by another three by the IAF’s pilots. Build-standard of eight FOC-compliant tandem-seat operational conversion trainers was readied by April 2019. The first such aircraft will make its maiden flight in late 2021. The confirmed orders now stand at 32 Tejas Mk.1 single-seaters fighters (16 IOC-compliant and 16 FOC-compliant) and eight FOC-compliant tandem-seaters.
August 2015: UK-based Cobham handed over newly-designed quartz radome and bolt-on in-flight refuelling (IFR) probe to HAL for installation on Tejas Mk.1 LSP-8 (KH-2018). Cobham was awarded the contract in 2014, but it missed three successive delivery timelines (October 2014, end of January 2015 and April 2015) for both items. Had Cobham adhered to its delivery timelines, it would have been possible to wrap up ground check-outs for the IFR probe in October-November 2014 and then commence flight-trials. 25 day/night flights at different altitudes and speeds are needed to clear the IFR system and had the probe been delivered in September 2014, it would have easily been cleared for certification before mid-2015.
February 5, 2016: Tejas Mk.1 LSP-7 test-fired a Derby BVRAAM in a ballistic non-guided) mode in Jamnagar.
November 7, 2016: India’s Defence Ministry approved a plan for procuring 83 Tejas Mk.1As worth ₹50,025 crore under the Acceptance of Necessity (AoN) scheme.
January 31, 2017: Tejas LSP-8 (KH-2018) made its first flight fitted with a Cobham in-flight refuelling probe.
May 16, 2017: Tejas Mk.1 LSP-7 fired a Derby BVRAAM in guided ‘lock-on after launch’ mode at Chandipur. In addition, ADA equipped the LSP-2 platform with a LRDE-developed ‘Uttam’ AESA-MMR developmental prototype along with an integrated liquid cooling system.
October 2017: The provisional DAL (Drawing Applicability List) for FOC-compliant Tejas Mk.1 SP-series was released, followed by the amended one in August 2018. (DAL is the standard of preparation for production). In addition, the LCA-AF Mk.2’s design was modified to have a 1-metre fuselage plug-in module, all-up weight of 16.5 tonnes, a payload of 5.5 tonnes and 3,300kg internal fuel capacity.
December 20, 2017: The IAF issued a single-vendor tender to HAL for procuring 83 Tejas Mk.1As (73 single-seaters and 10 tandem-seaters) for equipping four IAF squadrons and HAL submitted its first technical and commercial response to it in March 2018. HAL quoted Rs.463 crore (US$64.5 million) for Tejas Mk.1A versus Rs.363 crore ($50.6 million) for the Tejas Mk.1.
February 27, 2018: Hot refuelling-cum-sortie was conducted by Tejas LSP-8.
April 27, 2018: Tejas Mk.1 LSP-7 fired a Derby BVRAAM in guided ‘lock-on after launch’ mode against a manoeuvrable unmanned aerial target-drone at Chandipur.
September 10, 2018: LSP-8 was successfully refuelled mid-air by an IAF IL-78MKI. LSP-8 took-off from Gwalior air base, before meeting up with an Il-78MKI operating from Agra air base. LSP-8 used a Cobham-supplied refuelling probe to connect with the IL-78MKI’s Cobham-supplied hose-and-drogue system for a series of dry contacts on September 4 and 6, before a first transfer 1,900kg of fuel took place when the LSP-8 was cruising at 270 Knots.
October 2018: The LCA-AF Mk.2 morphed into the Medium-Weight Fighter (MWF), whose fuselage would be 1.35 metres longer, will carry 6.5 tonnes of payload and 3,300kg of internal fuel. 
December 2019: LSP-7 successfully demonstrated dropping of OFB-built 250kg/450kg HSLD bombs, OFB-built Mk.11N retarder bomb, FAB-250 bomb, OFAB-100-120 bomb. Operating out of IAF air bases like Jamnagar, Jaisalmer, Uttarlai, Gwalior, Goa, Leh, Pathankot, the LSP-7 demonstrated weaponised platform readiness for ORP scramble missions and three-sortie/day turnaround service in all weather conditions and at different operating altitudes.
February 20, 2019: FOC certificate and Release to Service Document released after 10 performance parameters were waived by the IAF. These included the non-installation of the twin-barrelled Gryazev-Shipunov GSh-23 cannon.
March 11, 2019: Tejas Mk.1 SP-16 first flew for the first time, followed by SP-15 on March 22. SP-16 was the first of the SP-series to be using wings made by Larsen & Toubro (L & T) in January, and wiring harnesses and pipings supplied by HAL’s Prayagraj-based subsidiary Naini Aerospace Ltd (previously a sick industrial unit of Hindustan cables Ltd) on March 27, 2018.
September 2019: Revised price-quote by HAL after renegotiations stands at Rs.417 crore ($58.1 million) per Tejas Mk.1A in flyaway condition minus its weapons systems. In comparison, the HAL Nashik-built Su-30MKI costs Rs.415 crore ($57.8 million) per unit.
October 2019: SP-21, the first FOC-compliant Tejas Mk.1, began being assembled and will contain an IFR probe, pressure-refuelling with three drop-tank configuration, integration of 725-litre and 450-litre drop-tanks, improved wing navigation lamps, in-flight windmill relight, dual-ejector rack for SRAAMs, and zoom-climb flight mode. The Teajas Mk.1A too will not have the twin-barrelled Gryazev-Shipunov GSh-23 cannon on-board. Instead, an as-yet unselected pod-mounted 30mm cannon has been specified.
The MWF, whose maiden flight as per ADA’s claims will be in 2024 (following a rollout in 2022), will be built to LSP standards in Initial Operational Clearance (IOC) configuration. A total of four LSP-series MWFs are planned for construction and these will be subjected to a total of 2,000 hours of certification-related flight-tests. Series-production of 201 MWFs for equipping 12 IAF squadrons will begin in 2028 as per ADA’s prediction, and each MWF will have an empty weight of 7.7 tonnes, weapons-load of 6.5 tonnes, internal fuel capacity of 3.3 tonnes and MTOW of 17.5 tonnes. Powerplant will be a single 98kN-thrust F414-GE-INS6 turbofan.
The AMCA project was conceptualised in 2006 and between 2008 and 2014, five conceptual wind-tunnel scale-models were tested. In April 2010 the IAF had finalised the AMCA’s ASQRs. In October 2010, a sum of Rs.100 crore was released to ADA for preparing feasibility studies in 18 months. Feasibility Report was compiled and its review held in November 2013. The Feasibility Report was updated in October 2015. The conceptual phase began in 2015, while the detailed design phase began in February 2019. In April 2018, funding for building two AMCA technology demonstrators (whose maiden flight as per ADA’s claim is due for 2025) was released. The Engineering Technology & Manufacturing Development (ETMD) phase for producing four flying prototype aircraft has yet to begin. AMCA will have an empty weight of 16 tonnes, internal fuel load of 6.5 tonnes, internal weapons load of 1.5 tonnes, external weapons-load of 5 tonnes, and MTOW of 29 tonnes. Powerplant will be twin 98kN-thrust F414-GE-INS6 turbofans offering a total thrust of 180kN.
Since the Indian Navy requires only 57 TED-BFs for service-induction, this is too small a number for justifying the enormous developmental funds required. Neither is there any possibility of the IAF expressing its preference for a shore-based TED-BF variant by ditching the single-engined MWF option. Hence, ADA’s claim about the TED-BF making its maiden flight by 2026 and being ready for service-induction by 2031 tantamounts to an impossibility.
The maiden arrested recovery of the LCA Navy Mk.1/NP-2 technology demonstrator on board INS Vikramaditya on January 11, 2020 and its following maiden takeoff a day later marked the attainment of a crucial milestone in the Indian Navy’s (IN) developmental process for obtaining a homegrown carrier-based multi-role combat aircraft (MRCA) solution. It may be recalled that Phase-1 of full-scale engineering development (FSED-1) for the LCA (Navy) technology demonstration project was sanctioned in March 2003 by the Government of India with grant-in-aid seed funding of Rs.949 crore and a planned completion date of December 2009. The IN contributed 40% of the development cost, with the rest being put up by the Defence Research & Development Organisation (DRDO), which controls the Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA)—designer and developer of the LCA family of L-MRCAs. The objective then was to develop a naval carrier-borne MRCA capable of Ski-Jump Takeoff with Arrested Recovery for landing (STOBAR concept). It was initially envisaged that converting the already flying Tejas Mk.1 to a naval aircraft would take about six to seven years, with structural changes restricted to about 15%. The two naval prototypes sanctioned were to be used primarily to demonstrate Carrier Compatibility and also to demonstrate Initial Operational Capability with air-defence configuration. However, contrary to initial assumptions, during the aircraft design and development phase, it turned out to be significantly different from the time of sanction in 2003 and challenges increased progressively. Further, the major constraint of design space due to the existing Tejas platform resulted in a sub-optimal design and compromises leading to the LCA Navy Mk-1 variant (NP-1) being heavier than anticipated. Consequently, Navy LCA (NLCA) Mk2 design powered by a higher-thrust turbofan was taken up in the FSED-II stage of the project, which was sanctioned in December 2009. However, by 2014, the IN realised that even the NLCA Mk.2 would have shortfalls in the full-mission capabilities.
