Total Pageviews

Saturday, June 4, 2011

Arudhra MPR Is EL/M-2084 MMR: Seeing Is Believing

The Arudhra medium-power radar (MPR) is after all the ELTA Systems-built EL/M-2084 MMR, whose full-scale replica was displayed at the Aero India 2011 expo in Bengaluru last February. The two sets of visuals above (Arudhra on top, followed by the EL/M-2084 shown in Bengaluru) clearly confirm that. Thus far, neither the DRDO nor BEL have claimed that the Arudhra is a product developed and made in India. Unlike airspace surveillance/air traffic management radars, the Arudhra-EL/M-2084 is an early warning/target engagement radar that will be employed by the IAF for providing early warning of inbound tactical ballistic missiles and cruise missiles (both air-launched and ground-launched). A total of 34 such MPRs have been contracted for thus far by the IAF (the orders were placed during the 2009 Paris Air Show) for installation in and around Jamnagar, Mumbai and the National Capital Region, to begin with. The EL/M-2084 MMR is also employed as  the RAZ weapon locating radar by the IDF Ground Forces, and the Indian Army is soon expected to place orders for this land-mobile system, since the DRDO-developed and BEL-built WLR, reported to be under development since late 1999, has yet to see the light of day.

The AESA-based EL/M-2084 addresses an emerging requirement to include all land-based radar functions into one operational unit. The MPR combines a weapons locator radar and an air-defence radar to detect ballistic and cruise missiles, MBRL rockets, rounds fire by field artillery howitzers and mortars, calculates the anticipated impact and launching points, and provides target data to the relevant air-defence weapons systems. The MPR is land-mobile and scalable in order to meet different performance requirements. Scaling is performed by means of an antenna of varying physical size and the amount of transmit-receive module content. The current orders from the IAF include three different versions of the MPR.

And posted below is the official press release of the MoD’s Directorate of Public Relations, which should put to rest all doubts about the origin of the Arudha MPR.

“In the background of Commanders’ Conference at Headquarters South Western Air Command (SWAC), Air Chief Marshal PV Naik PVSM VSM ADC inducted the first Medium Power Radar (MPR) named ARUDHRA at Air Force Station Naliya. CAS was accompanied by Air Marshal A K Gogoi AVSM VSM, AOC-in-C South Western Air Command. The Arudhra radar is being inducted to replace the ageing (THALES-built) TRS-2215 and (BEL-built) PSM-33 radars on the inventory of IAF. The radar is state-of-the-art technology capable of detecting targets at ranges greater than 300km and it is an important component in the IAF's plans to achieve net-centric operations. The radar would strengthen air-defence in the Saurashtra-Kutch region. The Arudhra is being inducted in a signals unit which has rich historical legacy. The unit was raised in October 1966 in Jodhpur and moved to Naliya in Jun 1988. At Naliya the unit has played a pivotal role in the air-defence of Saurashtra-Kutch region. The event was attended by a large number of Air Force officers from Air Headquarters, Headquarters South Western Air Command, including the representatives of original equipment manufacturer ELTA Systems Ltd, from Israel. IAF fighters conducted a fly past brilliantly synchronised with the induction of radar by Chief of the Air Staff”.

Also being inducted by the IAF are the THALES-built GS-100 LLTRs, following the DRDO’s failure to develop an indigenous substitute.—Prasun K. Sengupta


Anonymous said... your case, man !!! well done !!!

Mr. Ra said...

Even if there is Israeli hand in this product, it is good for DRDO, IAF, India and the people.

flanker143 said...

they have ordered only one....
if no then how many are on order....

can u plz shed some light on the radars that have been developed or are underdevelopment by drdo....

thanks in advance....

Anonymous said...

