[Vkap257]

Originally Posted by Gansan

^^ F21 and Gripen were already rejected. Pak has F16 and we won't touch anything they have. F21 is the same jet in a different garb. Gripen is nothing but Tejas, more or less. Both even use the same engine. The real contest will be between the F15, F18 and Rafale, if the deal is still on. Better to go for the Rafale for the airforce and F18 for the navy, to satisfy uncle Sam. If necessary some more Poseidon and Sea hawk needs can be "identified" to placate them, perhaps.

Regarding the Gripen, the name of the game here sir is ‘sensor fusion and BVR’. The Gripen is an excellent aircraft at its given price point and running cost. It however cannot be compared to the Tejas as Tejas is very much a lesser capable aircraft in its current form. Even the formidable Tejas mk2 is only 80% of what Gripen can offer, albeit it comes with a huge advantage of local production and subsequent economic benefits. Gripen has edge over our domestic jet in form of crucial sensor fusion and therefore better pilot awareness in combat, as well as the venerable meteor missile.

You are right in dismissing the F15ex as not suitable for our needs as we already operate the mighty SU30 MKI as a bomb truck.

A highly, highly recommended and hugely entertaining insight into global military industry and its effects and players is described in the below attached youtube video. It also takes up HAL Tejas as a case study.

https://youtu.be/7Z_gTGJc7nQ

[sagarpadaki]

Originally Posted by Gansan

Better to go for the Rafale for the airforce and F18 for the navy, to satisfy uncle Sam. If necessary some more Poseidon and Sea hawk needs can be "identified" to placate them, perhaps.

This would be the ideal combination for the armed forces and a win win for the diplomacy as well. FA-18 would be best suited for the new INS Vikrant. Anyway, from whatever I have heard, the navy is not so happy with the MiG29K in terms of the support form Russia.

[skanchan95]

Originally Posted by dragracer567

I wonder if the LUH and the LCH will be christened with a name (like Dhruv and Rudra) or if they will continue to be known through their development acronyms.

The LCA was named the Tejas by the then PM A B Vajpayee in a grand ceremony. The ALH (which was named Dhruv) and ALH-WSI (named Rudra) did not get such naming ceremonies. Don't expect the LCH to get a naming ceremony but hopefully it will get a name like the ALH & ALH-WSI did.

Originally Posted by dragracer567

Indian aviation certainly has the most beautiful names - Dhruv, Rudra, Tejas, Marut etc. Even the imported ones have beautiful names like the Mig-29 “Baaz”, Mig-25 “Garuda”, Mi-35 “Akbar” (though the recent ones like Su-30 and Rafale didn’t get these names for some reason).

Yes, and the Indian names for imported/license built aircraft really sound cool. That practice began with the Ouragan and probably ended with the Mirage 2000.

Dassault Ouragan - Toofani
Type 77 MiG-21FL - Trishul
Type 96/96B MiG-21M/MF - Badal
Type 75 MiG-21bis - Vikram (21UPG named Bison, and rumour has it that it was probably the idea of a quick thinking officer during the Upgrade - Son of a Bis!, hence Bison)
MiG-23MF - Rakshak
MiG-23BN - Vijay
MiG-25R/RU - Garuda
MiG-27M - Bahadur
MiG-29B/UB - Baaz (Incidentally the Israelis call their F-15A/B/C/Ds as Baaz as well & have an local name for each aircraft type they operate)
Jaguar IS/IB/IM - Shamsher
Mirage 2000H/TH - Vajra
Mi-8 - Rana
Mi-17 - Pratap
Mi-25/35 - Akbar
IL-76MD - Gajraj
An-32 - Sutlej

[mpksuhas]

Often, when going over some writeup of events from history, I often wonder when some insignificant matter, happening at some far away land has huge impact on some place many years later in manner which those taking those decisions then may not have thought in their wildest dream.

Something like that is what lack of home grown engine in Indian jets currently can be attributed (atleast partly to) a decision by Egypt to drop their fighter program some 50 years back.

Earlier that morning—5 June 1967—the Egyptian air force had been shot out of the sky..