This realisation had dawned after the IN had done a comprehensive assessment of flight operations with its twin-engined MiG-29Ks from the STOBAR flight-deck of INS Vikramaditya. To fully understand the assessment, one must first understand what distinguishes land-based flight operations from carrier-based flight-operations, plus the difference between STOBAR and CATOBAR flight-deck designs. Usually, there are three parameters relating to the takeoff of any type of shore-based aircraft: 1) thrust-weight ratio, 2) rolling distance, 3) the minimum liftoff safety speed. When an aircraft attains a certain rolling distance (usually much longer than the length of an aircraft carrier’s deck) at an acceleration produced by its thrust-weight ratio for takeoff, it reaches the minimum lift-off safety speed. Upon reaching this, the lift force of the aircraft is equal to the weight of the aircraft, and then the aircraft lifts off. So the lift force of an aircraft is proportional to the square of its speed. If the aircraft slides at acceleration for a distance which is shorter than the runway length when it takes off and fails to reach the minimum safety lift-off speed, the lift force produced by the aircraft’s wings will be less than the weight of the aircraft, so it cannot lift off. The landing, on the other hand, is accomplished in five stages: (1) glide; (2) flatten (when the wheel is 2 metres above the ground, throttle back to the idle speed, reduce the glide angle, and exit glide state at the height of 0.5 metres); (3) level flight at a deceleration (minimum level flight speed); (4) fall to touch down (at this moment, the aircraft’s speed is decreased to an extent that the lift force is no longer enough to balance the aircraft’s weight); (5) roll to land (under the action of wheel friction and air resistance etc, rolling at a deceleration until it halls).
When it comes to carrier-based aviation, due to the limited length of the flight deck of the aircraft carrier, there are mainly three take-off options for carrier-based aircraft: vertical takeoff (namely the vertical/short-range rolling takeoff), ski-jump take-off (or called sliding-tilted takeoff), and ejection takeoff (such as steam ejection takeoff, electromagnetic rail-launch ejection takeoff). For ski-jump takeoff, the aircraft first rolls at acceleration on the runway of the flight deck of an aircraft carrier only depending on its own power, then it leaps into the air through the upswept deck on the front part of the aircraft carrier, and then takes off. The principle is that the upswept angle of the deck (14 degrees) is regarded as the ejection angle, although the aircraft has not yet reached the takeoff speed when it rolls and leaves the aircraft carrier. The landing on an aircraft carrier is achieved by gliding to directly hook the arresting cable on the aircraft carrier (without the above stages of level flight at a deceleration, etc). A total of 3 or 4 arresting cables are installed on the canted deck of the aircraft carrier, in which the first one is arranged apart from the aft by 60 metres, and the remaining ones are arranged at an interval of 6 metres or 14 metres. The height of the arresting cable is 50 centimetres above the deck surface. The aircraft glides from upper right of the stern of the aircraft carrier, which is travelling rapidly, hooks the arresting cable with the tailhook, and then rolls on the deck within 100 metres to brake. The statistics show that 80% of aircraft accidents on board aircraft carriers occur in the course of touching down on to the top-deck but not in the air. The factors attributing to a complicated, difficult and risky landing process for the aircraft include: 1) short on-deck runway; aircraft carrier is limited in length, and the section for the carrier aircraft to land is more limited, while the length of landing area on the aircraft carrier is relevant to the safety in landing of the carrier-borne MRCA; 2) high landing speed; in the existing technology, when directly gliding to touch down onto the flight-deck, the MRCA does not throttle back to decelerate, but requires an appropriate force, so that it can immediately undertake a Bolter in case the tailhook misses all the arresting cables; 3) the accuracy requirement for pre-determined landing point is strict; for the accuracy of the landing point, none of longitudinal, lateral and height errors can be large, otherwise the MRCA may not hook the arresting cable, or may land on the aft or on the right side of the flight-deck, while the MRCA needs to, during gliding at high speed, finish hitting the landing position on the moving flight-deck; 4) control of the gliding angle (between 3.5% and 4%); 5) alignment with the centreline of the runway, because an alignment is more important than the gliding angle. Since the runway of the aircraft carrier is very narrow, if the aircraft deviates to the right, it may hit the superstructure (island) of the aircraft carrier, and if the aircraft deviates to the left, it may hit other aircraft on the parking apron. So during the landing stage, the MRCA should fly (glide) in a vertical plane where the centreline of the runway is located. However, the centreline of the canted deck-runway used for landing is not consistent with the heading direction of aircraft carriers, and presents an angle of between 6 degrees and 13 degrees (namely the canted deck and the longitudinal axis of the aircraft carrier form an angle of 6 degrees and 13 degrees). Such a design aims to allow the MRCA to roll after landing so as to avoid other deck-based MRCAs that are awaiting takeoff at the front portion of the flight-deck.
When a carrier-based MRCA takes off from a curved STOBAR deck it suddenly jumps into free air. The objective is to approximately reach the suitable speed and AoA at the end of the ski-jump, without exactly respecting the MRCA’s lift-to-weight equilibrium. It may well be in an infra-lift condition, but the overall strategy aims at keeping the longitudinal acceleration by maintaining engine thrust, and giving full control to the pilot who, until this moment has hardly intervened in the manoeuvre. An acceptable aircraft-vessel compatibility matching implies that the flight speed will reach a minimum value to sustain level flight before the aircraft altitude over the sea crosses below a certain safety threshold. The thrust-to-weight ratio at take-off must thus be appropriately matched to the available deck length and the ski-jump geometry, including wind-on-deck effects. The approach speed must be compatible with wind-on-deck and the available landing distance to completely stop the MRCA after engaging the last arrestor-cable. And lastly, the thrust-to-weight ratio at approach must be high enough as to allow fast acceleration and safe liftoff (Bolter) should the aircraft hook failing engaging the arresting pendants.
A twin-engined naval MRCA operating from a STOBAR flight-deck can at best only take off with half-load (of either fuel or weapons payload), and the engine is in the state of thrust augmentation at the time of takeoff, thus shortening the aircraft’s service-life. The MRCA is also required to be added with some structural weights, such as increasing the wing area, just in order to improve the lift force for realising the ski-jump takeoff. The takeoff weight and takeoff efficiency of takeoffs from STOBAR flight-decks are thus less than that of the ejection takeoff, and the combat efficiency is thus poorer than that of the MRCA taking off from a CATOBAR flight-deck. The STOBAR flight-deck design thus limits MRCA takeoff weight and shifts the full burden of takeoff propulsion onto the aircraft, thus increasing the amount of fuel consumed at that stage. This in turn restricts the fuel and weapons payload that the MRCA can carry, thereby reducing its range, loitering time, and strike capabilities. STOBAR is also more affected by wind, tide, rolling, and pitching. Furthermore, it needs more flight-deck space for takeoff and landing, thus limiting the parking space and having an adverse effect on takeoff frequency–based crisis reaction. For instance, on all existing STOBAR aircraft carriers (Project 11430 INS Vikramaditya, Project 1143.5 Kuznetsov and the two PLA Navy vessels CV-16 Liaoning and CV-17 Shandong) there are two types of runway lengths—the shorter 115-metre one in a right-to-left orientation for launching MRCAs with greatly reduced weapons/fuel loads; and the longer 180-metre one in left-to-right orientation for launching MRCAs with greater but not maximum weapons/fuel loads.
In comparison, the CATOBAR design, which is mostly associated with large carriers, minimises aircraft fuel consumption on takeoff, thus enabling better payload, range, loitering time, and strike capability. Its runway requirement is also minimal, thus allowing more flight-deck parking and faster launches, even simultaneous launch and recovery, resulting in quicker crisis response. Lastly, unlike STOBAR flight-decks, CATOBAR flight-decks can also launch heavier fixed-wing AEW and ASW aircraft.
NLCA Developmental Milestones
The LCA (Navy) programme has involved development of the NP-1 tandem-seat operational conversion trainer and NP-2 single-seat multi-role combat aircraft, one structural test specimen for fatigue-testing, creation of Navy-specific flight-test facilities in Bengaluru and Goa, construction of a shore-based flight-test facility or SBTF at INS Hansa in Goa (for enabling arrested landing recovery, plus takeoff from a half-metal half-concrete 14-degree ski ramp and a flight deck ranging from 195 metres to 204 metres in length, and validating the simulation model for flight performance within ship-motion limits, validating the flight controls’ strategy with all-up weight and asymmetric loading, validating the load analysis methodology), and flight-tests/flight certification for aircraft carrier-based flight operations. The SBTF also has its integral flight-test centre equipped with line-of-sight telemetry/high-speed three-axis photogrammetric systems, systems for validating thrust measurement algorithms, systems for measuring wind-flow patterns, INS/DGPS-based trajectory measurement systems, RGS integration facility, plus a workshop.
