LCA Tejas Mk1 & Mk1A - News and discussions

[Arpit]

For one last time. MADL is NOT a replacement of Link-16 as you have been saying. MADL has very specific use in stealth platforms and it works perfectly for that. For rest US military uses Link 16. If not for anything then atleast for being a DoD standard across different services.

Again that's what EMC2+ Freedom 550 is all about.

For 1000th time, B-Net is NOT JUST a SDR ie hardware/pure transceiver. It also has its own communication protocol and yes, it is a data link.

B-Net DOES use SDR architecture because SDR architecture is flexible in using available specturm in tactical environment which among other things also makes it much more jamming resistant.

But B-Net does more than that. It is a MANET -- mobile adhoc network, meaning it establish connectivity in a changing battlefield where participants or nodes may come in range or go out of range (hence adhoc). You can not do this without a protocol and associated software.

So yes, B-Net is indeed a Data link, in the same sense link 16 is a datalink.

Source : https://www.rafael.co.il/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/BNET-FAMILY.pdf

Your own link suggesting it as SDR. And MANET is not something new, Link-16/MIDS had this since 2007.

Jan 30/07: Speed it up! The U.S. Air Force has selected BAE Systems and SRA International to develop the 2nd spiral of the Flexible Access Secure Transfer (FAST) waveform into the MIDS-LVT1. FAST, developed by BAE Systems with a team of engineers from SRA and MITRE, adds mobile ad hoc networking (MANET) interoperable with high-speed Internet Protocol and Link 16 to the MIDS Fighter Data Link. The $7 million contract will enable the MIDS-LVT1 to simultaneously transmit and receive both standard Link 16 and FAST waveform messages, allowing real-time exchange of multimedia communications including data, voice, and video. BAE release.

The Wonders of Link 16 For Less: MIDS-LVTs - Defense Industry Daily

Link 16 Display (click to see situation) What one sees, all see. Jam-resistant Link-16 radios automatically exchange battlefield information - particularly locations of friendly and enemy aircraft, ships and ground forces - among themselves in a long-range, line-of-sight network. For example...

www.defenseindustrydaily.com

https://www.rafael.co.il/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/BNET-FAMILY.pdf

You biggest folly here is to consider BNet as a pure transreciver. It is not. It is a network (as I mentioned above). What does that mean? With B-Net you can connect F-35 to India's AWACS and share things like sensor information (visuals, video) and data and voice to other platforms.

OPAL is a much bigger thing in Israeli Airforce. Its somewhat similar or rather analogous to our IACCS which integrates (or rather attempts) all of IAF ground, air and space assets. It goes beyond just connectivity. But then, it STILL requires connectivity before integration can work. And speaking of IACCS, no matter whichever platform you choose (F-16, F-35 or even your own AMCA), you will have to do that integration. BNet solves the connectivity part.

A network still doesnt mean Data Link, the similar network is provided by MIDS, but it still need Data processor and display.

You just keep proving me right.

Oh, you are always right, the world is wrong. Even IAF is wrong. Remember?

 

[Saaho]

The level of ignorance, if Rafael had developed a data link in past, that doesn’t mean IAF adopted it.

BNET is even adopted by Philippines Air Force for Link-16

The Philippine Air Force is Testing Rafael's BNET System

The Philippine Air Force (PAF) is examining Rafael's BNET Software Defined Radio (SDR) system under the FA-50 ComSec Requirements Project.

www.israeldefense.co.il

If you only had followed the links on the article that you linked to...

See also an official publication on the PAF Facebook page.

Log into Facebook

Log into Facebook to start sharing and connecting with your friends, family, and people you know.

www.facebook.com

It is clear that they are comparing 4 different systems.
1. FA-50 equipped with Link-16 TDL
2. ArcGIS Geographic Information System integrated with the FAME Blue Force Tracking System
3. Footages from the Cessna C-208 Grand Caravan ISR aircraft which uses the L3 MX-15HDi EO/IR camera, shared via a SATCOM link
4. Air unit equipped with an aerial camera and the Rafael BNet SDR communications system providing real time video feed

You can read more on this page of the facebook account linked by the very article you provided.

MaxDefense Philippines

Further to our discussion yesterday on the possibility of having Rafael's BNet software defined radio installed on Philippine Air Force assets, other photos from the same post by the PAF actually...

www.facebook.com

Further to our discussion yesterday on the possibility of having Rafael's BNet software defined radio installed on Philippine Air Force assets, other photos from the same post by the PAF actually show more info.

In the photos posted below, it shows a comparison of several C4 systems being operated by the PAF:
1st screen shows data from an FA-50 with a Tactical Data Link 16, which provides information from it's fire control radar, GPS and other avionics to C2 or other units equipped with a similar capability or connectivity to a common MIDS network. Units not equipped with TDL16 or compatible TDLs won't be able to receive or share information to the network though.