Stop lying, Shvi Aroor is much much more reliable than you. We know you for years. lol

Anonymous said...

hey then why are so many Indian scientists standing in front of it in the first photo if they are not involved in the R&D of it?

plus the word "indegenous" (which i personally hate... why can't they use "locally made / developed") is used here:

buddha said...

i have come to know that India has completed a talk with Russia on joint venture to make lighter 5th gen fighter... is this true
and if true is it Mikoyan LMFS,a proposed Russian single-engine stealth fighter aircraft, loosely based on the canceled Mikoyan Project 1.44,with substantially larger internal weapons bays..

Anonymous said...

Dear Mr Prasun Sir

Firstly forget all those guys who call you names above.

My questions are:

Previously on your old blog you commented that NIRBHAY [the anticipated cruise missile] will be none more than a UAV. Subsequent to that news has stated otherwise, that it will indeed be a Cruise Missile as widely reported.

You also mentioned that a version of the Pinaka MBRL to be fitted on choppers such as the LCH and WALH is in development, due for early 2011 launch. This, I only heard from you and don't recall reading on it from elsewhere.

Furthermore, you quoted the ATV as "looking nothing like a deployable Submarine" pre-launch.

Can I please have your comments on these Sir?

Thank you.



Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Mr.Ra: It is of 100% Israeli origin, rest assured. DRDO has nothing to do with it and that's why the DRDO did not issue any statement about the MPR's induction ceremony.

To flanker143: Radars under development by the DRDO? I can only think of the L-STAR S-band AESA for the EMB-145 AEW & CS, apart from the WLR for which the Indian Army has been waiting since late 1999.

To Anon@1.23PM: How right you are! Especially when you browse through these two links:
1) (which demolishes the myth about the Rohini 3-D CAR being a DRDO-developed indigenous product)

2) (in which the DRDO's duplicity about the illustrations of TAL, Varunastra and Mihir are clearly exposed).

To Anon@1.26PM: They are not DRDO scientists, but IAF personnel. Instead of just glancing at the photo, do try to observe what's in front of your eyes.

To buddha: You're echoing what I've been saying since late 2008: that the FGFA/PMF will not be the same as the T-50 PAK-FA. You can read more about it at:

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To R2D2: The Nirbhay will indeed be a subsonic target drone to simulate cruise flight flight. As long as it will be powered by a 36MT turbofan imported from Russia's NPO Saturn, it won't be employed as a cruise missile due to MTCR restrictions. If at all India succeeds in developing an indigenous alternative to the 36MT turbofan, then the Nirbhay can easily be converted into a cruise missile capable of land attack and anti-ship strike.
Regarding the anti-armour guided-missile meant for development by the ARDE, the project was initiated based on the lessons learnt from OP Vijay in mid-1999. At that time, the plans called for acquiring such a guided-missile for the MiG-27Ms, LCH and the Mi-35Ps. However, after the IAF cancelled its plans for re-engining its MiG-27Ms in 2006, development of the anti-armour missile too was put on hold as the IAF lost all interest in it.
Regarding the 'Arihant', what I had said was that a nuclear-powered submarine carrying just two 750km-range SLBMs doesn't qualify to be labelled as a credible sea-based nuclear deterrent.

Anonymous said...

I see a redhead in the photo:

I thought coloring hair is banned in the services? or have they relaxed that too...

Qamar said...

"Regarding the 'Arihant', what I had said was that a nuclear-powered submarine carrying just two 750km-range SLBMs doesn't qualify to be labelled as a credible sea-based nuclear deterrent."


I thought the it will be able to carry 12 such missiles?

how many Akash missile are ordered and how good are they compared other systems of same class in the region

what about Akash missile radar its Indian made.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Anon@6.31PM: LoL! Glad you noticed him. But, seriously speaking, should we worry about a redhead, or worry more about the poncho of the CAS of the IAF, which makes him medically unfit for combat duties? Just think about it.