To date, the LCA Navy Mk.1 has demonstrated the following IN-specific technologies while operating from the SBTF: supersonic flight; takeoffs from the Ski-Jump was successfully demonstrated, including 12 Ski-Jumps when armed with R-73E SRAAMs missiles, plus night-time Ski Jumps; hot-refuelling; flying of 3-hour duration achieved in one sortie; in-flight jettisoning; Integration of AHS with the NP-2 airframe; and the development of a weight-optimised telescopic landing gear for high sink-rate landing with the help of consultancy from Airbus Military. In addition, a naval standard Structural Test Specimen (STS) has been built and integrated with the Main Airframe Structural Test (MAST) rig to test horizontal and vertical loads during a deck recovery, including 7.1 metre/ssecond sink rate and a 45-tonne load on an arrester wire. Compared to the Tejas Mk1, the LCA (Navy) Mk1/NP-2 is a technology demonstrator that features a drooped nose section, strengthened airframe structure, twin leading-edge vortex control surfaces or LEVCONS (for attaining lower approach speeds), main landing gear with higher sink-rate, increased internal fuel capacity, a Navy-specific avionics suite (including the locally developed autopilot and auto-throttle) and weapons package, and an arrester hook. The NP-2 is now being subjected to a carrier-based flight-test regime on board INS Vikramaditya, where seaborne wind conditions winds-on-deck envelopes (especially ship motion, cross-winds and high wind-on-deck speeds) are far more favourable than those around the SBTF. Integration with carrier-based support and weaponisation facilities, plus jettisioning of ventral stores, thrust data validation, and attaining hands-free and non-disorienting takeoff with supplied HUD symbology formats and high AoA are being demonstrated and validated in this phase of flight-tests. Incidentally, since the IN is involved for the very first time in its history with developing a carrier-based MRCA, it is resigned to the possibility of the NP-2 technology demonstrator ‘breaking up’ while in the process of subjecting the aircrafts’ main landing gears to arrested recoveries at sea. It must be noted here that the undercarriages of carrier-based aircraft collapse or break-up is not due to compression, but due to suspension.
Of utmost importance during the Carrier Compatibility Trials (CCT) are the data-points to be obtained for validating the flight-control logic during the NP-2’s carrier-borne flight operations. This in turn will help in the optimisation of the flight-control logic by the National Control Law Team (that comprises talents from FMCD, ADA, CAIR, and HAL and operating from the premises of NAL’s Flight Mechanics & Control Division, or FMCD). Data-points pertaining to boundary-limiting, automatic low-speed recovery, carefree manoeuvring, autopilot functionality (that supports hands-free takeoff mode , altitude and flight path select & hold mode, as well as auto level off features with both horizontal and vertical navigation modes) will be the most crucial. In addition, the service-life of the Arrestor Hook System (AHS)—designed and built by HAL’s Aircraft Research & Design Centre (ARDC)—too will be determined during the ongoing CCT. After having verified in-air operation of the AHS in Bengaluru on July 23, 2018, NP-2 fitted with the AHS has been operating from INS Hansa Goa, since July 28, 2018.
Due to limited area in deck landing zone and the demand for bolting and go-around, carrier-based MRCAs usually land on deck via impact method under high sinking speed and high engaging speed along a fixed glide-path angle. The impact load, braking load of arresting cable, and other loads at the moment when the MRCA touches the flight-deck put forward higher requirements for design and analysis of landing gears and airframe structure, especially for the structures closely related to landing. Gas-oil leakage in the shock absorber of any carrier-based MRCA’s landing gear is a frequent and common failure, which can deteriorate the absorbing performance. Since shock absorber performance varies with different gas-oil ratio caused by gas-oil leakage, this will be another crucial area of data-point assessment. Since the NP-2’s nose landing gear is comprised of the shock strut, drag brace, launch bar and power unit, all these major structural elements will be subjected to gruelling usage in order to determine their maximum operating limits. Presently, the landing gear assemblies of all fourth-generation naval MRCAs are built from Aermet 100 high-strength non-stainless steel, which is known for its damage tolerance and resistance to crack growth. However, this alloy is highly susceptible to both corrosion and hydrogen embrittlement, which can lead to stress corrosion cracking (SSC). This sensitivity makes SSC the primary failure mechanism for landing gear—a failure that often causes significant collateral damage to the aircraft, even though the failure usually takes place while it is parked. As a result, a number of aircraft components, such as landing gears, require a costly cadmium coating process to protect against corrosion. Cadmium, a known carcinogen, represents significant environmental risks in both primary manufacture and at MRO facilities. Eliminating this coating process thus has a tremendous potential for reducing long-term maintenance costs and eliminating environmentally hazardous processes. The US Navy is now experimenting with Ferrium S53 steel that provides much greater resistance to general corrosion and to SCC; excellent resistance to fatigue and to corrosion fatigue; and high hardenability. Its resistance to general corrosion is similar to that of 440C stainless steel, but it has much greater fracture toughness.
Next, a US Navy Carrier Suitability Test Team will audit all the data-points obtained from the CCT and its experience in developing and maintaining carrier-borne MRCAs will be most useful, since the IN wants to replicate almost all those flight-safety-related features that are now finding their way on board all US Navy carrier-based MRCAs. One such feature is the US Navy’s latest Maritime Augmented Guidance with Integrated Controls for Carrier Approach and Recovery Precision Enabling Technologies (MAGIC CARPET), a software package that makes a carrier approach nearly as routine as a runway landing. The system works with the carrier-based aircraft’s autopilot to maintain the approach using ‘direct lift control’. In other words, once the pilot sets the glide angle of the approach, it becomes the ‘neutral’ setting for the controls. The autopilot then tracks the position of the flight-deck, adjusting the throttle, flaps, ailerons, and stabilisers to keep the flight path and AoA on point. Instead of maintaining continuous pressure on the stick and making myriad inputs before landing, the pilot can instead relax. Any adjustments he/she does make are incorporated into the autopilot settings. However, the system is not fully automated, and pilots remain in control. MAGIC CARPET just simplifies the descent. And because it augments existing flight-control systems, it does not require hardware modifications.  Pilots typically perform 300 corrections to their flight-path in the final 18 seconds of an approach. MAGIC CARPET drops that between 10 and 20. Beyond reducing stress, MAGIC CARPET also minimises the time and effort needed to train pilots for carrier deck landings, thereby allowing more time for tactical training. It also reduces the time and money spent on manoeuvring aircraft carriers into ideal landing positions. Lastly, the fewer aborted landings saves fuel, and fewer hard landings saves wear-and-tear on aircraft.
NLCA Timeline
July 6, 2010: The first NP-1 prototype is rolled out.
April 27 2012: NP-1 makes its maiden flight, nine years from the sanction of the programme.
2013: SBTF is built by Goa Shipyard Ltd along with the construction arm of DRDO CCER & D (W) Pune. Restraining Gear System (RGS) installation also successfully completed.
December 19, 2014: NP-1 takes off from the SBTF for the first time, piloted by the IN’s Chief Test Pilot Cmde Jaideep Maolankar of the National Flight Test Centre (NFTC). It was planned to have a minimum climb angle of 5.7 degrees for the first launch. However, there was an unexpected bonus in terms of excess performance and the actual minimum climb angle was in excess of 10 degrees. The AoA after ramp exit reached 21.6 degrees.
February 7, 2015: NP-2 prototype takes to the skies in Bengaluru, flown by Captain Shivnath Dahiya from the NFTC, who ensures that the 35-minute maiden sortie is smooth. NP-2 has been customised (plug & play) to incrementally accept modifications for landing aids like LEVCON Air Data Computer, Auto-Throttle, and internal/external AoA lights. NP-2 is the lead aircraft for AHS integration.
January 24, 2017: The IN releases a RFI for procurement of approximately 57 multi-role carrier-borne fighters (MRCBF) for its future aircraft carriers.
December 2, 2017: Then Chief of the Naval Staff Admiral Sunil Lanba states that the IN is scouting for another carrier operations-compatible MRCA besides the MiG-29K, since both the existing NLCA Mk.1 and the projected NLCA Mk.2 lack the payload required to be effective when operating from an aircraft carrier.
September 19, 2018: NP-1 takes off from the Ski-Jump and then makes an arrested landing at the SBTF in INS Hansa, Goa. The same day, NP-2 accomplishes the same feat.
October 19, 2019: At the Indian Defence & Aerospace Summit, Chief of the Naval Staff Admiral Karambir Singh reveals that the IN wants ADA to develop a Twin-Engine Deck-Based Fighter (TED-BF) with MTOW of 25 tonnes.

