Total Pageviews

Wednesday, May 18, 2011

IRNSS And GAGAN Explained


The Indian Regional Navigational Satellite System (IRNSS) is an autonomous regional GPS-based satellite navigation system being developed by the Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO) and it would be under the total control of the Govt of India. The IRNSS’s R & D programme was approved in May 2006. Total project cost is Rs16 billion and the project is due for completion by 2012. The IRNSS will comprise a constellation of seven GPS navigation satellites placed in geostationary orbit that will provide an absolute position accuracy of better than 10 metres throughout India and within a region extending approximately 2,000km around India.


On the other hand, the GPS Aided Geo Augmented Navigation or GPS and Geo Augmented Navigation system (GAGAN) is a planned implementation of a regional satellite-based augmentation system (SBAS) by the Govt of India to improve the accuracy of a GNSS receiver by providing reference signals. The Rs7.74 billion project is being implemented in three phases since 2008 by the Airports Authority of India (AAI) with the help of ISRO. The goal is to provide GPS-based navigation cues for all phases of flight over the Indian airspace and in the adjoining regional area. It is applicable to safety-to-life operations, and meets the performance requirements of international civil aviation regulatory bodies. The final, operational phase of GAGAN is due for completion by May 2011.—Prasun K. Sengupta

86 comments:

Anonymous said...

Hi Prasun, thanks for the article,
1) what was the unique thing which india tried in the TES ( Technology experimental satellitle) also is the satellite still operational. Was any similar technology used in the recent spy satellite.
2) Can you please provide your details insight into the recent accident at the Naval docyard. Also is it true to the 2nd nuclear submarine is under construction. When will the current nuclear submarine become operational.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

You can find the answers to your first query at: http://trishul-trident.blogspot.com/2011/04/indias-milsat-deployments-on-rise.html
Regarding your second query, it seems to be human error-related, i.e. premature or unintentional opening of the sluice gates to the drydock. The second SSBN is now being fabricated inside the drydock. The Arihant is expected to become operational by 2015.

Anonymous said...

Is IRNSS progressing as per schedule ??/ Will it be ready by 2012 as per your report?

Also when is GAGAN getting ready ? I don't think any satellite in GAGAN program is launched yet...

Will the GAGAN satellites feature military use ?/

Also are the communication satellites meant specifically for IA, IAF and IN are the part of IRNSS ??

Anonymous said...

Dear Sir

If for instance we have to use Agni 3 and Agni 5 missiles which have 3000 and 5000 km range respectively
then will IRNSS and GAGAN be useful for accurately targetting our missiles

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Anon@8.11AM: Both projects are progressing on schedule. All reqd R & D work will be completed by 2012. The first satellite with GAGAN payload--GSAT-4--was launched on April 15, 2010. GAGAN satellites will not not offer the PY GPS-codes for military navigation purposes. Only the IRNSS will provide that capability. IRNSS is strictly for GPS navigation, not for communications.

To Anon@11.08AM: Strategic targetting for IRBMs and MRBMs is achieved through the SAR payload-equipped overhead recce satellites like the RISAT-1 and RISAT-2, and Cartosat family of satellites. The IRNSS will be employed only for GPS-based positioning data prior to missile launch.
For operations involving surface-to-surface battlefield support missiles and depressed trajectory hypersonic cruise missiles like the Prithvi and Shaurya, the IRNSS will be used for acquiring real-time navigational cues in order to cancel the drift rate of the missiles' ring laser gyro-based inertial navigation systems.

Anonymous said...

^^^
Thanx Prasun for the reply...

But the first GAGAN satellite launch failed...
2 were supposed to be launched this year...

Anonymous said...

Hi Prasun ,
Why doesnt the US export the C5 galaxy?What is the major diff opn wise bw C5 andc17?

Any hopes for An-225?When tanks could be airlifted?

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

The C-5 and An-225 are not optimised for STOL transport, whereas the C-17A is. Plus, series-production of both the C-5 and An-225 has been discontinued. MBTs, ICVs and field artillery howitzers can also be airlifted and airdropped by the C-17A. The C-17As can also takeoff from an land on some of the ALGs being made operational by the IAF.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Anon@4.35PM: GSAT-8 launch on May 21
http://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/article2032771.ece

Anonymous said...

Hi........

on a totally different topic......seems lot of action:
(a) C-17's order 10+6; (b) Mirage 2000 UPG for 51 a/c; (c) 450 MICA AAM's; (d) Basic Trainer Commercial bids opened this week......(e) Jaguar re-engine tender cancelled; ............

what else ??????

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

Lots of action, yes. But are they decisive? Only time will tell. Let's see if the Mirage 2000 upgrade proceeds or gets canned just like the re-engining/upgrade plans for the MiG-27Ms. 450 MICA AAMs seems a fairly small quantity at the moment. A figure of 2,000 could be the final number to be ordered. For the basic trainer, the PC-7 Mk2 and T-6A are the frontrunners. The re-engining of the Jaguars with Honeywell's F125 should have proceeded, unless the MoD has goofed up once again. Several more contracts were inked this month about equipping Indian Navy and ICG fast patrol boats/FACs and Do-228 MPAs with new-generation optronic systems. More about that will appear in the June 2011 issue of FORCE, along with data on the six Qing-class AIP-equipped SSKs on order for the Pakistan Navy. These SSKs will be able to launch the CJ-10K nuclear warhead-carrying LACMs, thereby giving Pakistan a credible sea-based n-deterrent. Additional details of the French weapons package destined for the Pakistan Air Force will also be featured in FORCE magazine.

Anonymous said...

looking forward...........

Anonymous said...

I had heard that the French has delayed/denied the much needed electronic equipment required for the Pakistani AF/JF-17's.......

Also, were not the 50 JF-17's that PAF are getting part of the overall order of @200-250 a/c....is this just a political/media hype of show the Chinese support to the American's and Indians ???

While the JF-17 is much better than the a/c it is set to replace ....it seems quite 3rd generation ?? Specially without the avionics/electronics it comes without.....

And, I hope that this wakes up the MOD/AKA

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

Contrary to popular preception, military-industrial cooperation between France and Pakistan is alive and growing.
Thus far the PAF has received some 40 JF-17s for two squadrons and have been used for replacing the Nanchang A-5IIICs. This will be followed by 50 more JF-17s. One must note that PAC Kamra is not building the JF-17s, but merely assembling them from completely knocked-down (CKD) kits being supplied by Chengdu Aircraft Corp. What China has agreed to do now is to expedite the supply of these CKD kits for the 50 JF-17s. As such, the JF-17 facility at PAC Kamra is just a JF-17 Rebuild Factory.
The avionics suite of the JF-17 is not exactly fourth-generation, but 3.5-generation. The WMD-7 laser designation pod, for instance, is a clone of the THALES-built ATLIS-2 LDP of the 1980s. In addition, the Klimov RD-93 turbofan is a generation behind the RD-33-3s of the MiG-29UPG. The SD-10A AAMs of the JF-17 are not of the terminal active homing-type.