From the Factory 36 building, Indian Air Force officer Group Captain Kapil Bhargava watched the carnage unfold. Together with technicians from Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL), Group Captain Bhargava had been at the heart of Egypt’s efforts to develop the indigenous German-designed Helwan HA300 combat jet—co-funded by India, which hoped the Brandner E-300 engine could also be used on its own supersonic HF-24 Marut.

The Egypt-India jet production dream was killed that morning, by the Israeli Air Force. Egyptian President Gamal Abdul Nasser decided his military had enough of domestic technology acquisition and turned to Soviet imports.

and some interesting points from the same article

The story centers around the legendary aircraft engineer Kurt Tank—the designer of Nazi Germany’s feared Focke-Wulf 190 fighter, and the Focke-Wulf 200 long-range transport. Following World War II, Tank negotiated for jobs in the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom and nationalist China. He ended up, though, in Argentina, designing the FMA IAe 33 Pulqui II for General Juan Domingo Perón’s government. The contract was cancelled amid severe economic difficulties, and Tank moved to India.

From 1955, Tank served as Director of the Madras Institute of Technology, where his students included former President APJ Abdul Kalam. Later, he shifted to HAL, to lead the Marut project, the outcome of then Prime Minister Nehru’s push for a domestic defense-industrial base.

News link

[sierrabravo98]

Originally Posted by Vkap257

Regarding the Gripen, the name of the game here sir is ‘sensor fusion and BVR’. The Gripen is an excellent aircraft at its given price point and running cost. It however cannot be compared to the Tejas as Tejas is very much a lesser capable aircraft in its current form. Even the formidable Tejas mk2 is only 80% of what Gripen can offer, albeit it comes with a huge advantage of local production and subsequent economic benefits. Gripen has edge over our domestic jet in form of crucial sensor fusion and therefore better pilot awareness in combat, as well as the venerable meteor missile.

I cannot even begin to state how wrong the above assumption is. Forget the Mk-2 which, with its GaN Uttam AESA and Astra SFDR (which again is better than the Meteor) and the DARE Integrated EW suite coupled with the DRDO EOTS will be at par with the Gripen NG - E/F (and better if the cost factor is brought into play). Even the Mk-1A is as good as the legacy Gripen with its GaAsUttam Mk-1 and Astra Mk-1/ Dual Pulse Astra Mk-2, I-Derby-ER or the R-77M.

Do keep in mind that the legacy Gripen royally flunked the IAF MMRCA trials in Leh (hot and high) back in 2010 which the LCA aced with the same engine (well almost the same). The Gripen is the most overrated 4++ gen fighter on sale right now (and that's why it has lost almost every fighter competition it has entered).

I can write an essay on how the LCA Mk-1/1A or the MWF (so called LCA Mk-2) are at par with comparative Gripens' but it would be more efficient for you to state the reasons as to why you think the Swedish fighter outclasses the Indian fighter in BVR/sensor fusion and then for me to refute those reasons point by point.

You are right in dismissing the F15ex as not suitable for our needs as we already operate the mighty SU30 MKI as a bomb truck.

BTW, we don't operate our Su-30s as bomb trucks. Don't know where you got that impression from. If you look at the Su-30 deployments and the publically available tasking patterns, you will see that the Su-30s have been used as interceptors, doing CAPs as well as for air-superiority missions but not as a bomb truck. We use the Jaguar and/or the Mirage 2000 (especially for PGM delivery) for that role. The Su-30s usually fly with A2A loadouts.

[ads11]

Originally Posted by dragracer567

Seems like the Indian IL-78s are pretty much non-operational since we are increasingly seeing the IAF use refueling aircraft from friendly countries for long hauls. French and UAE A330 MRTTs were used during the Rafale delivery from France, the UAE A330 MRTTs were used again when some Su-30s flew to Egypt for an exercise and now for the Pitch Black, both the French and Aussies helped (both A330 MRTT). I'd say these three are also among India's closest international allies at this point (plus Japan). One way, it's good to have some operational cohesion with important allies - it's quite common within alliances like NATO.

The A330 MRTT has more than proved its worth to the IAF given that they seem to be refueling off more A330s than our own IL-78s these days.