63 comments:

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

NLCA Arrested Recovery: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XU7L_6xPTgw

NLCA Ski-JumpTakeoff: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mipPEUtazvw

S Jaishankar at Raisina Dialogue 2020: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KufSx9RW-q0

Mohd Javad Zarif at Raisina Dialogue 2020: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yHIqnQHvrXY

Sergey Lavrov at Raisina Dialogue 2020: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O6F2cTmDIQo

Hamdullah Mohib at Raisina Dialogue 2020: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bUUaxeu1BC8

Latest on the Col Inam ur Rahim Case: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DymgeASaeqY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XHPtMwWDq_I

Vikram Sood Speaks: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hmP8D2mMp4

PoK Landslides Caused by Heavy Snowfall:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fmJjq1MWDF8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XAfkQXvfzFs

Rishi said...

Dear Sir

The Speed with which Pakistan is Adding JF 17s to its fleet , It has Made Very Difficult for IAF to Start
Bombing Targets like in POK or along
Working Boundary of Jammu Sector --
The places where the Next conflict will be fought

PAF will be able to Have BAR-CAPs
For 24/7 and simply fire their Cheap
SD 10s in multiple Salvos

Can we Punch Through PAF Defences

Jacob987 said...

Prasun K. Sengupta, so what's gonna be the future of Indian Navy? What are we going to see in this decade, provided everything moves smoothly...

just_curious said...

Prasun,

- your current article comes across as one which shows the ADA moving in the right direction albeit @slow pace. is the reading correct?
- is it possible to have an aircraft compatible for both stobar & catobar, if yes which ones are currently flying? Fa-18/rafale?
- MOD's interest in having HSL nominated for the dub programme... Why is the govt not working to take off this anomaly inspite of the private sector sending a letter to the PM.. fear of repercussions from the dpsu's? or vested interests



Kaustav said...

Prasunda,

Mr.Pravin Sawhney's analysis on Pakistan & China Nexus & strengths seems logical & gells to a large extent to what you have stated. India, with it's shortages does not have the luxury of a two front conflict, notwithstanding, what the present COAS said. My Queries -

1. Can India manage a border settlement with China today, when the gaps & negotiating strength between India & China is so much in China's favour than what it was in the 1970s or even 1980s? What can India bring to the negotiations or talks as a weaker power to settle the border issue even if Aksai Chin is given up as lost for good, while keeping what we have? India has also lost free access it's areas of cultural immportance / influence in Tibet eg.Kailas-Mansarovar or important riverwater sources & traditional trade relations in Tibet for good long ago.

Given this Nexus between our Northern & Western neighbours, can India ensure tranquil borders without loss of territory in the North & if possible engage in Military action with Pakistan? Seems a tall ask, unless ofcourse Pakistan is internally destabilised.

just_curious said...

Prasun,

- how do you think the Raisina dialogues helps India. First the Iranian ambassador now Iranian foreign minister spoke of wanting India to help out.. does it show India;s growing stature in the mid -east? Why was the russian foreign minister speaking for china when speaking about the 'Indo-Pacific' term. Are the russians now slowly moving towards an Russia- China axis which may harm India in the long run?

Ashish Gautam said...

Wow an informative and detailed thread.
Thank so much for this sort of basic as well as advanced information about our indigenous effort in field of naval aviation. Thank you sir.
1) in last lines u mentioned about TEDBF, can i understand this in other words?? Coz CNS said TEDBF but didn't specified generation, so can't it be done by HAL/ADA etc to develop AMCA as a naval fighter initially?? Just like Rafale... TEDBF 5th gen...
2) if they start developing AMCA now, with sufficient funding by govt, making it 30 tonne(MTOW) class naval stealth fighter with internal fuel capacity of at least 8000kg, weapon load of max 8000kg on 11-12 tonne weighing aircraft powered by two 125KN engine's... That would be best workable option i think. What u say??
3) is it not possible to include ISRO guys for developing 5th gen tech for TEDBF 5th gen like development of RAM, 5TH GEN IRST Sensors, radar with 240° coverage at least... They may be helpful in development of such technology at higher pace.... Your take??

Anonymous said...

Your answer on Adani bid in P75-I , now INC has issued a statement on cronyism !
What state is it ? Why do the these Secretaries try to over rule empowered committee ?
Hope that idiot is transferred to hell immediately .

Regards
Venky.

Aditya said...

Dear Prasun,

There is a chatter doing rounds on the internet that L&T is trying to develop an SPH based on the K9 Vajra T using ATAGS gun and K9 Thunder chassis along with Kalyani group & DRDO, can you confirm this..
Regards
Aditya

DAshu said...

Sir, this thread is like reading an applied Physics chapter.So clean and precise.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To RISHI: Why else do you think the IAF is procuring S-400 LR-SAMs?

To JUST_CURIOUS: How can it be seen as moving in the right direction when all its promises as of now about the MWF, TED-BF & AMCA are ALL too outlandish to be believed, especially in terms of project milestone attainment schedules? All naval MRCAs are both STOBAR-/CATOBAR-capable. Only difference is that when they take off from STOBAR flight-decks they do so with reduced internal fuel/reduced weapons payload combinations. No such restrictions are imposed when they operate from a CATOBAR flight-deck. As for P-75I irony, the ultimate IRONY is that while Russia had teamed up with HSL to do INS Sindhukirti’s mid-life refit, it has since then teamed up with L & T to do the mid-life refits of four Type-877EKM Kilo-class SSKs. Consequently, L & T will have no other choice but to poach skilled workforce from HSL. As a result, all skilled human resources that had any knowledge & skill about SSK construction will no longer be available at HSL. That’s why it is most bizarre why Adani wants to team up with HSL. The Almighty indeed works in mysterious ways!!!

Such dialogues promote regional & global understanding as well as display a country’s clout in hosting such events. Even city-states like Bahrain & Singapore have been hosting such dialogues since the 1990s, like the Shangri-La Dialogue & Manama Dialogue in cooperation with the UK-based IISS think-tank. Here are excerpts of yesterday’s sessions:

Gen Bipin Rawat: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CDcGlHembKk

Indo-Pacific Discussion: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-_3Rrqqvhg

Central Asia: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xa7CDn2BALI

SCO: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Py_galEawD8

Zamir Kabulov: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4x_90lx_Ss

To KAUSTAV: 1) China will never be able (even if it wants to) to settle the border dispute with India simply because, as I have stated before, it does not have any of the original treaties that were inked with the princely kingdoms of Sikkim or Bhutan or even the British Raj. All such documentation remains in the possession of Taiwan & are tucked away in hardened underground shelters buried deep underneath the Chiang Kai-Shek Memorial located in northern Taipei. And the inability to produce such documents by China tantamounts to the ultimate Chinese insult, i.e. loss of face.