Anonymous said...

Also, still on the JF-17......it7's Ground Attack capabilities seem somewhat limited....5 hardpoints with a carry load of 3800kg....(If I remember my facts right....the five hardpoints include 2 wingtips for aam's..and, 1 centreline for Fuel tank ???).....over all, nothing to really worry about.....

What would the PAF use the JF-17 mainly for ??? Local air defence, Interdiction/ground attack...

How would t compare to the Tejas Mk1...????

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

The JF-17 Thunder is a MRCA, i.e. it can be used for both air defence and ground attack. With the laser-guided and TV-guided bombs at its disposal, the JF-17 is indeed a potent close air support aircraft. The same goes for the Tejas Mk1 as well, although for beyond-visual-range air combat the Tejas Mk1 with Derby BVRAAMs will give it the superior edge over the JF-17. The JF-17's cockpit ergonomics (thanks to its larger AMLCDs) is at the moment better than that of the Tejas Mk1. In terms of systems reliability, maintenance and life-support costs, the Tejas Mk1 scores over the JF-17.

Anonymous said...

Hi Prasun,
good to hear from you once again.We all were missing your well dissected articles. Thanks for the article on PLAAF's J-20.
Does it mean that the J-20 will be superior to the T-50 PAK-FA in all-aspect stealth, power and weaponry? Can you please post a comparision analysis between the two?
How good will be the PMF/FGFA against the J-20 in terms of stealth,power and weaponry?Can you guess what will be the frontal radar cross section of both the T-50 PAK-FA and the PMF/FGFA?Will it be better than the J-20?How good will be be the AESA and sensor fusion in the J-20?

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

It would be premature to make any comparison of the design/performance characterisatics of the FGFA/PMF and J-20 simply because the Russians have not yet released any specific data on the FGFA/PMF, whereas the Chinese have done so since November 2008. I have gone through at least 50 scientific/engineering papers presented by various Chinese academia on the J-20 over the past five years, but have yet to come across anything on the FGFA/PMF. Therefore, any conclusions I could draw about the FGHFA/PMF would be premature and incomplete.

Anonymous said...

Prasun thanks for the reply.
Please give a detailed and comparative analysis of the T-50 PAK-FA in respect to it's internal weaponry, IRST and frontal radar cross section with the J-20.
Will the final prototype be more stealthier than the current ones? What steps are taken by the Russians to improve it's overall stealth and reduce the IR signatures of it's engine nozzles?
How will it fare versus the F-22 & the J-20?

Anonymous said...

Hi Prasun,
2 P3 orions in Pak Namvy destroyed by terrorists.What are its implications for the navy , pak govt,
Indian Navy.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Anon@6.37PM: Like I said earlier, I simply don't have enough data to do a comparative analysis of the FGFA-PMF/T-50 PAK-FA and J-20. But one thing is for certain: one cannot evaluate such fifth-generation combat aircraft on a standalone basis, as none of them will be operating on a standalone basis. Instead, they will all be part of an overall network-centric war-waging system that will include airborne/space-based RSTA sensors and data-linked battle management platforms. For instance, even the BVRAAMs and LRAAMs will be data-linked to AEW & C platforms (like the Super Su-30MKI and EMB-145 AEW & CS) for ensuring targetting accuracy or re-targetting. Consequently, when one talks of stealthiness of the aircraft or its ordnance-delivery capability, one is limiting oneself to platform centricity, as opposed to network-centricity.

To Anon@8.47PM: With two of the P-3C Update 3 Orions destroyed, only five are now left with the Pakistan Navy, although the two can be replaced later with ex-US Navy stocks. But don;t forget that the four Saab 2000 AEW & C platforms too can perform wide-area maritime surveillance. It now remains to be seen if the PAF F-16s at Sargodha and Jacobabad will be targetted next for destruction on the ground.

Anonymous said...

Prasun,
Will the 'Super'SU-30MKI will made stealthy like the SU-35BM? The SU-30MKI has a huge radar cross-section. So i was asking if any measures will be taken to improve it's overall stealth like special RAM coatings, slight structural modifications etc. I am not not talking about internal weapons bay for which you have already given the reasons.
Will the Tejas Mk-2 by incorporating all the technologies as you have written on your earlier post be equal to the SAAB Gripen NG in capabilities? How many of these will be ordered?
Thanks.

Anonymous said...

good to see u back pks!!! luvd your articles...

why did u change your site bro? i only now got to know the existance of this...

btw i was hoping u could do a follow-up on the ATV as what u said about it being a tech-demo wasn't really accurate

Antonov Design Bureau said...

PKS@10.27 May 19

"Plus, series-production of both the C-5 and An-225 has been discontinued"

HELLOOOO, An-225 has NEVER been series produced. Only 1 An-225 has ever been built which remains operational...

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Anon@4:19PM: That's right. Only 1 An-225 was built and follow-on plans for building more were scrapped after the breakup of the USSR in 1991.

To Anon@4:11PM: Many thanks, but I still do beg to differ with you, since there is nothing substantive to indicate that the Arihant will go out on sea patrols equipped with nuclear warhead-carrying SLBMs in the near future. After all the hoo-haa has subsided since the Arihant's much-publicised launch, we have yet to see the Arihant either cruising at sea or even test-fire any SLBM. Unless and until all these capabilities are convincingly demonstrated in an operational environment, the Arihant will continue to be a vessel just for technology demonstration purposes. I wonder where all those who were predicting the Arihant's commissioning by 2011 have now gone to.

To Anon@9:39AM: Of course RAM coatings will be applied on the Super Su-30MKI. And as for the Tejas Mk2, if the ADA succeeds in delivering between 2016 and 2018what the IAF has specified and asked for, then yes it will be as good as the Gripen NG. Then, up to 2150 may be ordered for the IAF and up to 50 for the Navy.

Anonymous said...

if the ADA succeeds in delivering between 2016 and 2018what the IAF has specified and asked for, then yes it will be as good as the Gripen NG. Then, up to 2150 may be ordered for the IAF and up to 50 for the Navy.

What has IAF asked for?and 2150 is a HUGE!!!!! number.time frame to indusct it into the air ofrce will be loong!