To Qamar: Even if it can carry 12 or 24 750km-range SLBMs, in what way will credible nuclear deterrence be achieved against China?
How many Akash E-SHORADS have been ordered to date? Go to:
About the Akash's BSRs and BLRs, kindly go to:

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Anon@1.23PM: The 1st link should be: 1) (which demolishes the myth about the Rohini 3-D CAR being a DRDO-developed indigenous product)

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

I've updated the narrative above. Total no of EL/M-2084 MPRs ordered in three versions for the IAF now stand at 34, with all deliveries being completed by 2016.

Qamar said...

Thanks Sir,

I appreciate the answer it was really helpful

sbm said...

Prasun, have any AT-16 Vikhr missiles been delivered to India for the Mi-17V1 fleet ?

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To sbm: Not that I know of, and certainly not for the Mi-17V-5s. But guess what's going on board several of the Mi-17V-5s. You will be able to see it here:

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To sbm: What's your take on the on-going deployment of these Arudhra/ELM-2084 MPRs? Last February during Aero India 2011 RAFAEL was displaying posters showing how exactly the EL/M-2084 would be employed for air-defence under the 'Iron Fist' & 'David's Sling' concepts. I also got inside the EL/M-2084's command-and-control cabin and had a 20-minute discussion with some of ELTA's techies, and followed that with a visit inside the 'Rajendra' BLR's command-and-control cabin (the one mounted on a T-72M) and spoke to some techies from BEL. Took plenty of photos as well of the respective operator consoles and on-board comms units.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To sbm: By the way, hope you've already read this:

The BEL pavilion at Aero India 2011 also showcased two good posters explaining what the IACCS is all about. Will upload them in the near future. Also shown at the DRDO pavilion was a scale-model of the Astra Mk2 BVRAAM. Will upload this pix as well in the not-too-distant future.

sbm said...

yes I saw that article. I did not like the intensity of the personal vitriol. Make the point, by all means, but keep personalities out of it.

However it is a valid argument to be made.

Frankly, the BMD program has been more successful than I had hoped given previous shortcomings. That any success has been achieved is worth something.

I don't know what to make of the radar's induction. I know that Israel has offered the Iron Dome and David's Sling systems but I don't know if India has shown any meaningful interest. Could it be a precursor to IAF induction of either these systems or the LR-SAM ?

Of course attempts could be made to convert the AAD system into a LR-SAM to augment the JV with Israel.

Anonymous said...

To Anon@6.31PM: LoL! Glad you noticed him. But, seriously speaking, should we worry about a redhead, or worry more about the poncho of the CAS of the IAF, which makes him medically unfit for combat duties? Just think about it.

those are muscles. looks like 20 packs abdomen. i think you are jealous you arent as muscular as him :)

Anonymous said...

Dear Mr Prasun Sir

Thank you for your answers.

Regarding Nirbhay, I have heard that DRDO is not only buying the 36MT Mini-Turbofan for fit/use but either to reverse-engineer or a technology buyout. How true could this be? Anyhow I see little relevance in making a Subsonic Cruise missile drone when India already has Subsonic cruise missiles from Russia that can be used for training/simulation.

Regarding the air-launched version of the Pinaka a.k.a anti-armor missile, the primary platform was to be Helicopters not airplanes. So why put it on hold? Unless you reckon it wasn't succesful being 11 years in the making, the project scrapped?

Regarding Arihant, you wrote that it would not be anything like a real SSBN/SSN but would rather be a research vessel to validate the miniaturized nuclear reactor. Armament it carries are irrelevant as the discussion isn't about that (750km range Dhanush). I mean it is a perfectly to-be-operationally ready submarine, only thing lacking missiles required to make it a credible sea-based deterent.

Thank you in advance.



Anonymous said...

Prasun K. Sengupta June 5, 2011 4:42 AM To sbm: By the way, hope you've already read this:

Sir, the facts and arguments made by her are full of factual inaccuracies and as silly as the regular DRDO comments (i give DRDO more marks). i guess she has lot of confusion regarding space and atmosphere and similarly regarding missile defences. It is really surprising that a highly technically accurate person like you gave reference of such a poorly written article (not denying many arguments were valid, but too much inaccuracies and misinformations taking away their credit, just like DRDO bluffing and losing image).