Honestly it beggars belief what it would take for the top brass to get around to getting the damn jet - considering how many real world auditions it's had in effect, refueling IAF assets. At the very least I'd have thought the new lease route would enable at least stop gap arrangements to fill crucial gaps. Either the whatever paltry functional IAF tanking assets are being given the cotton wool treatment to save them for use under serious circumstances or the picture really is that bleak, and none of those tanking assets are really practically functional. It's not a great look at all for a crucial capability.

Was reading about some US firm planning to fit a refueling boom to the Embraer KC-390, pitch it as a pocket tanker that can be forward deployed to austere airstrips. The KC-390 is already configured for hose and drogue refueling. Got me thinking, are any Indian air assets boom and receptacle equipped for aerial refueling? Far as I can tell they're all probe equipped.

Originally Posted by mpksuhas

Often, when going over some writeup of events from history, I often wonder when some insignificant matter, happening at some far away land has huge impact on some place many years later in manner which those taking those decisions then may not have thought in their wildest dream.

Thanks for sharing this - I wasn't aware of this particular sequence of events. All I'd say though is those Israeli preliminary strikes from the Six-Day War can't be considered insignificant (pretty sure that none of the air arms involved in that whole conflict will ever fully live down the events of that day, for better or worse). That minor issue aside, I concur, really demonstrates how interlinked circumstances can be globally.

[dragracer567]

Originally Posted by ads11

Honestly it beggars belief what it would take for the top brass to get around to getting the damn jet - considering how many real world auditions it's had in effect, refueling IAF assets. At the very least I'd have thought the new lease route would enable at least stop gap arrangements to fill crucial gaps. Either the whatever paltry functional IAF tanking assets are being given the cotton wool treatment to save them for use under serious circumstances or the picture really is that bleak, and none of those tanking assets are really practically functional. It's not a great look at all for a crucial capability.

Was reading about some US firm planning to fit a refueling boom to the Embraer KC-390, pitch it as a pocket tanker that can be forward deployed to austere airstrips. The KC-390 is already configured for hose and drogue refueling. Got me thinking, are any Indian air assets boom and receptacle equipped for aerial refueling? Far as I can tell they're all probe equipped.

I can think of only two:

1) Boeing C17
2) Boeing P8i

I’m not sure if we’ll ever see the boom capacity with the Indian Air Force tanker fleet since neither the C17s nor the P8is would be required to ferry for long hours without refueling. Even if they were, it would require the tankers to be forward deployed which might not be possible for India. I believe the same is the case with the RAF voyagers - they don’t have booms (but I can’t remember if it’s all or just half their fleet).

I wouldn’t fully blame the Air Force for this fiasco. They choose the A330 thrice (?) and atleast one of the time, the tender was cancelled by the finance ministry for being too expensive. Anyway, this has meant that India has learnt to operationally work with allies which is quite the departure from the lone wolf military policy followed independence. Even the superpower America during the peak of their power needed allies.

Also I read that the Air Force is still looking at wet leasing 1 A330 MRTT. Let’s see when if that ever happens.

[Vkap257]

Originally Posted by sierrabravo98

I cannot even begin to state how wrong the above assumption is. Forget the Mk-2 which, with its GaN Uttam AESA and Astra SFDR (which again is better than the Meteor) and the DARE Integrated EW suite coupled with the DRDO EOTS will be at par with the Gripen NG - E/F (and better if the cost factor is brought into play). Even the Mk-1A is as good as the legacy Gripen with its GaAsUttam Mk-1 and Astra Mk-1/ Dual Pulse Astra Mk-2, I-Derby-ER or the R-77M.

Do keep in mind that the legacy Gripen royally flunked the IAF MMRCA trials in Leh (hot and high) back in 2010 which the LCA aced with the same engine (well almost the same). The Gripen is the most overrated 4++ gen fighter on sale right now (and that's why it has lost almost every fighter competition it has entered).

I can write an essay on how the LCA Mk-1/1A or the MWF (so called LCA Mk-2) are at par with comparative Gripens' but it would be more efficient for you to state the reasons as to why you think the Swedish fighter outclasses the Indian fighter in BVR/sensor fusion and then for me to refute those reasons point by point.