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

My sincere apologies for the typo error. It should be 150 and not 2150. As to what has the IAF asked for, kindly go to: http://trishul-trident.blogspot.com/2011/04/tejas-mk2-m-mrca-crunch-time-for-ada.html

flanker143 said...

wud love to see post on AMCA and AURA post....
anywaz great work on mk2 , mki and arjun...especially mk2 , i was expecting a lot of improvements on mk2 and ur on post tejasmk2 mrca just made my day...

sir i feel writing queries on blog comments is real mess !!
so sir it wud be great if u cud provide a mail address or u can even add me on facebook...

gunjitsingh007@gmail.com

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To flanker143: Many thanks. There's not much to write about either the AMCA or AURA apart from what has already appeared in LIVEFIST. But you are more than welcome to post your queries here as I don't view them as a mess. Will try to answer any queries as is humanly possible.

flanker143 said...

well then my first would be--

whats the current status of the aesa project for mk2....

the drdo guys were saying from quite sometime that they we developing it with a foreign company in a jv preferably with the one which already has experience in making aesa radars....

and what are the structural modifications on mk2 dimensions, additional control surfaces etc
plus how much increase will there be in the internal fuel capacity.....will it be marginal something significant ??

thanks in advance...

Anonymous said...

Prasun,
Apart from RAM coatings is it possible to make some minor structural modifications to the 'Super'SU-30MKI airframe and engine air inlets to make it more stealthy.A stealthy 'Super'SU-30MKI will be a very potent fighter next to F-22.

Do you see the ADA successful in delivering all the IAF specifications in the Tejas mk-2? Has the IAF also asked for conformal fuel tanks on the Tejas? Which passive detection system is better, OSF or OLS-30?

Will the Tejas mk-2 be made as stealthy as the Rafale? Imeant to say will the airframe be stealthy?

Anonymous said...

can you compare arjun mk1 and mk2 in present version performance to Pakistani (al-khalid and I) and Chinese tanks (type-90,99). which is better ( T-90 or arjun tank) for India to combat them ?

sbm said...

Mr Sengupta, a question for you: what equipment/ armament to Indian navy Dorniers have at present ?

I ask this because of this quote from the book Transition to Eminence:

http://indiannavy.nic.in/t2t2e/trans2emins/14_naval_air.htm

"The first naval Dornier from HAL joined INAS 310 on 24 August 1991. The second Dornier arrived later in 1991 and the next two in 1992. The fifth Dornier was delivered fitted with the Super Marec (maritime reconnaissance) radar. In subsequent years, the remaining Dorniers were retrofitted with this radar during their major inspections by HAL Kanpur.

For the coastal reconnaissance role, ten more Dorniers were acquired, in addition to the five acquired earlier. These Dorniers were progressively fitted with ESM, GPS and sonobuoy systems for the surveillance, ASW and EW roles.

By 2002, the Navy had acquired a fleet of 15 Dorniers."


Some clarity would be appreciated. Thanks
Sanjay Badri-Maharaj

Anonymous said...

Prasun
Any update on the multi-role supersonic ‘air-delivered munitions’ (ADM), with ranges of between 700km and 1,200km, capable of carrying 300kT tactical nuclear warheads being jointly developed by the DRDO with Israel Aerospace Industries & RAFAEL Armament Development Authority.
Please give a detailed analysis.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To flanker143@1.12PM: Since India has yet to master the art of designing and producing MMRs, total reliance on foreign suppliers of airborne MMRs will continue. As for the AESA-based MMR, since the Tejas Mk1's environment control system from Honeywell has been designed around the IAI/ELTA-built EL/M-2032, the chances of the EL/M-2052 AESA-MMR being selected for the Tejas Mk2 remain very high. Final selection will be made before the middle of next year. THALES and Cassidian are offering India ToT for maintaining and servicing the AESA-MMRs of the Rafale & EF-2000, and not for designing and producing them. No one can indigenously develop AESA-MMRs based on such ToT packages. India is not building AESA-MMRs with Russia. Instead, India will procure them off-the-shelf from Russia for installation on the to-be-upgraded Su-30MKIs.
The Tejas Mk2’s air intakes and wings will be modified and increased in size. Internal fuel capacity wonlt be increased, but overwing conformal fuel tanks are an option under active consideration.

To Anon@3.06PM: Of course airframe/structural modifications aimed at enhancing stealth are a viable option for the Su-30MKI, but these options are not being exercised for the first 50 Super Su-30MKIs. Will try to find out more about all this during MAKS 2011. As for the Tejas Mk2, yeas, ADA should be able to deliver for as long as the MoD is in a position to swiftly clear the procurement files. To make the airframe stealthy, RAM coatings will undoubtedly be applied. As for the IRST sensor, I expect the 55kg Skyward system from Selex Galileo of Italy to be the preferred candidate. That same ITST is going on board the Gripen NG.

To Anon@7.23PM: The definitive Arjun Mk2 with a 1,500hp powerpack from Cummins India will definitely be superior to the T-90S/M Al Khalid and ZTZ-96G MBTs in terms of hit survivability and vectronics. But one must bear in mind the prospects of blue-on-blue engagements remains high in a battlefield in which the Al Khalid and T-90S/M will be pitted, primarily due to similar MBT silhouettes. The problem of target identification in India’s case gets compounded due to the absence of integral Army Aviation attack helicopters (which also act as scouts and target acquisition platforms for friendly MBT forces). For the Pakistan Army, this is not a problem since it has integral Army Aviation AH-1S/F HueyCobra assets. Therefore, I would tend to prefer the Arjun MBT to be pitted against the Al Khalid or T-80UD during armoured engagements in the Thar/Cholistan desert areas and the plains of Punjab, which will always take place in the dusk-to-dawn timeframe (and not during daytime as deceptively ‘exhibited’ to visiting journalists during exercises like Vijayee Bhava). But I cannot emphasise enough the severe handicaps faced by the Army’s armoured warfighting formations due to the absence of integral light armed aeroscout/attack helicopters.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