2nd screen shows the ArcGIS geographic information system, which is a mapping system that can be integrated with the FAME Blue Force Tracking System. It uses GPS and the ArcGIS system to plot location of units and transmit it to C2 and other friendly units via radio. This enables Command and Conteol center to know where friendly units are on the map, and it is possible that field deployed Battlefield Management Systems can also receive shared map plotted information.

3rd screen shows visual and/or infrared footages from the Cessna C-208 Grand Caravan ISR aircraft which uses the L3 MX-15HDi EO/IR camera for surveillance. The information provided is video or photographic in nature like a live video feed on what the aircraft can see. The same capability can be expected from other EO/IR capable aircraft like the ScanEagle UAS, AW109E Power armed helicopters and C-130T Hercules equipped with the SABIR system as well as the upcoming Hermes 450 and 900 UAS. Most often video or data from ISR aircraft are shared through SATCOM or line of sight air to ground streaming.

4th screen is the footage from an air unit equipped with an aerial camera and the Rafael BNet SDR communications system, which can provide real time voice, data, video and messaging information to other similarly equipped units through radio signals.

It appears now that the PAF is comparing the capabilities of each of these systems, and either use them depending on situation, or combine their use to improve interoperability, Data sharing and for effective command and control.

None of this supports your weird notion that BNet is only a SDR transreciver. On the contrary it shows that Link-16 and BNet are independent communication systems.

 

[Saaho]

Again that's what EMC2+ Freedom 550 is all about.

EMC2+ and Freedom 550 are part of an airborne gateway that connect MADL and F-22's IFDL to each other. It allows inter-op between these two fifth gen platforms and also other platforms that have Link-16.

Having inter op DOES NOT mean that MADL is going to replace Link 16.

Its like saying that just because I have a router with optical fiber based ethernet and copper pair ethernet as well, suddenly I will be replacing all the wired connection in my organization with fiber optics. No! Both have their own specialized uses!

Your own link suggesting it as SDR. And MANET is not something new, Link-16/MIDS had this since 2007.

You should read it properly!

The BNET family is an advanced Broadband IP MANET (Mobile Ad-hoc NETwork) Software Defined Radio for tactical operations.

It is a software defined radio with Broadband (wide bandwidth), IP (data protocol) and MANET(network architecture). This should be clear that BNet is not just a SDR transreciver but it has network ability (MANET) and a datagram protocol (IP).

The question is NOT if MANET is new or old. The question is if BNet has a MANET ie a network architecture, how it can be a mere transreciver?

A network still doesnt mean Data Link, the similar network is provided by MIDS, but it still need Data processor and display.

Man! A network is built on TOP of Data Links! Thats the basic of basics! OSI model for 70s made it amply clear!

Physicial -> Datalink -> Network

The first 3 layers out of 7! You can not have a digital communication network without having datalinks!

While Physical part defines what kind of frequency band, modulation, antenna, amplification will be used, Datalink defines how the communicating parties will share the same communication media (here radio spectrum). In case of Link-16 it is TDMA.

A data link is point to point communication! A network is a multi hop communication! You can not have multi hop communication (network) without point to point communication (datalink) first! so yes, Network implies Datalink!

BNet NEEDS to have datalink if it is a MANET.

 

[randomradio]

EMC2+ and Freedom 550 are part of an airborne gateway that connect MADL and F-22's IFDL to each other. It allows inter-op between these two fifth gen platforms and also other platforms that have Link-16.

Having inter op DOES NOT mean that MADL is going to replace Link 16.

Its like saying that just because I have a router with optical fiber based ethernet and copper pair ethernet as well, suddenly I will be replacing all the wired connection in my organization with fiber optics. No! Both have their own specialized uses!


You should read it properly!



It is a software defined radio with Broadband (wide bandwidth), IP (data protocol) and MANET(network architecture). This should be clear that BNet is not just a SDR transreciver but it has network ability (MANET) and a datagram protocol (IP).

The question is NOT if MANET is new or old. The question is if BNet has a MANET ie a network architecture, how it can be a mere transreciver?




Man! A network is built on TOP of Data Links! Thats the basic of basics! OSI model for 70s made it amply clear!

Physicial -> Datalink -> Network

The first 3 layers out of 7! You can not have a digital communication network without having datalinks!

While Physical part defines what kind of frequency band, modulation, antenna, amplification will be used, Datalink defines how the communicating parties will share the same communication media (here radio spectrum). In case of Link-16 it is TDMA.

A data link is point to point communication! A network is a multi hop communication! You can not have multi hop communication (network) without point to point communication (datalink) first! so yes, Network implies Datalink!

BNet NEEDS to have datalink if it is a MANET.

Congratulations to the both of us for having wasted our times. This guy knows nothing.

 

[Saaho]

Congratulations to the both of us for having wasted our times. This guy knows nothing.