BTW, we don't operate our Su-30s as bomb trucks. Don't know where you got that impression from. If you look at the Su-30 deployments and the publically available tasking patterns, you will see that the Su-30s have been used as interceptors, doing CAPs as well as for air-superiority missions but not as a bomb truck. We use the Jaguar and/or the Mirage 2000 (especially for PGM delivery) for that role. The Su-30s usually fly with A2A loadouts.

Dear sir
All the bells and whistles you have rightfully pointed out are the results of our hard-working scientists and engineers. However, do keep in mind some ground realities-

1. The GaN Uttam Mk2 AESA radar, Astra mk3 SFDR and EOTS are far from complete and are technologies still under development for AMCA itself and have subsequent development timelines coinciding with the 5th gen aircraft. Even the wind tunnel test models of AMCA in media do not possess an EOTS and rather a conventional IRST sensor like the MKI. In contrast, the GRIPEN has AESA radar TODAY, meteor missile capable TODAY, and sensor suite TODAY. Yes the MK2 LCA will be at par with Gripen NG no doubt, but in its current form, the LCA sadly cannot be compared to Gripen. One area where we must pat our backs though is that we have developed / are developing all these capabilities in-house, rather than taking the third-party vendor route taken by GRIPEN or KAI for that matter.

The GRIPEN did not fail in MMRCA 1. The priorities of IAF were clearly favouring twin-engined fighters which were in a higher class than the Gripen. It also did not lose all the fighter aircraft competition- ask the Danish, South Africans and Brazilians and to some extent the Canadians.

2. I never stated that we use our SU 30s as bomb trucks. We do have Jaguars and Mirages for that. What I implied was the redundancy in the feature set offered by both the aircraft and their capabilities. The F15ex is a very potent aircraft with powerful radar and high weapon payload capacity, but we already possess these powers in form of shared capabilities between Rafale and MKI.

[sierrabravo98]

Originally Posted by Vkap257

Dear sir
All the bells and whistles you have rightfully pointed out are the results of our hard-working scientists and engineers. However, do keep in mind some ground realities-

1. The GaN Uttam Mk2 AESA radar, Astra mk3 SFDR and EOTS are far from complete and are technologies still under development for AMCA itself and have subsequent development timelines coinciding with the 5th gen aircraft. Even the wind tunnel test models of AMCA in media do not possess an EOTS and rather a conventional IRST sensor like the MKI. In contrast, the GRIPEN has AESA radar TODAY, meteor missile capable TODAY, and sensor suite TODAY. Yes the MK2 LCA will be at par with Gripen NG no doubt, but in its current form, the LCA sadly cannot be compared to Gripen. One area where we must pat our backs though is that we have developed / are developing all these capabilities in-house, rather than taking the third-party vendor route taken by GRIPEN or KAI for that matter.

The GRIPEN did not fail in MMRCA 1. The priorities of IAF were clearly favouring twin-engined fighters which were in a higher class than the Gripen. It also did not lose all the fighter aircraft competition- ask the Danish, South Africans and Brazilians and to some extent the Canadians.

2. I never stated that we use our SU 30s as bomb trucks. We do have Jaguars and Mirages for that. What I implied was the redundancy in the feature set offered by both the aircraft and their capabilities. The F15ex is a very potent aircraft with powerful radar and high weapon payload capacity, but we already possess these powers in form of shared capabilities between Rafale and MKI.

At the outset, let me state that I appreciate your response that I don't intend to cause any offense whatsoever in the course of our discussion.

1.) While you are indeed correct about the GaN Uttam Mk-2, do keep in mind that LCA Tejas Mk-1/Mk-1A are already flying with PESA & AESA radars. The Mk-1 FOC with Elta 2032 PESA, and the Mk-1A LSPs with Elta 2052 & the GaAs Uttam Mk1.