My dear sbm ji, what a great pleasure it is to hear from you after a gap of 18 months! The data on the Navy’s Do-228s is accurate but not complete. The 15 Do-228-201s acquired have all since been fitted with IAI/ELTA-supplied mission sensor/management packages that includes wingtip-mounted ELINT sensors and mission management consoles, BEL-built Tarang Mk3 RWR, and belly-mounted EL/M-2022 (V)2 search radars (replacing the earlier GEC-Marconi built Super Marecs). In addition, the Navy early last February inked a contract of undisclosed value with Elbit Systems Electro-Optics Ltd (Elop) Ltd. (Elop) for procuring MicroCoMPASS (micro-compact multi-purpose advanced stabilised system) turret-mounted, multi-spectral optronic sensors, which will be fitted on board the 11 HAL-built Do-228-211s now in delivery. And earlier this month, another contract inked will result in the 16 Do-228-211 maritime patrol aircraft that have already been ordered being fitted with the MicroCoMPASS system as well. These ICG Do-228-211s will also have the DRDO-developed and BEL-built Supervision 2000 belly-mounted search radars. The ICG is also gradually upgrading its existing fleet of Do-228-201s, starting with three aircraft. A contractual flight acceptance test was successfully performed at Daman in September 2009 on the first MSS-6000 airborne maritime surveillance system built and fitted by the Swedish Space Corporation (SSC) for the first Do-228-201 to be upgraded. The MSS-6000 comprises a SLAR (side-looking airborne radar (SLAR); an infra-red/ultra-violet (IR/UV) linescanner; high-resolution digital photography camera and a video system for visual documentation for evidence purposes. Data from all systems is processed, integrated and presented in one integrated view to the operator. All recordings are annotated with GPS data and digitally stored in an on board geographical database. Information from the sensors will be accessible from the operator’s console. It is displayed in real-time and is tightly integrated with a tactical map. The map will contain the current aircraft position and time marks on the flight track. The map image has a large number of operator selectable overlays such as background information (territorial borders, EEZ borders, exclusion zones etc), geo-corrected overlays from SLAR, IR/UV, observation and target notes as well as notes on location of captured images from cameras. This gives the right support to the MSS-6000 operator in every situation. All information from the mission is saved and can be compiled in mission reports and/or sent on to ground station and other units. Data and digital images are presented integrated with an electronic nautical chart database, and also correlated with the mission report, all at the fingertips of the user, to ensure maximum efficiency during routine surveillance as well as in emergency situations. The MSS-6000’s mission software also allows transmission of data to the ground in real-time as well as replay and analysis of the recorded mission on a separate ground workstation.
As far as armamens packages go, the Navy's and ICG's Do-228s are still equipped with only gunpods AFAIK.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Anon@10:13PM: The supersonic ADM is still in the detailed design phase. But the good news is that the cannistered, truck-launched version of the Shaurya depressed trajectory hypersonic cruise missile armed with a conventional warhead and having a range of 750km is soon likely to be inducted into service in large numbers (more than 600) by the IAF, which had earlier refused to induct the Prithvi SS-250 missiles into service. It will most likely be produced at BrahMos Aerospace's new assembly plant in Kerala.

flanker143 said...

so no indigenous or jv aesa for mk2 now as it will be procured off the shelf...

but there was some report a few months back that Israel had banned the export of elm 2052 radar under US pressure...

and what is the fuel and empty weight of tejas mk1 ??

is there any plan to inc the no. of hardpoints ??

Anonymous said...

hi prasun,

i. is the Kolkata class destroyer on track to being launched in December this year? can i also confirm how many tons it displaces (standard & full load)

ii. you were mentioning about attack helicopters in the army. what is the status of the LCH? haven't heard much on it post first-flight.

thanxxx

NJS said...

''Shaurya depressed trajectory hypersonic cruise missile armed with a conventional warhead and having a range of 750km is soon likely to be inducted into service in large numbers (more than 600) by the IAF''

Good news , is it Army or IAF inducting it, does orders are confirmed or when appox will start .

NJS said...

''Shaurya depressed trajectory hypersonic cruise missile armed with a conventional warhead and having a range of 750km is soon likely to be inducted into service in large numbers (more than 600) by the IAF''

Good news , is it Army or IAF inducting it, does orders are confirmed or when appox will start .

Anonymous said...

hello sir.
Is shaurya missile brought by iaf or by indian army.
N how big is pakistan's nasr missile(hatf 9) big blow to our cold start doctrine?
I just wonder how come all pakistani missile tests are successful evn when russia n usa missile tests are a failure smtimes.
Sir it would be adorable if you could write article on pakistani missiles
thank u in advance.

Abhijit

sbm said...

Thanks for the reply Mr. Sengupta. Working ponderously on a sequel to the Armageddon Factor.

What of the Navy Dorniers with the Elta AMSOP FLIR turrets and sonobuoys ?

Anonymous said...

Prasun,
Why do you expect the 55kg Skyward system from Selex Galileo of Italy to be the preferred over THALES Avionics OSF & Russia’s Urals Optical Mechanical Plant (UOMZ) LS-30? Is it better? Please xplain?

How does the Israel Aerospace Industries/ELTA Systems’ EL/M-2052 fare in comparision with the Northrop Grumman’s scalable agile beam radar (SABR), and Raytheon’s RACR? The RBE-2 AESA can detect a 5m^2 target at about 160-170 kms.What about the EL/M-2052? Please give a detailed analysis.

Will Cassidian’s Ariel Mk3 be preferred as the fibre-optic towed-decoy because of joint collaboration between it and DARE in IDAS? How will the IDAS fare when compared with the SPECTRA?

Will the Astra Mk2 be as heavy as the Astra Mk1 or some arrangements will be made to make it lighter? Will it be ramjet powered like the Akash or solid fuel powered like it's predecessor?

Please answer. Thanks.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To flanker143: Israel had banned the export of EL/M-2052 radar under US pressure for the JAS-39 Gripen IN. That has nothing to do with the Tejas Mk2. I believe LIVEFIST has already covered the issue of fuel and empty weight of the Tejas Mk1 and posted some posters before. Number of hardpoints for the Tejas Mk2 will be the same as that on the Tejas Mk1.

To Anon@11.32AM: Regarding the dates for commencement of sea-trials of the first Project 15A DDG, your guess is as good as mine. The confirmed displacement figures will be available only after the sea trials and only after the decision has been made on the type of shipborne helicopter to go on board this DDG. This decision is still quite some distance away since the Navy will first have to place orders for 10-tonne helicopters for the three Project 17 FFGs. Regarding the LCH, work is now progressing on avionics selection, following which systems integration will take place. All this will take at least two years to complete, following which flight trials for airworthiness certification will take place. That could take another 18 months.

To NJS: If you see the photo of the Shaurya during this year’s Republic Day Parade (or was it last year’s?), you will be able to find out the type of colour used for painting both the missile canister and the TATRA launch vehicle. The colour scheme is the same as that used for the Prithvi SS-250 variant for the IAF. That itself should tell you whether it is the IAF or Army that will acquire the Shaurya.

To Abhijit: The Nasr is actually the P-20 tactical ballistic missile developed by China’s ALIT. Write-ups on Pakistani missiles are available in my previous blog at: http://trishulgroup.blogspot.com/2008/12/pakistans-ballistic-missile-arsenal.html
and
http://trishulgroup.blogspot.com/2008/12/babur-lacm-raad-alcm-detailed.html
and
http://trishulgroup.blogspot.com/2008/10/chinas-c-602-ascm-detailed.html

To sbm: What’s with the ‘MrSengupta’ (LoL)??? The Do-228s with AMSOP FLIRs are also equipped with ELINT sensors from ELTA to act as ‘information warfare’ platforms. AFAIK they don’t come equipped with sonobuoys or MAD booms.