Oh well...

 

[screambowl]

Is it ensuring planes fly during the war?

Or it is making money by selling weapons?

If it can fight war it can be sold. Both of these things are different side of same coin. Arms dealer create wars only to sell arms.

 

[Bon Plan]

Tejas MK1A's radar is as good as Rafale if not better

a brand new radar, with only air to air modes (because it is too young to have a full scopes softaware than need years to developp and fine tune) better than a more than 10 years one, with soft refresh every 2 to 3 years ????

I have some a doubt.

Furthur, Rafale wasnt made for deep strike

Nuclear deterrence is what?
SCALP assault is what ?

 

[Rajput Lion]

a brand new radar, with only air to air modes (because it is too young to have a full scopes softaware than need years to developp and fine tune) better than a more than 10 years one, with soft refresh every 2 to 3 years ????

I have some a doubt.

Nuclear deterrence is what?
SCALP assault is what ?

I was talking about Elta EL/M-2052 radar. Uttam is going to be even better but shall come online only in the later batches. Rafale's biggest weakness is its small nose cose and hence small radar. But since it's not an air dominance fighter rather a multi(omni)-role fighter, so it's quite good for what it is.

PS: Even our Tejas MK2 is supposed/proposed to have a GaN AESA radar with ~1200+ TRMs. That will outclass current RBE2 AESA by miles.

 

[Ginvincible]

MMRCA signed in 2014 made sense, even till 2019 it was acceptable. Not now.

I've said it before but my thoughts on the original MMRCA deal have really evolved over the years.

Back when it was ongoing I was really against the competition but now I understand that the architects for MMRCA1 were true patriots and incredibly smart. They had a deep understanding of how flawed procurement/development in India is as well as the threat environment India would be facing. They weren't corrupt import lobbyists; they were very forward looking.

Imagine another universe where that competition ended, the award was negotiated successfully and issued promptly. India today would have 100+ Rafales, the manufacturing setup to quickly add more, and the technological/industrial know-how that would have (at least on some level) been absorbed through the process (thus helping all the domestic projects).

Regardless it's better that we are decades late rather than never. If India is able to localize the lines for Rafales then ramping up production to offset losses in a war is still a benefit.

 

[randomradio]

I've said it before but my thoughts on the original MMRCA deal have really evolved over the years.

Back when it was ongoing I was really against the competition but now I understand that the architects for MMRCA1 were true patriots and incredibly smart. They had a deep understanding of how flawed procurement/development in India is as well as the threat environment India would be facing. They weren't corrupt import lobbyists; they were very forward looking.

Imagine another universe where that competition ended, the award was negotiated successfully and issued promptly. India today would have 100+ Rafales, the manufacturing setup to quickly add more, and the technological/industrial know-how that would have (at least on some level) been absorbed through the process (thus helping all the domestic projects).

Regardless it's better that we are decades late rather than never. If India is able to localize the lines for Rafales then ramping up production to offset losses in a war is still a benefit.

There's nothing corrupt about requirements. Just an overestimation of the domestic industry. Shooting for the stars without a rocket.

 

[Bon Plan]

PS: Even our Tejas MK2 is supposed/proposed to have a GaN AESA radar with ~1200+ TRMs. That will outclass current RBE2 AESA by miles.

The magic word is "supposed". As for now nothing near a serial production.

RBE2 AESA has now more than 12 years (first delivery in 2012). I don't know if some hardware changes have been made on it since. If not it's not unatural that some more recent are more potent. I hope there was improvements on memory size, CPU,... but I really don't know.

But if Hardware is one thing, software is another. The soft of a radar is not so easy to developp and fine tune. It takes years.
On this field something intersting about RBE2 AESA is that it was studied so as to use all the soft developp for PESA one (ie 15 years of refinement). When the other AESA come with nearly no soft except basic air to air modes, the french one came immediatly with F3 standard, so with air to air, air to ground, air to sea modes. And since every 2 year there are new releases.

 

[Rajput Lion]

The magic word is "supposed". As for now nothing near a serial production.

RBE2 AESA has now more than 12 years (first delivery in 2012). I don't know if some hardware changes have been made on it since. If not it's not unatural that some more recent are more potent. I hope there was improvements on memory size, CPU,... but I really don't know.

But if Hardware is one thing, software is another. The soft of a radar is not so easy to developp and fine tune. It takes years.
On this field something intersting about RBE2 AESA is that it was studied so as to use all the soft developp for PESA one (ie 15 years of refinement). When the other AESA come with nearly no soft except basic air to air modes, the french one came immediatly with F3 standard, so with air to air, air to ground, air to sea modes. And since every 2 year there are new releases.