2.) The LCA Mk-1/Mk-1A can only be compared with the legacy Gripen, i.e, the Gripen C/D. The Gripen E/F is a larger aircraft and is thus rightly compared to the MWF Mk-1 (or the LCA Mk-2 as some in the IAF want to label it). Also, last I checked, the Gripen E/F is just now entering series production with just 4-5 in service with the Brazilians and the the Swedish in total. Considering that Saab originally offered the Gripen NG (from which E/F have been derived) to the IAF in MMRCA trials 12 years ago, some pretty uncharitable conclusions can be drawn about SAAB and its promises. And let's not even compare the costs. 1 Gripen E/F costs close to USD $120 million (Tejas Mk-1A has been offered for under USD $40 Million in overseas fighter trials). The Gripen does not offer any performance advantage over comparable Tejas variants.

3.) Indeed the Mk-2 will have the cockpit mounted DRDO IRST targetting system. But if you really think that the IAF is going to let an external IRST system anywhere near its VLO AMCA, I have a palace in Raisina Hills to sell you . The EOTS system is coming along quite nicely according to OSINT sources. Moreover the CALSPAN wind tunnel model you are referring to is quite an early design iteration. The post CDR (Comprehensive Design Review) version is quite different from that one from what I could gather. Do enlighten us if any legacy Gripen even has an IRST system. The Gripen E/F has only recently started integration with the Skyward G IRST system which would put it at par with the Mk-2.

4.) The dual pulse Astra Mk-2 (Range >140km hence Meteor/PL15 comparable) is already under UDT (User cum Development Trials) with the IAF with induction slated in 2023. Also, the open architecture of the LCA means that even the Meteor can be integrated quite easily if required (like other French missile and armaments have been). That the IAF has not done so despite already having experience with Meteor equipped Rafales' means they know that Meteors are not going to offer any advantage over upcoming indigenous missiles. So the weapon package of the Gripen is definitely not superior to the LCA.

5.) I wrote that the Gripen lost "almost" every competition. Check the number of trials it has lost (Hint: More than double of the number it has won).

6.) The LCA has very potent pylon mounted Israeli/Indian EW pods. Hell, there is even talk of a E/A 18 Growler-esque version of the Mk-1A in development. You are never getting that version of the Gripen ever.

Hence, I reiterate that your assumption that the LCA is inferior to the Gripen any significant way is indeed wrong.

[Shreyans_Jain]

Originally Posted by sierrabravo98

1.). The Mk-1 FOC with Elta 2032 PESA, and the Mk-1A LSPs with Elta 2052 & the GaAs Uttam Mk1.

3.) Indeed the Mk-2 will have the cockpit mounted DRDO IRST targetting system. But if you really think that the IAF is going to let an external IRST system anywhere near its VLO AMCA, I have a palace in Raisina Hills to sell you . The EOTS system is coming along quite nicely according to OSINT sources. Moreover the CALSPAN wind tunnel model you are referring to is quite an early design iteration.

Too many acronyms, brother! Pls re-share these details in simple English so that we mango people can also follow the conversation.

[sierrabravo98]

Originally Posted by Shreyans_Jain

Too many acronyms, brother! Pls re-share these details in simple English so that we mango people can also follow the conversation.

I am really sorry. I forgot to elaborate on the abbreviations while writing the original post.

1.) LCA: Light Combat Aircraft
2.) LSP: Limited Series Production
3.) FOC: Final Operation Clearance

4.) PESA: Passive Electronically Scanned Array - Radar beams are Electronically steered. Considered a generation ahead of the mechanical scanned radars. Our Su-30 MKIs use the hybrid PESA (with some AESA features) N011M BARS radar.

5.) AESA: Active Electronically Scanned Array - A generation ahead of the vanilla PESA radars with individual computer controlled TRM for every element. These radars are very hard to jam by their very design and are considered LPI (Low Probability of Intercept) radars as they are capable of the changing frequency signatures thousands of times a second. This makes it invisible to traditional RWR (Radar Warning Receivers) giving an AESA equipped Aircraft a huge advantage over regular aircrafts.

6.) GaAs radar: Radar with Gallium Arsenide substrate based TRM (Transmit Receive Module). The Uttam Mk-1 is a 1st generation GaAs based AESA radar. A version with 700-800 TRMs will be installed on the LCA Mk-1A. A 1200 TRM (or more):version is planned for the Su-30MKI upgrade program.