To Anon@11.52PM: Compared to its competitors, the Skyward IRST is lighter and therefore most easily installed on board the Tejas Mk2. Mind you, the Skyward has been designed to go on board aircraft like the Gripen, whereas the THALES OSF and OLS-30 were designed from the very beginning for installation specifically on the Rafale and Su-30MK,o.e. they were not designed as retrofit solutions.
The EL/M-2052, RACR and SABR are all in the same league, as they were all originally designed as refrofit solutions for F-16-type combat aircraft. Long-range for AESA-MMRs matters only when the combat aircraft is not acting in concert with AEW & C platforms. When AEW & C support is available, then the AESA-MMR is used only for target engagement with BVRAAMs with ranges from 40km to 110km. The Ariel Mk3 is a top-end towed-decoy, but not necessarily the one reqd by the IAF. Other cheaper solutions are available from the Russians, BAE Systems and RAFAEL. Cassidian is presently only acting as a systems integration consultant for DARE when it comes to IDAS for helicopters, not for combat aircraft. However, it is well-positioned to be appointed as DARE’s consultant for developing the IDAS for the Tejas Mk2. When fully developed, the IDAS for Tejas Mk2 (as well as on the MiG-29UPG) will be as advanced as the Spectra from THALES.
The Astra Mk2 will be heavier than the Mk1 but will not be ramjet-powered.

flanker143 said...

naa i'm pretty sure that news read that mk2 has been denied the use of elm2052...

Also can u plz shed some light on the capabilites and specs of elm 2052 , not much info is given on the net regarding it....
1-Can u plz tell the approx strike radius for tejas in a to a and a to g roles......a range vs pay load graph wud be even better....
2- is mk2 going to have a better range bcoz current range is a bit dissapointing.....i've heard that it has a time on station of only 45-50mins without external fuel tanks ??!! I think its currently gud for only interception and some cas jobs....

If u had to compare tejas mk2 with other modern fighters like rafale, eft ,f16, gripen , sh ......then how wud u do that.....??

Plus in ur mk2 mmrca post u had posted a list of improvements asked by IAF......so what has been the reaction from drdo or ada.....they have started the work or have asked it to water it down......

buddha said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
buddha said...

hi sir
will not army receive Shaurya depressed trajectory hypersonic cruise missile in its arsenal..?
is this missile going to be long range missile with atleast 3500km in future ..?

is anti ship and anti-carrier version of this missle possible with long range like Chinese
is naval version of this missile possible with long range for the purpose of land attack

Atul Sharma said...

Hi Prasun;

1)Was wandering about the exact range of Shaurya. Its Between 750 to 1500 kms (depending upon the payload) right?
2) Also; have the IAF placed a firm order; or its still in the valuation stage?
3) Is NAG Missile a TD? No news about induction; apart from the fact that some changes were sought in the NAMAICA.

Atul Sharma said...

Hi Prasun;

Some typos.
Its wondering and not wandering in pt 1.
Its evaluation and not eveluation in pt 2.

Anonymous said...

Hi Prasun ,
Now the price issue will be major selector in mmrca, whom do u think the least one(may be) Rafael / Typhoon .
china has longer range DF-21 antiship missile and Longer range MRBL (400 km)that could be major advantage for our enemy , does india has any future plans in it , even though russia is ready to help us in many way,why our MoD has not much carried about it.

Anonymous said...

Prasun,

If the internal fuel capacity and the number of hardpoints of the Tejas Mk-2 will be the same as that of the Tejas Mk-1 then what will be the advantage of having a higher thrust engine and larger wings on the Tejas Mk-2? Will it's payload be the same as that of the Gripen-NG?

Will the follow-on Project 15B DDG be similar to the Project 15A DDG in design or it will be different with stealthier hull like the F124 Sachsen class FFG? Will modular construction technique be applied?
Apart from the 7 Project 17A FFG & 4 Project 15B DDG will any other new frigates/destroyers be built?

PLA Navy is armed with 2000km range HN-2 &3 long range land attack cruise missile? How will India counter these? Are there any plans by the the IN to build long range cruise missiles?

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Flanker143: If you take a look at the Jas-39 Gripen IN’s weapons package that was originally proposed, then you will be able to see for yourself the RAFAEL-built Spice PGMs, Derby and Python-5 AAMs, plus Griffin-3 LGBs (see the topmost photos my older blog at: http://trishulgroup.blogspot.com/2009_06_01_archive.html) Consequently, the entire nav-attack system was meant to be of Israeli origin. The photo of the Gripen IN with Israeli armaments was taken by me at the Aero India 2009 expo. As for the EL/M-2052’s capabilities, they are the same as that of the RACR and SABR. As for the Tejas Mk1’s combat radius for interdiction, a figure of 450km is more than enough when it is carrying four LGBs and two R-73E AAMs. The combat radius can be further extended with aerial refuelling. Installation of an aerial refuelling kit on the Tejas Mk1 is a retrofit effort with little risk and not radical redesigning of the existing airframe. For the Tejas Mk2, as I had stated above, incorporation of overwing conformal fuel tanks is under active consideration. A time-on-station of 45 minutes for defensive counter-air operations is more than enough since the aircraft will not have to engage in CAPs. Instead, it will be guided straight to its area of operations by the AEW & C platform and will be able to engage in air combat or ground strike for more than 10 minutes. And as I had stated above, the Tejas Mk2 will be as good as if not better than the Gripen NG and Block 60 F-16E/F desert Falcons. The ADA has already begun working on the improvements asked for by the IAF for the Tejas Mk2. For the ADA there is no other choice, since the IAF clearly stated that either the Tejas Mk2 incorporates such enhancements, or we don’t have a Tejas Mk2 at all.

To Buddha: The Army’s ‘deep strike’ PGM reqmts are being fully met by the supersonic BrahMos Block 2/3 multi-role cruise missile. It must be noted that the Army presently does not have the targetting capability out to a depth of 290km within hostile territory. Therefore, utilising the BrahMos itself for strikes up to 250km inside hostile territory itself will be a challenge. The IAF, on the other hand, does have limited real-time targetting capability out to a depth of 300km, but with the arrival of the RISAT-1 overhead recce satellite and its follow-on versions, the IAF will be able to target the storage and launch sites of Chinese TBMs and cruise missiles within the Lanzhou and Chengdu military regions with the 750km-range Shaurya. The PLA’s TBM and CJ-10 cruise missile launch sites are located about 500km away from the LAC, which is well within the Shaurya’s engagement envelope. In India’s case there isn‘t any need to further develop the Shaurya as an anti-ship strike weapon since, the India, unlike the PLA Navy, is not faced with the prospect of targetting the US Navy’s aircraft carrier-based battle groups.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Atul Sharma: If used as a depressed trajectory cruise missile the range will be 750km and if used as a ballistic missile it will be a 1,500km-range missile. The IAF has stated its firm intention to induct the Shaurya in large numbers. Now once the Cabinet Committee on National Security approves this proposal, it’s all systems go for full-scale production. Nag is not a TD. In fact, the Nag’sTHALES-supplied target acquisition/engagement sensors are the same as those for the PARS-3LR (formerly the Trigat-LR). The problem is a 100% big-time and utterly laughable screw-up by the Indian Army, which had more than a decade to tell the DRDO to redesign the NAMICA so that it could incorporate a raisable mast (exactly the same as that developed by the DRDO for the Akash’s battlefield surveillance radar) atop which the panoramic optronic target acquisition sensor could be mounted. Instead, why on earth the Army HQ waited so long to make such an elementary request for such an easily available in-country solution to the DRDO is anyone’s guess!!!