Anonymous said...

we all know that DRDO chief VK Saraswat itself has said that ABM systems is better then the amercian PAC-3 and this is also truth as we didnt purchased american system when offered.

"Dismissing PAC-3 as "an outdated system'', VK Saraswat said India's BMD system was "20-30% more capable'' than it"

This is enough for anything pakistan have

Anonymous said...


Two inaccuracies in your article. The WLR has been ordered already by the Indian Army, some 25 odd units are in production at BEL. Also, the LLTR was not ordered after a failure by the DRDO to develop one. The DRDO program to develop a LLTR similar to the GS100 was launched after India finalized an agreement to purchase the Thales systems. Basically, India does not want to be reliant totally on a foreign supplier.

Anonymous said...

Also, the Rohini has nothing to do with Poland anymore. The 3D car antenna and architecture was developed with PIT, but for Rohini, even that was revamped with LRDE systems.

flanker143 said...

the fe414in56 is said to be the highest thrust rating is it going to be the epe version.....i say this bcoz of similiar timeframe which epe and mk2 are going to share......

Even if dont get the epe....will fe414in56 have more thrust than the base line fe414??

Anonymous said...

Hi Prasun,
Have a couple of questions related to armoured vehicles
1) There was recent news that India is going to order for more T90 tanks from Russia is it true.
From the latest tech focus magazine
2) The bhim project seems to be back on track, can you confirm it. Also if true which gun is it using and how is it compared to other similar systems. When can we expect the bhim to be inducted in the armed forces.
3) Last we heard that the Tanks T-ex was cancelled, but in the tech focus magazine it seems to be back on track. What is the actual status.
4) Is india developing a light tank in co-operation with poland.
5) Does the indian armed forces have any plans to procure APC's like patria/stryker/piranha.

Thanks in advance for your response and appreciate your efforts in answering each and every query with details.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To sbm: Pray believe me when I say that sometime such personal vitriol becomes an unavoidable necessity when these very targeted personalities make an utter fool of not only themselves, but the institutions that they head. It all started during the DRDO press conference on February 9 during Aero India 2011 when folks like Dr Saraswat could not even provide answers to the very basic questions that were put forth. And the way they cribbed about the sufferings endured due to MTCR restrictions et all, and that too in full view of an international audience, showed not only the DRDO, but the entire country ion very very bad light. Sad to say, but these folks are totally inept at engaging in information warfare, or are genuinely ignorant about coherently projecting the views and policies of the institutions which they lead. Regarding the commencement of service induction of the Arudhra/ELM-2084 MMRs, one can only conclude that the IAF has begun the process of creating a hierarchical and in-depth air-defence system designed to neutralise the threats posed by cruise missiles and TBMs. In due course, the Barak-8 LR-SAM would become an integral component of this air-defence system.

Anon@1056AM: By labelling the poncho as muscles, you’ve proven that you still need to master the physics behind the physique.

To R2D2: Reverse-engineering the 36MT turbofan too is not possible due to MTCR restrictions. But what I fail to understand is why was HAL prevented from developing a mini-turbofan after it had developed the PTAE-7 turbojet in the mid-1980s. The IAF desperately requires a cruise missile-simulating drone in order to perfect its own anti-cruise missile defence network. Maybe that’s why it has leased from Finmeccanica of Italy a small number of Mirach target drones. Regarding the long-range air-launched anti-armour missile, its primary carrier was meant to be the re-engined MiG-27M, not attack helicopters. It would have been successful had companies like Israel Military Industries and IAI (IMI) been involved. Regarding the Arihant, it was coinceived as a technology demonstrator meant to demonstrate not only the viability of a nuclear propulsion system, but also the combat management system and fire-control system associated with SLBMs. Should you really wish to know more about exactly what it takes to build a nuclear-powered submarine, I highly recommend that you kindly download a four-part documentary on the Astute-class SSGN from:

To Anon@3.49PM: To you the content may seem to be full of “too much inaccuracies and misinformations taking away their credit, just like DRDO bluffing and losing image,” but to me the content is spot on. I for one cannot believe a word of what the DRDO claims (especially its ability to develop interceptors for shooring down IRBMs) until it convincingly demonstrates this ability by employing an IRBM as the targetted missile, instead of using the Prithvi.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Anon@4.13PM: Yes, we indeed know all that Dr Saraswat has said and claimed thus far, and we also know now what Defence Minister A K Antony said last week about why India would need to have a ‘credible BMD system’. Now why would the Defence Minister say such a thing if the DRDO had already developed such a BMD system?

To Anon@5.53PM: Contrary to your claims, the WLR has not yet been ordered for the Indian Army as yet. The MoD’s annual report only states that: “Four phases of user trials have been completed
Successfully and procurement action by the Army for 28 radars (Plains Version) has been initiated”. And according to the DRDO’s latest statement issued last week, it was only last year that the engineered version of upgraded ‘Swathi’ WLR was realised by BEL Taking 11 years to achieve all this (beginning with initial R & D) is totally unacceptable by any meaningful standards. And to date there is no in-house programme of the DRDO to develop an LLTR for the IAF. The only LLTRs developed are the Aslesha and Bharani, which are meant for the Indian Army.

Anon@5.55PM: As of now, only 75% of the components inside the ‘Rohini’ and ‘Revathi’ are of Indian origin. The remaining 25%R, coinstituting the most critical items, are of foreign origin.

To flanker143: Yes, the F414-IN56 will be a derivative of the F414-GE-400EPE version.

To Anon@9.45PM: No more T-90S MBTs will be ordered off-the-shelf from JSC Uralvagonzavod. Instead, all future T-90S MBT procurements will be met by the Avadi-based Heavy Vehicles Factory. There is nothing to suggest that the Bhim 155mm/52-cal tracked self-propelled howitzer is due for service induction. All that the DRDO Tech Focus says is that the Bhim has been successfully evaluated and accepted by the user. In fact, this statement is 13 years old. In early 1998, engineering development work begans on the Bhim tracked SPH, comprising Denel/LIW’s T-6 turret housing a 155mm/52-cal barrel and the hull of the Arjun Mk1 MBT. By late 1999, the sole prototype of the Bhim tracked SPH was ready for user’s mobility/firepower trials. Over the next four months it was tested in the plains and deserts and achieves a sustained rate of fire of 116 rounds in 60 minutes, firing ERFB-BB rounds out to 42.1km, and VLAP rounds out to 52.5km when using the M64 Bi-Modular Charge System (BMCS). You can obtain more data on all this at:
I don’t think we can expect the Bhim to enter service as the Army has already begun evaluating various other options, especially those from Samsung Techwin, GDLS and Rheinmetall Defence.
The Tank EX was an experimental technology demonstrator programme. The DRDO’s latest Tech Focus only describes the programme, but never says whether or not it is back on track. The Tank EX is just a DRDO-initiated proposal to upgrade the 2nd batch of T-72M1 MBTs, for which Russia’s Rosoboronexport State Corp and Raytheon teamed with L & T are competing. No RFPs for this upgrade programme have been issued as yet. And no, India is not developing a light tank in cooperation with Poland. The Indian Army does not have any plans to procure APCs like patria/stryker/piranha, but wants to procure tracked light tanks and wheeled tank destroyers.

sbm said...

Prasun, I disagree with you on this one. Criticism stands or falls on its own merit. Getting personal merely degrades the tenor of the discourse. It is unnecessary.

The BMD system so far has demonstrated a certain capability. It is not yet fit to take on IRBMs as nothing close to that has been used as a target. Any anti-IRBM capability is at best nascent - feasible but not yet credible.

Given the induction of the radars and a clear intent to develop a layered AD network, one wonders what else besides the LR-SAM is envisaged.