7.) GaN: Radar with Gallium Nitride substrate based TRM. Supposed to have better heat dissipation characteristics coupled with better efficiency and higher specific output. Hence a generation ahead of GaAs based AESA radars. The AMCA will sport the GaN based Uttam Mk-2.

8.) IRST: Infrared Search & Track system. Enables fighter jets to target enemy targets on the basis of its IR emission thus allowing it to keep its radar switched off in certain situations. Su-30 MKI and Rafale have this feature currently in the IAF inventory.

9.) EOTS: Electro-Optics Targetting System. Can be said to be a more rounded and holistic IRST system with TV cameras and laser designator and rangefinder enabling an EOTS system to undertake more diverse missions than a plain IRST equipped Aircraft. 5th gen aircrafts like the F-35 use EOTS in conjunction with DAS (Distributed Aperture Systems) to enhance their Situational Awareness while maintaining VLO (Very Low Observable) characteristics.

10.) AMCA: Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft: Indigenous 5th generation Aircraft in development by ADA(Aeronautical Development Agency).

11.) OSINT: Open Source Intelligence.

12.) E/A 18 Growler: An EW (Electronic Warfare) version of the F/A-18 E/F Superhornet.

[ads11]

Originally Posted by Shreyans_Jain

we mango people

Must admit, I've not come across this particular phrasing before.

I do admit military tech becomes all too prone to jargon - would be nice to have a glossary for those reading. I know there are times I have to rethink the context of many of the acronyms. DAS to me for eg in my day job would be Distributed Acoustic Sensing rather than Distributed Aperture System.

Originally Posted by sierrabravo98

PESA: Passive Electronically Scanned Array

I always find it easy to think of it as a true intermediary step between a mechanically scanned array (the typical rotating concave radar dish we're familiar with) and the AESA ones that are fast becoming the norm now.

AESA

You know how DRDO's NETRA aerial early warning (AEW) aircraft has those conformally mounted plank like panels on the side of the fuselage? Those are AESA arrays. Don't really need a big spinning disc like enclosure to house the radar on your AEW aircraft like you've traditionally had. The DRDO plans to convert those civilian Airbus airframes into AEW involves mounting AESA panels on top of the fuselage in some kind of gymnastics balance beam type set up.

GaN

Those of you well versed with the consumer tech world would be familiar with gallium nitride fast becoming the composition of choice for smaller, more powerful charging bricks for example. The superior thermal properties of GaN are a large reason they're increasingly being favoured over silicon chemistry in consumer electronics charging infrastructure. Small surprise then that the gains here are being translated to the military tech world - thermal and power efficiency are always sought after. Radar systems are supremely power hungry and as we move towards more powerful AESA arrays with their ability to track multiple targets, anything that helps lower that power draw is an obvious choice. Good to see then that India seems to have a logical progression plan in place for the domestic radar capability in terms of moving from a PESA to a GaAs AESA and then ultimately a GaN AESA. I imagine the plan is for the latter to eventually become the de-facto radar set up for IAF and IN air assets.

IRST

Possibly one of the most in vogue capabilities in air warfare currently, with even Western forces recognising their utility towards operating in non permissive electronic radiation environments. Russian jets have been most notable for including IRST systems, distinguishable from the bulbous glassy domes mounted forward of the canopy on many contemporary Russian jets, even including the Su-57. The Russians have long since claimed that one of their key tools to get around the low observability of platforms like the F-22 and F-35 is to rely on their IRST. The fact the USAF is fast tracking incorporating their own IRST to frontline aircraft is a tacit admission that there's merit to this line of thinking. A good way of thinking about it is the way submarines use passive sonar (IRST), vs active sonar (radar in this case).

EOTS

Anyone familiar with how the F-35 looks will recognise the distinct faceted glasshouse like assembly mounted under the chin. This contains it's electro-optical targeting system. Because it includes cameras operating in the visual spectrum, you have the clear glass. It's a key part of the multi-mission capability of the F-35 as sierrabravo98 alludes.

E/A 18 Growler: An EW (Electronic Warfare) version of the F/A-18 E/F Superhornet

I can't remember what the story behind it was but iirc any electronic warfare variant is essentially a Growler in US military parlance (not quite sure it expands to NATO). Correct me if I'm wrong.