But this is far more interesting:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/hisutton/2020/01/15/china-discovers-underwater-spy-drones-in-its-waters/#7877592d6990

Delhi's Indian Ocean Strategy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3dXTxunaLQY

New DG-ISPR Named: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hjacOAIZdDs

To ASHISH GAUTAM: The answers that you seek are all best told with quantifiable data, which I will upload above later today.

To ANUP: The reqmt for tracked SPHs has always been only for 120 units, not more. IN ordered only 2 NLCA prototypes only for technology demonstration purposes.

To ADITYA: LoLz! If it were to be a motorised version of ATAGS then I would have believed it. But tracked SPH using ATAGS components? It’s crazy since the work does not stop with developing just the tracked SPH. The automated ammo-loading vehicle also requires development, something which both DENEL & CVRDE failed to do in the late 1990s when the T-6/Bhim tracked SPH was developed. So don’t buy into the wishful thinkings of delusional fanboys.

Anonymous said...

Excellent article, easy to read and understand the trials & tribulations that go into trying to develop ones own capability. My hat off to those ladies and gents. WOW. We must never lose this capability to do our own thing.

I also must say the NCLA is a beauty. It looks majestic sitting on the deck.

What are the chances that TED-BF will actually be developed? If developed do you see its usage beyond the Navy? (it reminds me little bit of the Mirage 4000)

There are reports that by the end of the year 2020, PAF will have more than 26 JF-17Bs (+ couple of JF-17 IIIs). Are these Bs, all to be used for OCU?

RAT

SUJOY MAJUMDAR said...

Prasun Da,

(1) Russian Deputy Chief of Mission Roman Babushkin just announced that all S400 (5 systems) will be delivered to India by 2025. Deliveries will start from end of 2023, isn't it ?

(2) This ET report says India is going ahead with the purchase of the National Advanced Surface to Air Missile System from USA. Is this report true?

https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/defence/after-iran-uco-bank-may-be-chosen-to-pay-russia/articleshow/73317258.cms

Thanks

Ashish Gautam said...

Okkk sir, waiting for u to update thread with relevant information.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To ASHISH GAUTAM: Have fulfilled my promise & the latest uploads are above for your perusal. And do watch this was well:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZkniyYV0jcw&t=34s

To SUJOY MAJUMDAR: 1) Deliveries will begin in 2023 & last till 2025. 2) If NASAMS is to be procured, then it has to be a single-vendor contract for which a G-to-G agreement is necessary. But no such agreement exists, since the US Defence Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA) has not yet notified the US Congress of such an impending sale. Hence, all talk about NASASMS is still falling in the category of HOGWASH/BALONEY/FAKE NEWS.

To RAT: VMT. I have already uploaded above all data about the MWF, AMCA & TED-BF, which will give you the answers pertaining to the TED-BF. The JF-17B is an OCU aircraft & will therefore be used only for flight conversion. The JF-17A Blocvk-3's AESA-MMR has not yet been selected & the PAF is anxious to procure the Vixen 1000e AESA-MMR from Leonardo/Selex ES of Italy.

Ashish Gautam said...

Thanks sir.
98KN engine selected for MWF?? Wtf?? Are they idiots? This will remain underpowered aircraft...
In that pic in which u have mentioned various prototypes with various engines, in that u mentioned F414-EPE as MWF engine but in thread u mentioned In6 98KN engine, why so?? Ur mistake OR so called engineers of ADA are doing this blunder??
3) why these people always keep engine power low for aircrafts?? Look at AMCA 28 tonne aircraft with only 180KN engine thrust vs other's, they clearly have better T:W ratio except F35. Why so sir?? Shouldn't it be at least 250KN thrust with 2*125KN engine's, so that agr AMCA ka MTOW 30ton b ho jaye to engine would be able to manage it...
4) same is question for less internal fuel capacity, 3300kg for MWF n 6500kg for AMCA... Where as f35, f22 have above 8000kg... Why so?? Even if they can't increase fuel capacity to 4000kg for MWF, engine to at least 110KN ka laga de so that Mirage 2000 se better T:W ratio ho jayega n over all performance bhi achi hogi...
5) litrally sir i feel in logo se much better specs to mai bana k de dunga jispe they can develop aircraft.
6) 110KN ka engine banane k liye they r putting some clause in MMRCA 2.0 deal, uspe thoda bataiye kya scene hai. Mujhe to rolls Royce ka offer best lagta as snecma is quite costly n Americans k laws ka issue hai.
7) Vaise to better would be to go through equipping MWF with 110KN CLASS engine, better weapons, internal jammer etc n make it a good MMRCA rather then putting 15 billion $ in vilayti maal...
44 additional rafale's ka order de do, baki paisa MWF k liye rkho usko improve krlo... Rope in L&T etc for higher production speed.

AMIT BISWAS said...

Hiw do you read the recent challenge by states in SC about NIA act being unconstitutional as it infringes law and order being state subject

blackurrant said...

Hi Prasun,

Pravin Sawhney has gone bonkers. https://mobile.twitter.com/PravinSawhney/status/1218707596770594817

just_curious said...

Prasun,

- China has total disregard for India's concerns & it is bent on undermining India's core interests. there is no reason to feel that they may not rake up kashmir in the future. They are simply not bothered about the Indian concerns on CPEC.then its forays into india's economic zone in I-Ocean(They shouldn't have been allowed in I-Ocean in the first place).. what can be done to make them realize that there is a cost to be payed for isz transgressions. Why do we not call for an informal meet on the Ugyhirs or raise stakes on Taiwan . Time for India to show some spine.. about 60 countries congratulated the newly elected Taiwanise PM. Did we? if not its a shame.
- Read about Malaysian FM's possible meetup with his Indian counterpart @davos on palm oil. why entertain them? Infact the govt should discourage indian professionals/ Film & tourists from visiting that country ditto on turkey

VIKRAM GUHA said...

PrasunDa,

Was reading this article in CLAWS where the writer says

Many friendly foreign countries, namely, Israel, russia, Uk, Usa, France, Vietnam, Thailand, Uae, Myanmar, the Philippines, Malaysia, Brunei, singapore,
sri Lanka, nigeria, Turkey, afghanistan, Maldives, certain african and Central asian countries have, in the past, expressed interest in various complete systems as
well as certain assemblies, sub-assemblies and components manufactured in India.


Is this true? Even US, Israel, Russia expressed interest in importing certain assemblies, sub-assemblies and components manufactured in India?

https://www.claws.in/publication/indias-defence-exports-status-strategy-and-solution/

Thank You

Defense and Aerospace said...

Hi Prasun,

The 21 Mig 29s that IAF intends to purchase are old Soviet era aircraft. Not the Mig 29M/M2. They are not even fly-by-wire aircraft.

I get it that IAF's fleet level is decreasing fast. But why purchase such obsolete aircraft?

asd said...

Dear Prasun,

Any update about Super Sukhoi project? It's also going in snail pace.

Anonymous said...

ADA states they will deliver twin engine fighter for navy by 2026 (first flight)

Will this be STOBAR or CATOBAR capable ?
The STOBAR itself took 8 years after first flight of NLCA.

Can ADA not tie up with US & test NLCA for CATOBAR ? It will be a big 6-7 year project at its best, maybe more.

If TED-BF is not CATOBAR capable, might as well not start it ?

Regards
Venky

Anonymous said...

What happened to IOC & FOC of

1. HTT-40 :some engine issues were pending, is it holding up certification ?
2. LUH : Indian armed forces have waiting for Long, what is holding this up ?
3. LCH : any progress. ?

Are all parties waiting for def expo to make announcement ?

Regards
Venky

asd said...

Dear Prasun,

There's news about finalization of Kamov helicopters. Is it true?

Parthasarathi said...

Dada,
Why this Ka 235 will be so costly to.make ? 4 billon for 200 specimen is exorbitantly high price ! Your comment please.
Best regards,

AMIT BISWAS said...

https://twitter.com/RupprechtDeino/status/1219310791771533317?s=20

PAF is slowly and steadily converting JF 17 as a potent platform

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To ASHISH GAUTAM: 1) ADA claims that it can achieve weight reduction by reducing the number of avionics LRUs from the existing no of 350, which will produce weight savings & hence 98kN thrust will suffice. 3) A lot of the AMCA-related data are mere estimations now. 4) If the no of avionics LRUs can be reduced on the MWF, then this will also create some internal volume for additional fuel tanks. 5) Now a new ‘nautanki’ has been set in motion:

https://m.tribuneindia.com/news/csir-drdo-to-join-hands-to-develop-saras-engine-26803

To BLACKURRANT: All of Delhi has gone bonkers, including Dr V k saraswat.

