Total Pageviews

Tuesday, July 26, 2011

LCA (Navy) Programme Detailed

The LCA (Navy) programme involves development of the NP-1 tandem-seat operational conversion trainer and NP-2 single-seat multi-role combat aircraft (to be rolled-out before the year’s end), one structural test specimen for fatigue-testing, creation of Navy-specific flight-test facilities in Bengaluru and Goa, construction of a shore-based flight-test facility or SBFT at INS Hansa in Goa (for enabling arrested landing recovery, plus takeoff from a half-metal half-concrete 14-degree ski ramp and a flight deck ranging from 195 metres to 204 metres in length, and validating the simulation model for flight performance within ship-motion limits, validating the flight controls’ strategy with all-up weight and asymmetric loading, validating the load analysis methodology), and flight-tests/flight certification for aircraft carrier-based flight operations. The SBTF will also have its integral flight-test centre equipped with line-of-sight telemetry/high-speed three-axis photogrammetric systems, systems for validating thrust measurement algorithms, systems for measuring wind-flow patterns, INS/DGPS-based trajectory measurement systems, RGS integration facility, plus a workshop.
The NP-1/2 models will also be subjected to a carrier-based flight-test regime on board INS Vikramaditya, where seaborne wind conditions winds-on-deck envelopes (especially ship motion, cross-winds and high wind-on-deck speeds) are likely to be more favourable than those around the SBTF. Integration with carrier-based support and weaponisation facilities, plus jettisioning of ventral stores, thrust data validation, and attaining hands-free and non-disorienting takeoff with supplied HUD symbology formats and high angles of attack will also be demonstrated in this phase of flight-tests. Incidentally, since the Indian Navy is involved for the very first time in its history with developing a carrier-based MRCA, it is resigned to the possibility of one of the two LCA (Navy) technology demonstrators ‘breaking up’ while in the process of subjecting the aircrafts’ main landing gears to arrested recoveries at sea. It must be noted here that the undercarriages of carrier-based aircraft collapse or break-up not due to compression, but due to suspension.

Compared to the Tejas Mk1, the LCA (Navy) Mk1 is a technology demonstrator that features a drooped nose section, strengthened airframe structure, twin leading edge vortex control surfaces (for attaining lower approach speeds), main landing gear with higher sink rate (which is presently over-designed and too strong, and requires streamlining), increased internal fuel capacity, a Navy-specific avionics suite (including the autopilot and auto-throttle) and weapons package, and an arrester hook. The definitive aircraft carrier-based MRCA, which the Navy will operationally induct into service by 2020 (and use it for the following 20 years), will be the LCA (Navy) Mk2, 46 of which will be powered by the F414-IN56 turbofan. Although the NP-1/2 will both be armed with RAFAEL-built Derby and Python-5 air combat missiles, it is envisaged that the LCA (Navy) Mk2s will be armed with the Astra/Python-5 air combat missiles combination.--Prasun K. Sengupta


Anonymous said...

many thanks for your previous reply sir !!!

so bars will be upgraded not completed this mires aesa radar will it be better than the irbis-e ??

will it have more smarter and have detection range than irbis-e ??

sir you said that there is a possibility that one or teo tech demonstrators of lca navy might break during the test....sir does mean that there will a couple of crash landings !

will super mki carry towed decoys if yes then which ones...

suppose elm 2052 is selected for mk2 since it is the most obvious choice after elm 2032 as it require minimal changes to approximately how many t/r modules can be used in tejas mk2 with the 2052 aesa radar ??

Anonymous said...

at last a new article...i tot u r gonna keep that porki article for good...

Anonymous said...

Prasun da,
Great to see you back. IN is likely to order 17 Mk1 for training purpose according to reports if weight issues are resolved in NP2 say to 6.5 tonne empty weight. But with maximunm take off wt from carrier @12.5T for the present F404 engine the payload will be very low at 3T for 6.5T empty wt. or 2.5T payload for 7T empty payload.
What will be naval LCA MK2 MTOW? 14-14.5T with 4-4.5T payload.

Anonymous said...






ur articles are always much more detailed and eye opener

Anonymous said...

Does Prahaar is nuclear capable.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Anon@8.03AM: The AESA-MMR using the MIRES AESA antenna will be far far better in terms of detection/tracking ranges, interleaved modes of operation and MTBF than the IRBIS-E. Yes, for testing the structural integrity of the LCA (Navy)’s landing gear the prototype has to be subjected to deliberate hard landing. Russian towed-decoys will be used by the upgraded Su-30MKI. Number of T/R modules for the EL/M-2052 being offered for the Tejas Mk2 has still not been finalised.