Regarding the tank upgrades, in respect of the CI T-72, what about thermal imaging systems ?

sbm said...

Prasun, I think I will also add that having perused all records of the Arrow ABM system, that system has also not been tested against a full IRBM but has been tested against an air launched target simulating the same. To me DRDO seems to have reached the level of approximately the Arrow-2 - sufficient theoretical capability against SRBMs and possibly MRBMs. Now the system has to be tested against multiple targets to be considered credible. That being said, given the travails of the Akash, the BMD system has done pretty well in a relatively short time.

Anonymous said...

Can you plz compare the LCA and J-17 and J-10...or redirect me a link (not to shiv aroor bcoz i hav read it already) where they are compared...waiting for u r reply...

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To sbm: The T-72CIA MBTs have a Polish passive IR camera installed within the existing gunner's sight, which itself is from El-Op of Israel. The TISAS thermal imaging sights, also from El-Op (now a subsidiary of ELBIT Systems) have gone on the BMP-2K ICVs. Alpha Technologies Pvt Ltd is locally servicing both these systems and had several posters of both on display at Aero India 2011.

sbm said...

All 600 TISAS went to the BMP-2s ?

I thought at least some went to the T-72.

Anyway, regarding the IAF - besides the LR-SAM, Spyder and Akash, what else is envisaged as part of this layered AD system against aircraft and missiles ?

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To sbm: I fully agree with you that the BMD programme has achieved a lot in terms of fundamental R & D within a short span of time. I, however, only remained concerned about the efficacy of the Prithvi being used as the exo-atmospheric interceptor vehicle. And to be truthful about the Akash, it must be said that the DRDO, like the armed services, too suffered a lot due to severe financial constraints throughout the 1990s.

To Anon@1.13AM: Regretfully I'm unable to supply you with or guide you to any comparative data-base regarding the Tejas LCA/JF-17/J-10 simply because I don't give much credence to comparative platform-centric performance data. Instead, emphasis ought to be placed on the type of entwork-centic battlespace environment within which one will have to operate.

Anonymous said...

it will be childish if one beleives that with a few testing we have matured to a level of BMD. The THAAD or arrow/PAC are tested and tested and reworked. what we can get through are the baby steps for a BMD (of course only with big players like israel) at least a decade ahead.
I see that our scientists have very high level of innovations but poor in inventions. it would be even not bad if we can accumulate proven sub systems and integrate them to workable solutions. having even nut bolt indigenous is neither possible nor a solution.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To sbm: Yes, TISAS is BMP-2K-specific. It was never meant for the T-72CIAs. Regarding the layered SAM network, the SpyDer-SR and Barak-8 LR-SAM along with the Akash Mk1 (and later the Mk2) are meant for the IAF, while the Army will have the SpyDer-SR, Akash Mk1/Mk2 and in all probability, also the Barak-2 MR-SAM. The MBDA/DRDO SR-SAM that we first discussed about two years ago is also due for combined procurement by the IAF and Army. But what vexes me is why on earth is the DRDO not trying to develop a SR-SAM derivative of the Astra Mk1 BVRAAM. Surely this is possible, as exemplified by what the Ruskies are doing with the R-77 and what BGT-Diehl is doing with the IRIS-T.

Stupid Saraswat said...

saraswat is a fucking isiot who talks too much.

He says: indian bmd 20-30% better than patriot. how did the idiot arrive at this figure? i mean if u say indian bmd range/speed etc is 20-30% better is acceptable. but to say the whole system is 20-30% better shows what a fool he is.

further his "pet project" is an utter failure ---> trishul and prithvi missiles.

Ok u may be a good scientist, contributed to indian defence industry, but why talk over the roof?

fanker143 said...

so no kaveri engine for engine for tejas even at mlu....drdo guys were saying that they can kaveri ready for tejas when it comes up for mlu , something which now seems highly unlikely as can never hit that 120kn mark not even with the kaveri snecma engine....
what say prasun ??