To Anon@4.26PM: If one were to apply logical reasoning, then the Rafale will be the clear winner. But in reality, as you may have realised, logical reasoning and common sense are a rarity nowadays. China’s longer-range MBRLs are optimised for target engagements in the plains (whuch are found around China’s borders with the Central Asian republics, Mongolia, Russia and North Korea. Those MBRLs will be absolutely useless against India. Along the LAC, what’s reqd for border domination by the Indian Army are air-transportable 155mm/39-cal howitzers like the BAE Systems-built LW-155, and motorised 105mm and 155mm/52-cal howitzers.

To Anon@7.50PM: It’s simple. It will translate into better aerodynamic performance and a higher service ceiling for the Tejas Mk2. Don’t forget that the days of logging 2,000lb or even 1,000lg PGMs are fast diminishing. Instead, much more lighter 250lb and 500lb small-diameter PGMs withy glide/loitering capability are emerging. Which means one can carry more PGMs in triple-ejector racks per pylon, and not just one LGB per pylon.
Though the Project 15B DDGs will be similar in design to the Project 15A DDGs, the former will incorporate several composites-made structures as well as an integrated mast. Modular construction will be applied throughout. As for future orders, there is a plan to induct a total of 12 Project 28 ASW corvettes and up to 24 Project 28 multi-role guided-missile corvettes to replace the existing Tarantul-1 corvettes and Project 25/25A corvettes. The PLA Navy’s C-602/CJ-10K anti-ship/land attack cruise missiles can be easily countered by the Barak-2 SAM.

Anonymous said...

Hi Prasun, I didn't know that you have starting blogging. I was going thru Pakdef and somebody referred to one of your recent post in Trishul. Thanks a million. We get indepth and objective info from you.

sbm said...

Thanks a lot. What do you make of the allegations of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal being larger than India's ? It is fascinating that such calculations pre-suppose near 100% efficacy of Pakistan's production capacity while only around 40% of India's while ignoring the 8 reactors India has witheld for military purposes. What are your current estimates for the Indian stockpile of warheads, Agni-1, Agni-2 and Agni-3 systems vs Pakistan's ?

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Anon@1:51AM: Many nthanks, you're most welcome.

To sbm: My dear Sir, the ready-to-use n-arsenal at Pakistan's disposal is definitely more than what India has, but I state this not based on the conventional wisdom of drawing calculations based on fissile materials production rates. Rather, I'm drawing my estimates based on the available delivery systems, i.e. missiles at the disposal of Pakistan. Due to this, I still hold on to my earlier estimate of Pakistan having no more than 12 China-delivered n-warheads for its ballistic missiles like the Shaheen-1 and Ghaznavi, both of which have been operationally inducted into service. There is no evidence as yet to prove that the Shaheen-2 has been operationally inducted into service. And although the Ghauri has been inducted into service, there's no evidence as yet to prove Pakistan's success in designing and integrating a n-warhead with the Ghauri. The same holds true for the Babur LACM and Ra'ad ALCM and consequently, these two are most likely armed with conventional warheads since even the Chinese CJ-10/CJ-20s carry conventional warheads presently. It will be interesting to see how many n-warheads and of which type will be supplied by China to Pakistan for the six Qing-class AIP-equipped SSKs, which will be able to launch sub-launched LACMs like the CJ-10K. The Nasr/P-20 surface-to-surface battlefield support missiles are definitely armed with tactical nuclear warheads, and my estimate is that no more than 12 such missiles are now with Pakistan.
As for India's n-warhead stockpiles for the Agni-2 and Agni-1, a figure of 24 is what I've heard thus far. Am not aware of the Agni-3's series-production and service induction as yet. To me, it wouldn't make any sense to induct the Agni-3 into service. Far better to wait a little longer and fully develop the Agni-5 as a China-centric nuclear deterrent, and use the Agni-A2P and Shaurya equipped with n-warheads as a Pakistan-centric nuclear deterrent. Yet another problem faced by India is the inability thus far to develop suitable heavy-duty motorised TELs for the available Agni-1/2s, and the inability to develop cannisterised versions of these missiles. As a result, these missiles are mounted on trailers that are towed for only a short distance out of tunnels bored into the mountain ranges in the Nagaland-Arunachal Pradesh border prior to launch. Therefore, these are more or less static storage/launch installations
that are vulnerable to sabotage and hostile counter-strikes. Small wonder, therefore, that the Chinese have dramatically increased their espionage activities throughout the northeastern states of India, and the Chengdu MR-based helicopter regiments are being enhanced in both size and capability in order for them to undertake SOF-led vertical envelopment operations aimjed at 'capturing and securing' such missile storage/launch sites in the northeast.

Atul Sharma said...

Hi Prasun;

You really make me happy by providing insights into the otherwise hidden/rumour driven/ defence establishment. Its really difficult to get info. Most of the info on wiki are just news paper clippings which in turn are press releases. Its good to write to you... and getting back an authentic reply... its refreshing and enjoyable.

Atul Sharma said...

Hi prasun;
REPOSTING my comments. The previous one some did not appear.

1) Nag:- If the NAMICA changes are to be done inhouse, why have the nag orders limited to only 443. Dosen't the production have a lag time of 18-24 mnths?

2)Why is Dhanush being tested by the navy?. Is it to test the platform? Why would Navy require a 350 kms Prithvi (Dhanush) missile iof it has Brahmos with anti ship and Ship to Land attack also. If its only a platform test; which missile system would be finally incorporated?

3) Can you carry a article giving ur estimate of india's missile induction status (Agni I/II/III, Brahmos Block I/II) in nos.Do we have enough capacity to build such missiles in huge nos? or maybe we wait for France to teach us the same.?

4) Any update on the Barak -8 (or the Navy version ) Test status in India?

Prasun, the more you give the More we feel like asking. Apologies for the same.

Anonymous said...

It will be interesting to see how many n-warheads and of which type will be supplied by China to Pakistan for the six Qing-class AIP-equipped SSKs

This is against international rules is it not?What about non proliferation treaty?
How will the US try to counter this?
Why exactly is China prepared to take such a risk?

Anonymous said...

Prasun,
Thanks a lot for your explanation.

If over-wing conformal fuel tanks are incorporated on the Tejas Mk2, will it delay the it's induction into the IAF by 2016-17, the date you have given for their induction into the IAF? Will it require major structural modifications? Will it then be able to carry extra pylons for more weapons carriage? How much of range will be increased? Please explain.
I think this advanced Tejas Mk2 will be able to defeat the PLAAF J-10A!

A few years ago i heard of 3 Project 15C DDG.Is it true?