To ANUP: Unless & until official statements are made or images released by PIB or DRDO, don’t believe such news-reports.

To VIKRAM GUHA: In bureaucratic jargon, this means the buy-back arrangements under the direct offsets commitments of various foreign OEMs. They do not pertain to any India-designed product or component.

To DEFENSE&AEROSPACE: So were the MiG-29B-12s originally procured by India. But just as they are being upgraded to UPG standard, so will those MiG-29s now awaiting purchase by India & all of them will be upgraded to ‘SMT’ standard, but with IAF-specific enhancements.

To ASD: None at all.

To VENKY: Since the TED-BF is being sought for IAC-2, it will be CATOBAR-capable only as far as its projecvted performance parameters go. But it must be noted that no one in India has the capacity for concurrently developing two different types of twin-engined MRCA, i.e. the TED-BF & AMCA projects can’t proceed together.

To PARTHASARATHY: Any platform that is of imported origin will always be far more expensive to licence-built in any other place or facility that does not belong to that platform’s OEM.

Harsh said...

Sir, Is it true that the original long term requirement of Pinaka MBRL has been reduced from 22 regiments to 10 regiments by BJP govt?

Defense and Aerospace said...

Prasun Sir

Even the Mig 29s that will be upgraded as per the requirements of the IAF will still be beset with the same problems that Mig 29s suffer from - small range, small payload, lack of AESA radar. Airframe can't be upgraded because they are purchasing old Mig 29s in any case.Even Mig 35 doesn't have a AESA radar yet. Instead IAF could have used the money to procure more LCAs and Super Sukhoi.

Wouldn't that make more sense? Thanks Prasun Sir

Ashish Gautam said...

Theek hai sir. Agr MWF ka weight 7 ton k as pas a jata hai to fir 98KN would be sufficient i think. N yeah internal fuel capacity bhi 3500kg+ ho jani chye fir, baki time bataega kya hota hai on ground.
2) Hmm AMCA has fully tentative specs. Hope they learn from westerners in terms of fuel capacity, t:w ratio etc.
3) ain't it possible to make AMCA n TEDBF as 1 platform, i mean developing AMCA as a naval stealth fighter??
4) possibility of putting MAWS on MiG 29 upgraded during its radar upgrade to AESA level?? And yes making IAF version cockpit equivalent to naval one or Tejas SPORT kinda? Will it happen?
5) he replied to me this...
Bass tilt?? Meaning?
https://twitter.com/SandeepUnnithan/status/1218937074729902086?s=19
6) i agree with him regarding allowing ofb to put ak630 ciws version for CIWS tender... It will save cost n give ofb work too... Vaise ye ciws n akash Sam hota us location pe installed to Feb 27 vali dare PAF krti nahi..
7) btw what your exp says, MWF ka weight kitna reduce kr payenge ye log 7.7 tonne se? Lru etc ko ksm krke...
8) i asked a question to admiral arun prakash, he didn't responded, u may respond if possible...
https://twitter.com/ayush_gtm/status/1217482022613946368?s=19
https://twitter.com/ayush_gtm/status/1217482707694809088?s=19
9) ain't it not possible to develop small scale petrol engine powered tracked n armed robotic system which can do patrolling on our various borders?? This may reduce load on jawans for doing patrolling during scorching summers, harsh winters n improve over all patrolling too...what u say?? We can IR, daylight n night vision camera's on such robots... How effective are they on ground ??
Thanks

Anonymous said...

Do you think it is a better idea to first develop “traditional” 2 engine fighter bomber (gen 4+ ?) and then for AMCA.
Maybe this can use the technologies like stealth air inlets, electronic warfare etc developed so far .
This should be a good replacement for jaguar , mirage2000 etc. Also possibly be wired for nukes.
Technologies like sensor fusion, RAM coating etc can first be developed & tried on this platform.

Regards
Venky

VIKRAM GUHA said...

PrasunDa,

MoD has selected Mazagon Docks and L&T for Project 75I. They have 4 manufacturers to choose from - French Naval Group `Scorpene’; Russian Rubin Design Bureau `Amur 1650’; German Thyssenkrupp `Type 214’, Spanish Navantia `S80’ and South Korea’s DSME.

Since Mazagon is already building the P 75 they will probably go with Naval Group provided they opt for DRDO's AIP.

And if L&T wins then they will probably go with Thyssenkrupp since HDW subs are already being operated by Indian Navy.

Spain and South Korea probably doesn't have a chance.

Just my ramblings, you'll have better insights.

https://www.financialexpress.com/defence/p75i-race-to-build-six-new-conventional-submarines-adani-group-out-mdl-and-lt-in-the-hunt/1830815/

Thanks,

VIKRAM

Ayush said...

Prasun Da, Trump might visit Pakistan along with India. Hope this is not true. The Print peddles bullshit most of the times. twitter.com/MichaelKugelman/status//1218955427658063872

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To HARSH: Yes, it is true. After all, why raise additional new regiments when existing regiments equipped with BM-21 Grad MBRLs can be re-equipped with Pinaka MBRLs? Why should 40km-range MBRLs be used when 75km-range MBRLs are available?

To DEFENCEANDAEROSPACE: If MiG-29UPGs don’t suffer from the deficiencies of the MiG-29B, then why are you ASSUMING that both upgraded & non-upgraded MiG-29s suffer from the same problems? If the airframe can’t be upgraded then how come the IAF’s upgraded MiG-29UPGs have new mission avionics & inflight refuelling probes & fly-by-wire flight-controls? Hence, for starters, to get acquainted with what the MiG-29UPG is all about, do watch these:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=22dBBlFKcWk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gH9fy5Znsws

To VENKY: have already replied to that in the above-mentioned comment.

To VIKRAM GUHA: If L & T has teamed up with Russia’s United Shipbuilding Corp JSC & MDSL has teamed up with Frence’s NAVAL Group & only these two shipyards have been shortisted for building six SSKs under project 75I, then which are the shipyards that have teamed up with OEMs from South Korea, Spain & Germany? It seems none. So, only OEMs from France & Russia have been shortlisted with their SSK designs, right? So why are all kinds of rumours being spread by the ‘desi patrakaars’ about Thyssenkrupp, Navantia & DSME participating in the competitive bidding process? Isn’t this therefore a thorough mockery of the so-called SP formula, according to which both the Indian shipyards & their pre-selected foreign industrial partner-OEMs are already shortlisted while other competing offers from other OEMs are not shortlisted? That’s precisely why I had earlier stated that the entire methodology of deriving the SP formula defies logic & sound common-sense.

To AYUSH: What’s wrong if POTUS visits all 3 countries in succession? How will it damage India?

To JUST_CURIOUS: https://theprint.in/opinion/china-stand-on-kashmir-not-surprising-modi-denying-global-reality-is/352010/

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To ASHISH GAUTAM: 3) Firstly, apart from the US with its F/A-22 Raptor & F-35 Lightning JSF, no one else in the world really has the demonstrable intellectual or technological capability to develop low-observable MRCAs with supersonic cruise & supermanoeuvrabilty. Consequently, claims by any institution in India about its ability to develop a Gen-5 stealthy M-MRCA or even L-MRCA are only LAUGHABLE, period. The reason I had given the breakdown of the no of flyable LCAs built (14) for R & D over an 18-year period was to prove that development of any all-new-design MRCA like the TED-BF will take a similar amount of time & effort, since there is ZERO experience of developing such a platform in India. Designing can be done by CAD within 8 months, but converting it into a functional, certified & weaponised end-product is an altogether different matter/challenge, meaning developing either the TED-BF or AMCA will take at least 18 years of work in India. Coming to the MWF, it will require 2,500 hours of flight-tests involving no less than 6 flying prototypes, since the flight-control laws & agility metrics of the FBW-FCS & the overall airframe that includes canards, will consume a fair bit of time, i.e. 8 years at the very least. 4) Pylon-mounted MAWS suite is available even now from Denmark’s TERMA for any existing IAF MRCA. 5) Terms like ‘Bass Tilt’ etc are NATO codenames for weapons of Soviet/Warsaw Pact/Russia-origin. Both ‘desi patrakaars’ & several IN veterans are yet to come to terms with using Russia-origin model designations & they shamelessly continue to use NATO codenames, like the MR-123 FCS being referred to as ‘Bass Tilt’, or Project 1135.6 FFGs being called ‘Improved Krivaks’, etc etc.