Well here are some hard facts. Few years ago Uttam MK1 AESA with 736 TRMs was able to "track" yes not detect but track another Tejas from above 140kms. Tejas is very small fighter which has high percentage of CFC skin and one of the smallest RCS of all 4+ gen planes(~0.5m2). So what was achieved "in reality" was indeed very impressive. Also that's not all but the model that is going in production (in later MK1A tranches) should/will have 992 TRMs, yes almost as much as RBE2 AESA. So its tracking range would be much superior than the baseline version.

Source for this image and a great read if you want to know about Uttam AESA radar: Thoughts About the New Uttam AESA RADAR- MK1A (and some other stuff)

PS: Rafale/RBE2 AESA can track F-16 from 140kms, IIRC. Tejas' RCS is much smaller than F-16.

 

[LX1111]

Tejas is very small fighter which has high percentage of CFC skin and one of the smallest RCS of all 4+ gen planes(~0.5m2).

I don't see any reason why a Tejas has such a small RCS, or you just think it's small enough that its RCS can be very low

 

[Ashwin]

I don't see any reason why a Tejas has such a small RCS, or you just think it's small enough that its RCS can be very low

 

[LX1111]

The size of the aircraft does not determine the size of the RCS, depending on whether you are designed to control its main radiation source. For example, the J 10 uses a DSI inlet to shield the engine blades and a metal-coated canopy

To determine the RCS of the Tejas, it should be measured rigorously using a microwave anechoic chamber

 

[LX1111]

China just assembled Su-27 and called it J-11 in the 90s, lol. In comparison, Tejas is a grounds-up, all new design. Only from mid 2000s(2005 to be precise) they started to induct their all-new fighter(J-10).

China's first self-designed fighter was the J 8, which was completed in the 1970s
And in 1998, the J-10 made its maiden flight, and in 2005, at least one regiment of fighter Jets was ready for use

 

[LX1111]

For Context:

View attachment 32667

In addition to the plug, ADA studied a bulged canopy to improve area ruling even further. The combined effect was 6 percent lower supersonic drag, which in turn led to a 20 percent improvement in transonic acceleration and 2 percent improvement in maximum speed [4].

View attachment 32668

Similarly, it was observed that there was a sudden kink in the aft bottom of the fuselage in Mk1 as shown in Figure 3. By eliminating this kink and identifying an optimized smoothened aft fuselage, an improvement of 4.9 percent was predicted in the supersonic drag on the aft body region.

View attachment 32669

A substantial amount of effort was directed towards optimizing the air intakes. The impact of changes in lip and cowl geometries, contractions ratio (i.e. the ratio of air intake to the minimum area of the intake duct) and performance of a newly proposed 3-door auxiliary intake were studied. The goal of these studies was to improve pressure recovery at low speeds without adversely impacting spillage drag at high speeds. It was found that the lip geometry and variation in contraction ratio of these features have minor improvements in low speed regimes, but their attendant side effect on high speed performance was deemed to be too high. On the other hand, cowl geometry optimization showed good improvement in pressure recovery due to its positive impact on the local flow field near the inlet plane. The 3-door design further enhances the gains in pressure recovery. It’s also expected to facilitate improved flow rates through the auxiliary intakes during the low speed, high AoA regimes. The combination of optimized cowl geometry and 3-door design results in a 3 percent improvement in pressure recovery, which should lead to an equivalent improvement in engine performance [11]. The 3-door design can already be seen on LCA Navy Mk1 prototypes.

Tracking The Tejas: The Design Evolution Of An Indian Fighter Part-I | Delhi Defence Review

delhidefencereview.com

I thought the Indians didn't know about the Tejas inlet，It is strange that a fighter with an obvious emphasis on supersonic performance should use the fixed baffle inlet commonly used in subsonic fighters.
With this inlet at Mach 1.6, the total pressure recovery coefficient is only 0.78. No wonder the Tejas can only fly Mach 1.6.
For Comparison, the DSI inlet on J 10C has a total pressure reCovery CoeffiCient of 0.91 at MaCh 1.8 ,though MaCh 2.0 is 0.87.

 

[Ashwin]

The size of the aircraft does not determine the size of the RCS

Please do not make idiotic arguments. It's common sense.

China's first self-designed fighter was the J 8, which was completed in the 1970s

HAL HF-24 Marut - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[LX1111]

Please do not make idiotic arguments. It's common sense.

A B- 787 certainly has a larger RCS than a small Cessna, But that doesn't apply to all scenarios. The B 2 is larger than most fighters, But its RCS is smaller than all of today's fighters

 

[Parthu]

I don't see any reason why a Tejas has such a small RCS, or you just think it's small enough that its RCS can be very low

Overall size is a factor.

Besides that, LCA has a Y-duct inlet layout that totally shields the fan blades.

And, it has an extremely high degree of composite usage in airframe which also reduces radar reflectivity.

Its not an LO fighter, but compared to something like an MKI, it's going to have a far smaller RCS.