Anonymous said...

Hi..........just heard the FINALLY.......the CCS has cleared the C-17 Deal (10 a/c) with options for 6 more...........

i wonder what else got cleared ?? Howziters ??

any info ?????

Anonymous said...

I would like to share some scenario with you.If ALG and all that upgrade along China border is not just for Indian Armed Force but for US also. If all is part of well thought plan which was planned when US offered the 123 nuclear agreement . And one can see that US companies are allows offer its product and calling India strategic partner and so on. Soon and later you and i will heard that US is provided bases in H.P. or U.K. and A.P. or Sikkim
Please share thought if INDIA do provide bases to US then impact on CHINA as a whole.

Atul sharma said...

Prasun, i understand ur need fr diverse views . . And traffic... But to justify anons views who either r scared or lack self esteem and hence do not reveal themselves. Imagine hiding and taking potshots. Jingoism mixed with selfdeception- deadly mix.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Stupid Saraswat: The facy that these DRDO head honchos always tend to bite more than they can chew was borne out during the Aero India 2011 press conference when some of us asked them how can they even dream of comparing India's BMD systems with those of the US or even Israel, when the former does not even have a space-based missile early warning system, while the US and Israel do. And as expected, the answer was not forthcoming at all. It is for this very reason that I had stated earlier that the tongue-wagging by senior DRDO officials needs to stop, since they are making a fool out of themselves in front of an assembled international audience.

To flanker 143: MLU for which variant of Tejas? The Mk1? The MLU for this variant comes up only in 2021, by which time the definitive Kaveri turbofan incorporating SNECMA Moteurs-supplied hot engine core will be readily available.

To Anon@5.16PM: Yes, the 10 + 6 C-17A Globemaster IIIs will soon be contracted for. Earlier, the CCNS had already approved procurement of the LW-155 ultralightweright howitzers and its contract too will be inked soon. The other contract due to be inked later this year will be that for heavylift helicopters, for which the CH-47F is the preferred choice. Now let's wait and see how soon the Navy is able to place orders for the initial 16 10-tonne shipborne helicopters since without these machines, the three Project 17 Shivalik-class FFGs would be terribly underutilised.

To Anon@9.48PM: In my estimation, the question of providing bases within India to foreign powers does not arise, unless there is some kind of UN emergency as a consequence of which India becomes a frontline state for a 'coalition of the willing'. For this to happen, one scenario would be a total political meltdown in Nepal and the Communist party of Nepal openly inviting China's People's Liberation Army to enter and occupy Nepal, similar to what the USSR did in Afghanistan in 1979 and what Iraq did to Kuwait in mid-1990. Later on I will upload some interesting analyses on future full-scale or limited war scenarios along India's northern fronts.

Austin said...

If Saraswat has indeed compared Indian nascent BMD program with US BMD program then its really silly to say so.

For one US BMD program is much larger in size and complexity with many decades of experience and couple of real war experience.

US enjoys a great advantage in early warning time and its almost continental distance away from most threatening countries fielding BM something most countries do not enjoy or have the luxury to deploy systems like midcourse system , for any ABM interception time is a very critical factor.

For India does not have the luxury of time even if at some time in the future they manage to deploy EW system like sats

The BM time from across the border is around 10-12 minutes , much lower for closer targets and the only deployed ABM system we will ever manage is low tier system , since mid-course is not an option.

They can always use things like depressed trajectory to reduce warning time or other trick in their sleeve , at some point they may also deploy decoys to make discrimination of RV difficult and engagement much harder.

All in all a ABM system between india and pak to put it mildly is a very complex time challenging issue.