Vympel MR-123 FCR: https://www.flickr.com/photos/yasu_osugi/11730241464

As for developing a ‘desi’ CIWS, I had already explained 4 years ago how to go about it here:

https://trishul-trident.blogspot.com/2016/10/gloves-are-finally-off-against-those.html

For base air defence, a truck-mounted solution can well be developed by making use of the OFB-built AK-630M cannon that makes use of the BEL-built Lynx UX multi-sensor fire-control system.

https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-aARwAMc00II/WBKNI3aU8FI/AAAAAAAAL2k/wzLL30oIV3owQCFL01s_730af3BEmNsyACLcB/s1600/AK-630M%2BAAA.jpg

For the ‘desi’ FCR, MR-123 isn’t reqd at all, instead the following can be used:

https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-u0Y9LGlKZfk/WBKNRis7B0I/AAAAAAAAL2o/HpF1D81K7gEsrdzKtRXRtru2F0XsOYgAQCLcB/s1600/Lynx%2BUX%2Bmulti-sensor%2BFCS.jpg

https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-9zzzKh41PE8/XPAhujnxSKI/AAAAAAAARTc/qTGPMDj0Ef4gm9CTxoWKc6kKctm8qAPdACLcBGAs/s1600/Atulya%2BADFCR%2Bfor%2BIA%2BAAA%2BRegiments.jpg

6) The ‘desi patrakaars’ are the last persons to daydream about ‘desi’ weapon systems since none of them have any respect for the laws of physics & mathematics. 8) Vessles like LCS are reqd for operating a littoral areas like Persian Gulf, Red Sea, Black Sea, etc etc. In India’s case, no such littoral areas exist except for the Gulf of Khambat, for which SW-ASW vessels are being procured. 9) Why have ground-operating robots when mini-UAVs can do the same job over much greater distances?

DAshu said...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-L7ImMeTefg
After hearing this Mr. Pravin Sawhney must be looking down at that "senior diplomat".

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To DASHU: As they saying goes, there's the reality & there's the perception of reality. For Pakistan, the narrative has always been a self-righteous one of having the cake & eating it as well. And hence the consequent state of denial prevails. For instance, Pakistan will never go public with the fact that it is China that wants CPEC to remain an all-China affair, with no other investments from any othet foreign quarter. Similarly, it is pakistan that has consistently violated all UNSC regulations on J & K since 1948 & even gifted the Trans-Korakoram Tract inclusive of the Shaksgam Valley to China back in 1963. But the ultimate reality that has now begun to sink in is Iran's declaration of intending to quit the NPT. And when Iran gets confronted on this issue, Teheran will say in the not-too-distant future that it cannot foresake the nuclear WMD option unless & until it has a Sunni-dominated Muslim neighbour (i.e. Pakistan) in possession of such nuclear WMDs. Hence, Iran will demand a nuclear WMD-free zone for securing its national interests, & this zone will of course include Pakistan. This in turn will pile up enormous pressure on both China & Pakistan, especially from the combine of Russia, Iran, Afghanistan, India & of course the US. And of course for the US this translates into an opportunity for denuclearising Pakistam by any & all means, thereby ushering in a stable balance-of-power in the Middle East region, which is what Iran desires as well. This is a prediction & not a prophecy. So look out matters to unfold further on this issue in the times ahead.

Pavan said...

Dear Prasun,
https://www.dnaindia.com/india/report-155-mm-sharang-gun-with-range-of-39-kms-successfully-test-fired-to-be-inducted-into-army-by-march-2810310

This upgrade was old news. But what I want to know is what are they really upgrading? The gun barrel 130 to 155mm? What will be the material? Similar to the old barrel? The weight will no longer be equivalent, so will they even change the wheels, suspension?

If one changes so many things, is it really cheaper than buying a new 155mm gun?

Are there similar instances like the above upgrade anywhere else in the world?

Ayush said...

No problem with Afghanistan sir but Pakistan. We as a country are against hyphenation of India with Pakistan. In the past also we have opposed heads of states/govt visiting India and Pakistan together in succession. If Trump wants to come then it should be a standalone visit.

just_curious said...

Prasun,

- you mention about usng AK 630 gun for mounted air defence .. which all other existing products from OFB/other dpsu's portfolio cud be recycled/repurposed/used innovatively .. I recollect you mentioning 68mm rockets
- your reply to my previous queries on Chinese behaviour implies that this was to be expected.. Then realistically we should respond in kind ...

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To PAVAN: Only the barrel is being changed & the Dhanush-45’s 155mm/45-cal barrel is being added. Everything stays the same. The gun-cradle & suspensions & shock-absorbers are extremely sturdy & can easily interface with the new barrel.

To AYUSH: The POTUS himself clarified that if he wants to go to Pakistan, it will be a standalone visit & will not ber a regional tour. Here’s the confirmation:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VHkTBoEoRps

To JUST_CURIOUS: Here’s an excellent documentary on the Rafale MMRCA’s developmental history:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xYwGbt9J6k4

And India Further Tightens The Screws On Malaysia:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gfgald7VIf4

Black box said...

Hi Prasun,
What’s your view on Subramanya Swamy’s economic ideas is he really good in doing what he says?
And will his plans work in economic turnaround.
Thanks

VIKRAM GUHA said...

Prasun Da,

In case of Indian Aircraft Carriers can the Longer Flight Deck be converted into CATOBAR by using technologies like EMALS or something similar?

Shorter Flight deck obviously can't because of the ski jump.

Thank You

Anonymous said...

Dear Sir,

It seems USA and China are both fighting over Pakistan. They as we know are very adapt at leveraging this to their advantage. By the end today, they could be off the FATF grey-list. How long before USA starts to fund their military again? In your opinion, are Pakiland stronger today than it was 15 years? What options do we have of reducing their influence in the region?

RAT

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To VIKRAM GUHA: No, such a modification cannot be done since it requires extensibve below-deck changes to install the E-MALS system. As a rule, CATOBAR flight-decks can be converted to STOBAR ones, but not the other way around.

To RAT: Neither is Pakistan getting off the grey-list of FATF, nor is the US anxious to make Pakistan a most-favoured non-NATO ally. Instead, Pakistamn will remain in the grey-list of FATF for the next 5 years at the very minimum, since the 3 key reqmts of FATF will take Pakistan that long to fulfil. To understand what these 3 reqmts are, do watch & absorb this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PH8X60cqQS8&t=38s

Those in the know of reality in Pakistan already know all this & hemnce they are now just worried about whether Pakistan gets admitted into the black-list of FATF, & not on the white-list as many Pakistan are led to believe. Do watch & absorb what such knowledgeable Pakistanis have to say:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-L7ImMeTefg&t=2s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Diktt29tz3Y

Keeping Pakistan into the grey-list of FATF suits China just fine, since this will make China’s Pakistan’s sole foreign investor & keep all other foreign investors away & help in the speedier transformation of Pakistan as an eternal beholden colony of China. And to prepare fpr that & commence the setting up of massive gated communities for housing the lakhs of Chinese citizens inside Pakistan, China’s Interior Minister will soon visit Pakistan to finalise such matters. Here’s the report on this issue:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lfikOuIAse8

After 1971, Pakistan’s armed forces have lost all the courage reqd to engage their Indian counterparts in sustained full-contact battles & therefore the former will always seek to avoid such direvt military clashes. However, Pakistan since the early 1990s has consistently scored above india in terms of having higher poverty-levels, much greater mis-governance, steadily shrinking literacy rates & far greater corruption.

Parthasarathi said...

Dada,
What torpedo Arihant is using now ?
Best regard

Defense and Aerospace said...

Hi Prasun, after competitive tender DRDO chooses Israeli firm CONTROP's iSea-50HD EO/IR sensor payload for UAS programs including the Tapas/Rustom II MALE drone.

1)Isn't it the same sensor-suite that is fitted onto the Heron TP drone which has a history of crashing, owing to faulty data communication ?


https://www.edrmagazine.eu/controp-wins-prestigious-indian-drdo-tender-for-the-supply-of-its-isky-50hd-systems

2) Why isn't DRDO being able to develop these payloads themselves? What capabilities are they lacking?

