Indian Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

berserk said:

IAF has inducted them into mig 29 upgrade..which means they are good.

Click to expand...

hahahahhah, thats a extremely "good" logic. The same for Teja, Arjun, etc?

@Deino Astra performance is better than even R-77-1 so does itst ECCM capabilities and it also has LOBL/LOAL capability...... and rumors has it... it is using Ku band AESA seeker for now.
A Ka-band AESA seeker and a secondary X-band passive channel will replace existing Ku-band seeker on next batch of upgraded Astra.... new seeker will probably be Software Defined with advance ECCM capability.

berserk said:

@Deino Astra performance is better than even R-77-1 so does itst ECCM capabilities and it also has LOBL/LOAL capability...... and rumors has it... it is using Ku band AESA seeker for now.
A Ka-band AESA seeker and a secondary X-band passive channel will replace existing Ku-band seeker on next batch of upgraded Astra.... new seeker will probably be Software Defined with advance ECCM capability.

Click to expand...

Totally agreed. Astra is definitely even better than PL-15, PL-21, Meteor or of course AIM-120 AMRAAM

berserk said:

Credit: Muzzi slayer.

Mikoyan MiG-29 UPG of Indian Air Force has a fifth generation internal Electronic Warfare system.

The D-29 system developed by DRDO is an internal EW system by DRDO has it's antennas mounted at the leading edge of wingroot on both sides and one antenna pops out from the lower portion of starboard side tail fin.

The jammers are defensive in nature and are used to jam SAMs or AAMs fired at MiG-29. The jammers work on cross eye jamming principle. Cross-eye jamming is an electronic attack technique that induces an angular error in the radar by artificially creating a false target and deceiving the radar into detecting and tracking it. Presently, there is no effective anti-jamming method to counteract cross-eye jamming.

Click to expand...

Sorry mate. Cross eye jamming has been around as long as there is deceptive jamming among the range of deceptive techniques such as range gate pull-off (RGPO); range gate pull-in (RGPI); cross polarization jamming , et al. Calling it fifth generation jamming is simply spin for the ignorant public.

As I alluded in my previous post, the developing threat confronting EW system is the sensitivity required to both intercept and discriminate against waveforms with LPI properties. If you cannot intercept such signals all the cross eye jamming in the world is plainly useless. In other words, you can't deceive what you cannot identify to begin with. AESA radar brings with it waveforms that are flexible, frequency agile, variably powered and most problematically are likely spread spectrum. Nothing in the brochure gives me comfort that the MIC-29 EW suite is up to such a task. China is progressively expanding its install base of AESA radar on its platforms. Even the PAF has in its pipeline with the JF-17 Block 3.

berserk said:

D-29 is an integrated EW system for Radar warning and jamming that encompasses RWR, ECM, ESM functions and utilizes state-of-the-art active phased arrays for selectively jamming the multiple threat radars. The D-29 system serves primarily as a self-protection jammer that will boost survivability, enhance situation awareness and increase mission effectiveness.

D-29 system detects and gives the information about the position of the RF sources illuminating the aircraft and applies the appropriate jamming technique. The system mainly consists of Unified Receiver Exciter Processor (UREP modified to suit the requirements of D-29), Solid State Transmit / Receive Unit (SSTRU) with Active Array Unit (AAU) and a liquid cooling system.

this system was developed by DRDO DARE-BEL.
View attachment 58864
DARE Radar Warning Receiver Antenna.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately every EW marketing brochure parrot the same thing without saying anything useful.

Emitter location accuracy is a function of technology adoption by the RWR. Up to the late 90's, most have bearing only with no ranging capability. Even some of those with ranging capability only have a root mean square error accuracy (RMS) of between 5 to 10 degrees. The adoption of TDOA got the RMS down to 1 degree which was the R6 release for the F-16CJ SEAD. Post 2007, R7 release got the RMS down to 0.1 degree by adopting inferferometric measurement and that became the standard for the F-16CM SEAD. AFAIK, no other aircraft has that level of emitter location accuracy (bar the F-35).

The MIG-29 marketing brochure has no reference to the adoption of either TDOA or interferometric measurement and is questionable as to its level of emitter location accuracy. One other possibility is the use of doppler shift measurement to improve accuracy.

Still no update? It's been 21 days.

Brumby said:

Sorry mate. Cross eye jamming has been around as long as there is deceptive jamming among the range of deceptive techniques such as range gate pull-off (RGPO); range gate pull-in (RGPI); cross polarization jamming , et al. Calling it fifth generation jamming is simply spin for the ignorant public.

As I alluded in my previous post, the developing threat confronting EW system is the sensitivity required to both intercept and discriminate against waveforms with LPI properties. If you cannot intercept such signals all the cross eye jamming in the world is plainly useless. In other words, you can't deceive what you cannot identify to begin with. AESA radar brings with it waveforms that are flexible, frequency agile, variably powered and most problematically are likely spread spectrum. Nothing in the brochure gives me comfort that the MIC-29 EW suite is up to such a task. China is progressively expanding its install base of AESA radar on its platforms. Even the PAF has in its pipeline with the JF-17 Block 3.



Unfortunately every EW marketing brochure parrot the same thing without saying anything useful.