[sierrabravo98]

Originally Posted by ads11

Good to see then that India seems to have a logical progression plan in place for the domestic radar capability in terms of moving from a PESA to a GaAs AESA and then ultimately a GaN AESA. I imagine the plan is for the latter to eventually become the de-facto radar set up for IAF and IN air assets.



I can't remember what the story behind it was but iirc any electronic warfare variant is essentially a Growler in US military parlance (not quite sure it expands to NATO). Correct me if I'm wrong.

About the Indian AESA platforms, it's worth mentioning that while the GaN version of airborne AESA radar is still a work in progress in India, we have long mastered land based and ship based AESA radars. For example, the tracking radar FCR (Fire Control Radar) of the QRSAM system is the latest generation GaN based AESA system. Similarly, the Green Pine derived (but much more capable) Swordfish LRTR (Looking Range Tracking Radar) for the BMD (Ballistic Missile Defense) Phase-1 program developed by DRDO LRDE (Electronics & Radar Development Establishment) was an excellent AESA radar way back in mid 2000s. The Israeli MFSTAR is going to be replaced by Indian Naval FCRs on all future Indian Navy combat ships. Suffice to say, the LRDE (with some Israeli collaboration) has more than earned its keep in this area.

P.S: The E/A-18G replaced the Northrop Grumman E/A-6B EW aircraft which was called the "Prowler". Other EW aircrafts fielded by the US have been called Skywarrior, Skyknight, Destroyer, Raven, Compass Call etc.

[dragracer567]

Originally Posted by sierrabravo98

The dual pulse Astra Mk-2 (Range >140km hence Meteor/PL15 comparable) is already under UDT (User cum Development Trials) with the IAF with induction slated in 2023. Also, the open architecture of the LCA means that even the Meteor can be integrated quite easily if required (like other French missile and armaments have been). That the IAF has not done so despite already having experience with Meteor equipped Rafales' means they know that Meteors are not going to offer any advantage over upcoming indigenous missiles.

I remember reading that the main reason why the IAF didn’t go for the meteor for the Tejas was because the Meteor missile is somehow not compatible with the Israeli ELTA AESA radar that will be used in the first half of the Tejas Mk1As produced. It will apparently work with the indigenous Uttam radar but I guess the IAF didn’t want to procure a missile system that won’t work with half their fleet.

I think the Tejas will eventually offer the meteor atleast for exports, one of the main reason for JDAM integration was to enhance its export prospects. Agreed that the Tejas has an impressive weapons portfolio, no other plane on earth is compatible with India, Western, Israeli and Russian missiles and bombs at the same time!

[sierrabravo98]

Originally Posted by dragracer567

I remember reading that the main reason why the IAF didn’t go for the meteor for the Tejas was because the Meteor missile is somehow not compatible with the Israeli ELTA AESA radar that will be used in the first half of the Tejas Mk1As produced. It will apparently work with the indigenous Uttam radar but I guess the IAF didn’t want to procure a missile system that won’t work with half their fleet.

I think the Tejas will eventually offer the meteor atleast for exports, one of the main reason for JDAM integration was to enhance its export prospects. Agreed that the Tejas has an impressive weapons portfolio, no other plane on earth is compatible with India, Western, Israeli and Russian missiles and bombs at the same time!

You are partly correct about the compatibility issues of the Meteor with the Elta 2052. That is just the MBDA being salty, greedy and petulant at the same time. They were adamant that they would only integrate the Meteor with an European radar(or possibly an Indian radar which they thought would never come into production). This was their way of influencing the tender, which HAL put out in 2017/2018 for the stopgap AESA radar on the Mk-1A, in favour of the Thales or the Saab radar over the Israeli one which we eventually picked. What they did not anticipate was the success of the Astra programme. The dual pulse Astra Mk-2 is almost a Meteor equivalent terms of range and gave the IAF (and HAL) the lattitude to pick the most suitable radar for the LCA while also allowing us to call their bluff.

In the present scenario, MBDA will be much more amenable to integrating whatever we were want whenever we want. Considering the 125kN engine SPV is also under negotiation with the French, they would not want to sour the burgeoning relationship over such pesky issues.