US is in many ways is not constrained by such things and can optimally deploy ABM system with overlapping survellence/tracking system that can take care of threats from most countries barring Russia and China.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Austin: Well put. By the way, the nerd (Karan M) who was whacking you at a forum which I shall not name, gave a totally wrong and ill-informed view about the so-called failure of the Krasnopol-M in India. The truth about what really happened can be found at:
Also, do note that the Arjun Mk2 will use the Cummins India-built 1,500hp engine, and this has nothing to do with the so-called Bharat Powerpack. Mobility trials of an Arjun Mk2 with this new engine have been underway for quite some time now. I have photos of the new engine installation and will upload them once I've received authorisation from the CVRDE.

Austin said...

Prasun , even if you look at Israel a country where BMD development is at an advanced stage with its Arrow-2/3 program and generously funded by US in every possible way , you would find its most likely enemy where it can expect threats which is Iran is not a border state for Israel.

A look at the maps will tell you any BM fired from iran will atleast pass through 1 or 2 country before it reaches Israel , infact Israel is the smallest state hence those BM would fly significant amount of time over Iraq , Jordan , Syria or a combination of these countries during mid-course phase of the flight which also happens to be the longest for any BM.

Hence Israel can still hope to intercept Iranian missile over these countries via US systems if required , the terminal phase will be something that Arrow has to deal with , but Iran has a fairly advanced BM development program and even demonstrating BGRV like capability for RV , it will be a true test of ABM vs BM system in the real sense if at all things go that bad.

Previous test of real BM vs ABM was during GW1 and 2 , in the first it failed miserable 9 basic patriot was never a anti-BM any ways ) while during the second PAC-3 managed to intercept TBM with range of ~ 200 km , so in true sense we have yet to see any BM vs ABM conflict where real and more complex interception has taken place in backdrop of war.

Coming back to India and more in India-Pakistan context , most phase of any BM flight will be over continent India ,which would mean any successful or unsuccessful intercept would still fall over indian territory , considering PAD/AAD/PDV/AAD-2 are still Terminal interceptors , we cannot hope for any midcourse type interception even if its done over indian territory.

Any way my point is the geography of our continent and the location of our enemy is such that for India the BMD system will be the most challenging and complex task in terms of Early Warning , Tracking and Intercept as it would get time sensitive infact far more challenging than any Iran-Israel scenario.

On Arjun Mk2 the move to cummins engine would be interesting development , considering they have been dealing with German engine for a decade now and know it quite well , but a high HP engine would mean it would also offset the some disadvantage of higher weight of MK2 and would augur well for future Arjun development.

Looking forward for the photos as and when you are cleared to put it up.

On any individual well i have been on forum for long and understand few people have their own strong views so it is better to leave it there and move on.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Austin: While Iran may presently be bearing heavily upon Israel's strategic concerns, one must bear in mind that Israel's BMD programme was initiated and designed to neutralise the threat posed by TBMs possessed by Syria. There is therefore a very high degree of convergence between the TBM-based threat scenarios faced by Israel and India.
As for the 1,400hp MTU engine for the Arjun Mk1, the power-to-weight deficiencies become evident only when the MBT is equipped with mine ploughs, a configuration that has never been shown publicly. With the 1,500hp Cummins engine integrated with a SESM transmission, such power-to-weight deficiencies will be substantially overcome.

Austin said...

Yes Syria is a concern area as well they seem to have various Scud version in MRBM class but lacks the sophistication of Iran MRBM/IRBM class missile.

You are right in that Israel and Syria share a common border and hence the challenges faced by India and Israel is similar.

Pakistan missile program is far more advanced than demonstrated Syria capability and Israel would end up having generous assistance from US command if that would to be required since they seem to be already hooked with US sensors and space based surveillance system , at the least that should give them early warning and tracking capability.

Just read in a news article today by an ex-ambassador that beyond increase in warhead potential the Pakistanis are working on MIRV like capability for their BM.

online casino said...

bright web site background scenes casino online

amardeep said...

prasun,i am flabbergasted by the stupidity of this post!
neither IAF nor DRDO calls the ELTA-2084 as "arudra".and secondly LRDE has already developed a medium powered radar by the name "Arudra"!