Emitter location accuracy is a function of technology adoption by the RWR. Up to the late 90's, most have bearing only with no ranging capability. Even some of those with ranging capability only have a root mean square error accuracy (RMS) of between 5 to 10 degrees. The adoption of TDOA got the RMS down to 1 degree which was the R6 release for the F-16CJ SEAD. Post 2007, R7 release got the RMS down to 0.1 degree by adopting inferferometric measurement and that became the standard for the F-16CM SEAD. AFAIK, no other aircraft has that level of emitter location accuracy (bar the F-35).

The MIG-29 marketing brochure has no reference to the adoption of either TDOA or interferometric measurement and is questionable as to its level of emitter location accuracy. One other possibility is the use of doppler shift measurement to improve accuracy.

View attachment 58875

View attachment 58876

Click to expand...

Frequency hopping make it harder not impossible for deception jamming... this EW suit provide protection against mostly SAM and AAMs using "Home on jamming" and DRFM are a good way to counter them.
DRFM are not a silver bullet agree.. but AESA with LPI aren't either... SAP 518, 14 , L-175B and modern US jammer's can degrade there effectiveness considerably and even if there is a way to totally jam them...it will be a state secret.

berserk said:

Zircon and other such systems can be countered by system like THAAD, THAAD ER, S-300VM, S-400, S 500, latest SM series etc....S 400 shot down an Iskander M during IAF evaluation team in Russia ( source DFI).
they are not some kind of wonder weapons. high power lasers will make all thing Maneuvering obsolete in long run. as i said without nuclear warheads those things are duds.. doesn't matter if it's wave rider or barrel rider or whatever.

Click to expand...

DFI is not a great source like PDF is not a great source of accurate information. Plus it's wayyyy too general. I am not doubting S-400 can't shoot down an Iskander M. Iskander M is not a HGV anyway. S-400 are made to be able to deal with intermediate and short range ballistic missiles like Iskander M. Even if it has demonstrated an instance where it shot down a short range ballistic missile like Iskander, that doesn't mean it can deal with all short range missiles let alone HGVs. It'll be like me saying I managed to outrun my dad once in a race, therefore I can outrun him all the time and not just that but I can outrun ALL dads on the planet... even professional athletes who happen to be dads. You see the fallacy and worthlessness of that statement?

High powered lasers MAY one day make HGVs obsolete but there's no way you have a crystal ball. In any case, these don't exist in a way where they can even take out rockets and missiles yet. Do you know how much energy would be necessary for a laser to burn through an HGV skin that is designed to withstand the heat of hypersonic flight? I sure don't but imagine it would be a lot more than required to burn through a very typical missile or plane. So far that hasn't even been achieved within very short distances. In any case while China's laser weapons programs are rather secretive, we can see what the US decides to uncover since they are a little bit more open with showing their defensive military technologies like laser CIWS or laser air defences. I wouldn't bet on them shooting down HGVs anytime this decade. The latest US proposals to investigate anti-HGV all involve missile interception covering large fields of angle.

Mohsin77 said:

The PAF literally told the IAF that it was going to attack, in advance. Yet, the IAF still managed to get surprised, panicked, lost a Mig, and shot down its own chopper trying to react. And you're talking about countering Chinese hypersonic vehicles with 'surveillance'? What planet are you living on?



Glad to see you're acknowledging the involvement of your mighty Flankers, who apparently bugged out, rather than engage and fight. Feel free to 'dodge' as many AMRAAMs as you like, while running away. Your Flankers failed to protect your Mig, and you're apparently bragging about their ability to run from a fight... wow.

Click to expand...

Gosh that must be unprecedented! Pakistan ballsy and competent enough to bomb a nuclear nation. Never happened before!

Su-30MKI can only run from a fight against JF-17 or F-16 simply because they former gets detected first all the time due to enormous RCS while the latters are less observable. AIM-120C and SD-10 both outrange the older model R-77 which the IAF is still using. They are quickly upgrading medium range missiles since the engagement last year. IAF Rafale's with Meteor will give the absolute advantage to IAF. Luckily 36 Rafales against PAF isn't THAT dominating.

berserk said:

Frequency hopping make it harder not impossible for deception jamming... this EW suit provide protection against mostly SAM and AAMs using "Home on jamming" and DRFM are a good way to counter them.
DRFM are not a silver bullet agree.. but AESA with LPI aren't either... SAP 518, 14 , L-175B and modern US jammer's can degrade there effectiveness considerably and even if there is a way to totally jam them...it will be a state secret.

Click to expand...

The question isn't whether it is possible or impossible to jam AESA driven waveforms.

The question is whether the MIG-29's RWR is sufficiently sensitive to achieve a high probability of intercept (POI) against such signals. Based on the marketing literature it highlighted that it has a digital based receiver in wide band,



The most modern EW suite are all digital wideband channelized receivers because of the high degree of sensitivity required to handle complex waveforms. Below is a comparison on sensitivity (in dB) between the type of receivers.



The MIG-29's RWR specs fall short of the state of the art specs.

As an example, the F-16 Block 70 ALQ-211 RWR is an all digital wide band channelized receiver.



AFAIK, to-date only the US and Israel offers all digital RWR. The main reason is it is expensive and requires significant avionics upgrade and high end DSP capabilities which Russia might not possess.