The IAF is in need of a tactical long range nuclear capable supersonic ALCM.When will the supersonic ADM with 1200 km range see the light of the day?

buddha said...

hello sir
thanks for the answers

i want to know whether or how far mirage deal will help India
i think 2or 3 squadron su-35 will be far better choice with little more money
and money is not a problem

Anonymous said...

"Yet another problem faced by India is the inability thus far to develop suitable heavy-duty motorised TELs for the available Agni-1/2s, and the inability to develop cannisterised versions of these missiles." (Prasun @ 3.13a)

-sir, but i wonder if DRDO is doing anything at all to overcome this handicap... zzzz

sbm said...

Thanks again. I take it you mean 24 each Agni-1 and Agni-2.

The Agni-2 is also rail-mobile as is the Agni-3 and this does marginally enhance flexibility.

Limited Production pending the Agni-5 makes sense in so far as the Agni-3 outranges the Agni-2 allowing deployment further behind.

The other aspect to be considered is what is the range of the Agni-2 and the Agni-3 ?

The claim of Agni-2 being 2000km is not accurate since the first two tests covered 2300km and 2100km respectively. In 1998, just prior to the first test, Kalam claimed Agni-2 had a range of 3700km. Following the first test, Fernandes claimed 3000km. Both estimates are definitely feasible.

Similarly, it is not impossible even now for Agni-3 to have a max range in the 5000km bracket.

Your views always welcome.

flanker143 said...

thanks for the infos Prasun....

anyways are there any plans to reduce the structural weight of tejas....

well most of the sites say that tejas weighs 6.5 tns empty....but i wud like to know what that how much production version wud version or the sp series will weigh...since i have heard that the current prototypes also carry some telemetry and testing equipments that weigh around 300-400kgs and will not be there on the sp one.......is this true ?? personally i think that even mk2 will be underpowered untill and unless they reduce the weight or get that epe engine...

also plz shed some light on the spectra system.....

Sheikh Hadi Pundek Khatara said...

#2102581-098

Fatwa No. 21445JP

I, Sheikh Hadi here by issue FATWA against Prasun Khan Sengupta for making false declaration about Pakistan nuclear weapons.

All muslims must refrain from reading:

http://trishulgroup.blogspot.com
http://trishul-trident.blogspot.com

and Allah SWT knows best.



Sheikh Hadi Pundek Khatara
Dawat-e-Islami,
127 Pepeh Khan Street
Lahore, Pakistan (ZINDABAD)
(www.dawateislami.net)

Anonymous said...

Watch out !!!!

Fatwa and all....!!!

Is that why no new posts for so long !!!

Take care and looking forward to new posts.......

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Atul Sharma: Series-production of the Nag will not take 18-24 months, rather the lag time will not be more than 9 months. I totally agree that the figure of 443 is a ridiculously small number, and a figure of 3,000 should have been more decent. As for the Dhanush, it was conceived as the sea-based leg of India’s nuclear deterrent and it is not used for any other purpose. I personally have grave misgivings about deploying a sea-based nuclear deterrent on board an AOPV which can be easily detected and attacked by hostile maritime patrol/ASW aircraft or helicopters armed for anti-ship strike. The Dhanush will be retired from service once the Arihant-class SSBNs equipped with SLBMs are deployed for deterrent patrols. As for numbers of Agni-1/2 ballistic missiles built thus far, the numbert is likely to be 12 of each. AFAIK the Agni-3 has not yet entered series-production. The total number of BrahMos Block-1/2 supersonic multi-role cruise missiles to be built will exceed a total of 2,000 as per present plans. Of these, the Navy will account for some 80 units, with the IAF accounting for a similar number. The rest will go to the Army. There’s no further update on the Barak-2/8 test-firing status.

To Anon@10.47AM: It all depends on how one interprets the international rules. If you read Bill Clinton’s memoirs you will find out that when China decided to ratify and adhere to the NPT it did so with a proviso that China’s NPT obligations will not come in the way of its helping Pakistan acquire a credible nuclear deterrent. The other four permanent members of the UN Security Council have acceded to China’s pre-condition and as therefore, one cannot say that China is taking a risk by supplying Pakistan with nuclear weapons.

To Anon@11.20AM: Incorporation of overwing CFTs will not delay the Tejas Mk2’s service induction. We still have five years left and such CFTs can be dresigned, test-flown and flight-certified within a 24-month period. Just ask Israel Aerospace Industries to become ADA’s consultant in this area and one will see swift results. But why are you craving for extra pylons? Out of the eight available pylons, four of them can easily accommodate eight LGBs of the small-diameter type, with the other two pylons housing R-73E AAMs, one pylon housing the Litening-2/3 LDP and the centerline pylon housing a fuel tank if needed. When backed up by aerial refuelling, attaining a combat radius of 600nm will be possible. The project 15 series of DDGs will end with the four Project 15B vessels. What the Navy requires urgently are up to three LPDs and several follow-on Project 28 multi-purpose corvettes. The supersonic ADM need not have a range more than 800km, since it will be equipped with a tactical nuclear warhead. By 2013 one will be able to see some distinct results.

To Buddha: It all depends on the delivery schedule of the M-MRCA. If, for instance, the Rafale’s annual production rate is ramped up to meet the IAF’s urgent requirements, then it is worth waiting a little longer instead of spending an astronomical amount (as asked for by the French) on upgrading the Mirage 2000H/THs. On the other hand, if the IAF really wants to keep the Mirage 2000 in service for another 15 years, then the best option is to allow Israel Aerospace Industries to team up with the DRDO and HAL and retrofit the Mirage 2000s with a DARIN-3-style cockpit/mission avionics and EL/M-2052 AESA-MMR.

To Anon@2.34PM: Why should the DRDO do anything to overcome this handicap? Leave it to TATA Motors or Ashok Leyland or Mahindra Defence or Larsen & Toubro to do the needful. After all they are fully capable of delivering indigenous and ingenious solutions.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To sbm: I had meant 12 Agni-1s and 12 Agni-2s. Based on the photos I’ve seen the rail-mobile TELs are actually towed out of the tunnels (storage areas) for a comparatively short distance. The rail-mobile TELs do not travel cross-country, since the pre-surveyed missile launch sites are located in the immediate vicinity of the storage areas. I totally agree with you that limited production of the Agni-3 would be a far better option for covering targets in southern and central China. But then, where does the Agni-A2P fit in? Will this be the definitive variant of the Agni-2 family with a 2,300km range? Also, as you rightly pointed out, achieving a range of 5,000km for the Agni-3 is a distinct possibility, depending on the payload configurations. However, looking into the future, since the DRDO has stated that its goal is to develop cannister-housed ballistic missiles, one would consequently tend to assume that eventually the Agni-1 would be replaced by the Shaurya, while Agni-2 family will be replaced with the Agni-3. It may therefore well be that the DRDO is now trying to further evolve the Agni-3 by developing it as a cannister-housed MRBM and only after success has been achieved in this area will the Agni-3 be put to series-production.