VIKRAM GUHA said...

PrasunDa,

What a shame that despite knowing fully well the shortcomings of a STOBAR configuration, Indian Navy opted for this configuration in IAC 1. Mediocrity all around.

For instance, in the 80s HDW transferred Type 209 submarine tech to India and South Korea. South Korea not only made these subs much faster than India, they also improved the tech to design their next generation of submarines.

Today South Korea is allowing Indonesia to licence build Alugoro-405 submarines and also offering submarines to India. India on the other hand is still importing subs from Europe.

Thank You

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To PARTHASARATHI: These are used:

https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-zf92QlJ-WG4/V3V1FjS-QnI/AAAAAAAALMs/idIMpeUi8IQ-vCgzfN3M8qw0sOTeP5n3QCLcB/s1600/TEST-71MKE%2BHWT.jpg

https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Ac-nWGvfC0I/V3V1Awamp_I/AAAAAAAALMk/9F0VBGoD2HgbVR3FfvxMwAUtJ7Q6NV_bgCLcB/s1600/TEST-71ME-NK%2BHWT.jpg

And here’s the new-generation Gabriel-V ASCM from IAI/RAFAEL:

https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2019/12/finnish-navy-lifts-veil-on-its-future-anti-ship-missile-the-gabriel-v/

To DEFENSEANDAEROSPACE: Of course they can be developed & built in India, like VEM Technologies is doing after teaming up with Lockheed Martin. But why are such products not developed? Because of the govt’s emphasis on import substitution & not on export promotion. In case of the former, the reqmt is only for fulfilling domestic reqmts, whereas in case of the latter, the reqmt is for both meeting domestic reqmts & having export potential. For instance, since the Akash-1 E-SHORADS was meant for replacing the Kub/Kvadrat/Pechora SAMs, the end-product was not developed as a vertically-launched, cannister-encased SAM. If the objective was to have an exportable SAM, then the Akash-1 would have been engineered to compete with its contemporary peers in the global export market.

To VIKRAM GUHA: The choice of the STOBAR carrier design was dictated by the choice of carrier-borne MRCA available at that time, i.e. the MiG-29K. There was just no other option then. The option would have existed had the IAC-1/Project 71 design possessed a CATOBAR flight-deck like the French aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle. In that case, India could have opted for the Rafale-M as the carrier-borne MRCA for IAC-1, while the IAF could then have opted for 40 Rafales as per the offer made then by the French Govt & in that case the Mirage-2000s of the IAF would not have reqd any deep upgrade, thereby saving valuable financial resources.

Anonymous said...

https://theprint.in/national-interest/the-world-has-a-message-for-modi-brand-india-is-severely-damaged/354291/

Is this biased fake report

https://www.newsnation.in/india/news/breaking-niti-aayog-vk-saraswat-internet-ban-jammu-and-kashmir-251357.html

Ron

VIKRAM GUHA said...

PrasunDa,

A few questions about P75I

1 As far as P75I is concerned the most cost effective option will be to design more Scorpene subs with AIP, isn't it?

2 For P75I can more HDW submarines with AIP be designed because Indian Navy already operates HDW and has an eco system for it?

3 Is it possible that the order for P75I will be split between Mazagon Docks and L&T just like what is being done for Project 17A?

4 Even if contract discussion with foreign vendors for P75I starts this year it will take at leat 3-4 years before the deal is signed, right?

Thank You

Manas said...

As the LCA is going to come in driblets IAF should go in for emergency purchase of four Mirage 20005 second hand planes

Chetan Sinha said...

Prasun, the Fleet Support Ships (FSS) contract awarded to Turkey has been cancelled. Will Government of India re launch the tender or do they already have a foreign vendor in mind who will be awarded this contract?

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

Just as I had predicted, the CORONAVIRUS is nothing but a biological weapon that has now escaped from Wuhan:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-7922379/Chinas-lab-studying-SARS-Ebola-Wuhan-outbreaks-center.html

Bill Gates predicts that up to 110 million can die from this virus inside China. This is truly becoming China's Chernobyl moment!!!

Meanwhile, here's the Sharang upgunned 155mm/45-cal towed howitzer:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQMKQv2Vhis
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_J-A3J2Oxxc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XU86vT0NOwg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DRlRN5yA42g
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cNkRqzRHl50
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lODxlOkehjY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mD0GRqqFy1c

OFB has a contract for delivering 300 such upgunned M-46 howitzers, starting with the initial tranche of 180.

And two interesting reports:

https://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Irans-Reserve-of-Last-Resort.pdf

https://www.foi.se/rest-api/report/FOI-R--4758--SE

To RON: Several other ongoing events in the world will make such news-reports & assessments totally irrelevant.

To MANAS: Tjere aren't any such aircraft available & hence going for additional MiG-29UPGs is the only viable/practical option.

To CHETAN SINHA: No such contract was awarded. Only RFIs were issued & not even a single RFP was ever issued for this project. Therefore, the question of contract cancellation does not even arise.

To VIKRAM GUHA: 1) Yes. 2) Why should licenced-construction of Class 209/Type 1500 SSKs re-commence when the Scorpene SSK is already being built? 3) Only if the order is for 12 units. Otherwise, it will be an uneconomical venture. By splitting the construction of 7 P-17A FFGs between 2 Indian shipyards, the per-unit cost of each P-17A FFG will go through the roof & this will be revealed in a future audit conducted by the CAG, rest assured. 4) Not quite, negotiations can be wrapped up within 16 months.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

Sharang Towed Howitzer, OFB-developed 7.62 x 51mm belt-fed LMG & JVPC Entering Series-Production:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lEKp4k5Z4Zc

RDP-2020 Weapons Displays: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hjnXuSeC3v4

VIKRAM GUHA said...

PrasunDa,

Last year you had highlighted the MAREEM AIP developed by DRDO. The last two Scorpene subs - INS Vagir,INS Vagsheer have not yet been launched.

1 Will these 2 subs be fitted with the MAREEM AIP?

2 If these last 2 subs are fitted with the MAREEM AIP it means they will be no different from the P75 I subs. Isn't it?

Thanks

Ashish Gautam said...

Happy republic day sir. Jai hind. Jai bharat.

Senthil Kumar said...

Dear Prasun,

https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/billionaire-george-soros-at-davos-most-frightening-setback-in-india-2168892

Why Suddenly George Soros jumping into Indian Politics.

Being a Jew I am thinking that he is a supporter of BJP/RSS camp. Why suddenly he started talking against Modi.

Is there any International Conspiracy working to topple Modi Government.

He destroyed so many governments in many countries.

Please comments.

Regards
Senthil Kumar

Defense and Aerospace said...

Prasun Sir, the five catamaran survey vessels, training frigate, five Naval Offshore Patrol Vessels have not been delivered because the Pvt shipyards that won those contracts went bankrupt.

So what is the status of these projects? Will Central Government hand over these contacts to government owned shipyards ?

asd said...

Dear Prasun,

I'm going to ask you an out of syllabus question if you don't mind. If you look at the eminent institutions in west Bengal, you will find that it is full of Bengali only. You can visit the profiles of Professors and scholars. Similar is the case with ISI Kolkata. Also if a Bengali is a director, he will definitely hire a Bengali only.

Don't you think that such partililty kills the growth of any institutions? How to deal with this?

Rajesh Mishra said...

You must be correct again. The Corona has spread in Wuhan through unassuming asymptotic persons.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To VIKRAM GUHA: Even though the 5th & 6th CM-2000 Scorpene SSKs have not been launched, their hull compartment modules have already been constructed, since SSK hulls are series-produced just like automobiles are. Hence, there cannot be any structural modifications on any part of a series-production batch of SSKs. That’s why when the MAREEM AIP module is added to the first CM-2000 Scorpene during its mid-life refit, all other remaining SSKs too will be reqd to be equipped with the same AIP module during their respective mid-life refits.

To SENTHIL KUMAR: Don’t worry, for his remarks/observations are inconsequential.

To DEFENSEANDAEROSPACE: Only private-sector shipyards like L & T Kattupali can take over such projects & deliver the end-products ahead of schedule.

To ASD: Have you considered the prospect of no non-Bengali academician willing to take up such jobs in WB due to non-attraction? For instance, most UPSC civil servants do not like to opt for serving in WB.