To flanker 143: As per ADA’s figures, the Tejas Mk1’s production variant has an empty weight of 6,560kg, takeoff weight in clean configuration (without any external weapons) with full internal fuel load of 9,800kg, and an external stores capacity of 3,500kg. The Tejas Mk2’s to-be-enlarged airframe will be subjected to further weight budgeting to make up for the additional mission avionics LRUs (for the IRST and defensive aids suite) and the actuated aerial refuelling probe to be accommodated. It won’t be underpowered since the F414-GE-400 turbofan will be used.
As for the SPECTRA, kindly go to: http://www.thalesgroup.com/Portfolio/Defence/Aerospace_Product_SPECTRA/?pid=1568
There you will be able to download the SPECTRA brochure. Later tonight I will upload the brochure of the Virgilius EW suite from Italy’s Elettronica that will go on board the MiG-29UPG and Tejas Mk2.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Sheikh Hadi Pundek Khatara: Am indeed most humbled and overwhelmed by being bestowed with Fatwa No. 21445JP. Do keep 'em coming. And by the way, has any fatwa been issued against the Pakistan Air Force for integrating Israel Aerospace Industries-designed-and-made conformal fuel tanks with its Block 52 F-16C/Ds? Allah Hafiz!

sbm said...

Prasun, Agni-2P has a stated range of 2800km to 3200km. The one photo I saw of Agni-2 in the field showed a road mobile as opposed to rail mobile launcher.

Agni-1 however is road mobile.

I find the figure of 12 each a bit low since even at 3 per year we would be looking at 30 or so a piece.

I am not saying that 30 plus of each have been produced but even 2 per year would add up to 22 odd Agni-2.

Just a thought...

Agni-3 makes no sense if Agni-2P comes along unless it has a greater range and the possibility of 5000km must be explored with say a 150-200kt boosted fission warhead.

Would you say that range/payload is feasible and that such a warhead is reliably possible for India ?

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To sbm: When one talks of figures one has to break it down between numbers deployed and numbers held in peacetime storage in knocked-down condition. If viewed thus, then yes a figure of 22-24 for ‘available’ Agni-2s is certainly a distinct possibility. And if you’re making the case for an Agni-3 equipped with a 150-200kt boosted fission warhead and having a range of up to 4,000km, then I would fully concur with you in terms of what can be realistically developed and deployed.

sbm said...

So what then has been developed as the warhead for the Agnis ?

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

AFAIK the boosted-fission warheads have yet to be fabricated for deployment. It is not an issue about the technological capability or inability to achieve this, but rather the strategic targetting policy of the Govt of India that reportedly determines the size and pace of warhead design and development.

sbm said...

so what have been fabricated ?

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

Pure fission-based unitary warheads.

sbm said...

Interesting. Now consider that the Agni has a payload of 1000kg - how does a fission device weigh that much unless it is over 50Kt in yield ?

I mean an Indian 15-25kT weapon should not weigh more than 300kg.

Anonymous said...

dear prasun,

in your opinion does india have a 2 stage thermonuclear weapon that is reliable and can be put into deployment at short notice, given that most of India's weapons are in semi-assembled state.

(PS- I know this is a very vague area of knowledge, even the CIA not having much of a clue, though your comments are much appreciated)

thanks

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To sbm: Precisely, my dear friend. A 25kT pure fission-based unitary warhead weighing about 300kg (or even less) is just about right for the Agni-1 and Agni-2. Having said that, confidence also remains quite high on boosted-fission warhead designs, but I personally would like to see these tested some more, just like the thermonuclear warhead issue touched upon earlier by K Santhanam.

To Anon@10.47AM: No, India does not have that. In order to deploy such warheads more R & D work needs to be done, including at least three more underground tests.

sbm said...

Which Prasun leads us to the major issue - if the payload of say 300kg is used - then the ranges of the Agni-1 and Agni-2 would far exceed the details provided to date - the Agni-2 might approach 4000km on its own with such a small payload.

AFAIK, the Agni-1 and Agni-2 have been tested with 700kg and 1000kg payloads and achieved 700km and up to 2300km respectively. A 300kg payload would substantially increase those ranges.

Santhanam made valid points relative to the TN warhead. I don't agree with dragging personalities into it though. The first stage of the TN test was a boosted-fission design and seems to have worked.

I don't see any testing in the near future but what of the attempts by India to obtain simulation data from France and the USA ?

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To sbm: Irregardless of the kind of ranges achievable by the Agni-2 with a 300kg warhead, I would approach the subject of strategic targetting from a different angle, though. Which means if the Agni-2 deployed in northeastern India can safely engage targets in southern China (like the Pearl River Delta, Guangzhou, Suzhou, Fuzhou) while the Agni-3 can engage targets up to Shanghai, that to me is credible deterrence achieved. But as you will rightly be aware, there are no constants and absolutes and therefore a time will probably come when the Agni-2s and Agni-3s would have to host decoy MIRVs (once this technology has been perfected).
The boosted-fission device indeed worked as advertised and therefore confidence remains very high for producing a fully weaponised warhead configuration should the political go-ahead be given.
Simulation data from the US? Not after the Super Hornet was dropped from the M-MRCA competition (a decision which has worldwide implications for the US aerospace industry from a global competitiveness standpoint, and which is why the US is rightly pissed off behind the scenes with India at the moment). But from France? A very distinct possibility indeed.

Anonymous said...

What makes you to feel that the TN was not so successful in-spite of the authoritative clarification that full explosion was intentionally not carried out due to fear of earthquake near the test area. And the explosive power increment obtained was technically in line with the theoretical calculations. Pl tell me if I am wrong somewhere.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

It's quite simple, really. When no one else has succeeded in developing a thermonuclear weapon with just one test, I see no reason for India to become the sole exception.

Anonymous said...

Thanx! So simple. Still I hope at least the fission part explodes with full fury. An affluent coating of the active materials can do the extra but extraordinary magic.

Anonymous said...

Not after the Super Hornet was dropped from the M-MRCA competition (a decision which has worldwide implications for the US aerospace industry from a global competitiveness standpoint, and which is why the US is rightly pissed off behind the scenes with India at the moment)

Coul you elaborate further prasun?

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

At a time the US is competing against the French and Eurofighter GmBH consortium in various countries (like Brazil, the UAE, Kuwait, and Switzerland, all of which have shown interest in the Super Hornet International Roadmap), the IAF's rejection of the Super Hornet IN does impose a grevious body blow to US marketing efforts elsewhere. And it hurts even more when one discovers that of all the six M-MRCA contenders, it was only the Boeing-led team that offered two distinct upgrade plans for the existing Super Hornet, while the others have only hinted at or have pledged subsequent upgrade paths. The way I see it, it should have been the Super Hornet that should have been shortlisted along with the Rafale. Either from a business/industrial standpoint or from a strategic standpoint, including the EF-2000 in the downselect does not make any sense to me.