To Anon@10.32AM: Kindly desist from using terms like ‘Porki’ in future. You’re free to use it anywhere else, but not in this blog.

To Anon@4.04PM: Only two LCA Navy Mk1s are being procured for flight-test purposes. They will never be operationally deployed. Only the LCA (Navy) Mk2 will be on board the aircraft carriers. Therefore, it is of no use discussing or speculating on the LCA (Navy) Mk1’s weight parameters. Performance parameters of the LCA (Navy) Mk2 too are a matter of conjecture at this time. For a projected fleet of 46 LCA (Navy) Mk2s, a figure of 17 operational conversion trainers is too high a figure. My estimate is that only six trainers will be procured.

Anonymous said...

why?? Porki is just a shortened version of Porcupine. The article was pricky so i termed it a "porki article"... why is there any other meaning to the word Porki?? i can't understand why u are offended...

Anonymous said...

india is working for Spike or Javelin anti tank, when its possible

Anonymous said...

sir any updates/explanations on Prahaar?

anonymous said...

can you please make comparison of JF-17 Thunder and LCA Tejas please? thank u.

Anonymous said...

sir if you had to pick one irst for an aircraft which one u'd choose from ols 30 , pirate , osf , skyward ??

approximately how many t/r modules can be used on tejas mk2 consider one chooses elm 2052 , just a guess ???

alot of ppl say that mki has a rcs of 15 sq it true , is any thing being done to reduce mki's rcs in the super30 upgrade ??

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Anon@6.21PM: Why was the article so pricky? Is it because truth hurts? As for any other meanings attributed to the word, you tell me!

To Anon@6.23PM: Spike-ER & PARS-3LR are competing for arming the Dhruv Mk4 and LCH, whereas the Javelin is for the SF (Para). Two totally reqmts for totally different end-users.

To Anon@6.24PM: August 2011 issue of FORCE’s first feature-length article will be on the Prahaar battlefield support missile (BSM), its design origins since the project’s inception in 1998, plus details on its navigational and guidance systems, the proposed sensor-fuzed munitions meant for the warhead section, along with photos of the on-board RLG-INS + miniaturised Glonass-K GPS receiver, the FINGS-based land navigation system, mission computer and IMU avionics. The analysis will deal with the reasons for developing such a BSM, probable employment options in concert with the BrahMos Block 2, and its critical connectivity to various other on-going projects like the battlespace surveillance system (BSS), battlespace management system (BMS), Tac-C3I network comprising the combat net radio-based tactical communications system (TCS) and the F-INSAS project. All in all, a bird’s eye-view of what will the future digitised battlespace in the subcontinent in the years to come.

To Anon@6.34PM: There’s no comparison, really. Both in terms of mission avionics, self-protection avionics, engine reliability and availability, and structural airframe configuration/construction, the Tejas Mk1 is years ahead of the JF-17 Thunder. And once panoramic AMLCDs, AESA-MMR and IRST sensor are introduced on the Tejas Mk2 the disparities will become even more glaring.

To Anon@9.21PM: Skyward IRST. I already answered that in my previous post. No guesses on my part regarding the T/R modules on the EL/M-2052. The Su-30MKI’s RCS has been reduced through fuselage blending and incorporation of radar-absorbent paint/materials by Sukhoi OKB. It was never meant to be employed as a stealthy or low-observable platform. It is far more economical to employ loitering drones (like the IAF’s Harpy and HAROP) equipped with HE warheads to target and destroy hostile ground-based airspace surveillance radars. AEW & C platforms can be neutralised by targeting and rendering useless their home air bases and hangars with land-attack cruise missiles.

Santosh kumar sharma said...

What does this staement mean "undercarriages of carrier-based aircraft collapse or break-up not due to compression, but due to suspension."

I can think of compression, tension. What is suspension? And is this statement true?

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

Suspension as in when the landing gear is lowered and dully deployed during final approach. Is the statement true or not? Kindly ask this question to Capt J A Maolankar of the Indian Navy's LCA (Navy) flight-test team, since I'm only quoting him word for word.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Anon@6.09PM: No, Prahaar is not not nuclear-capable, neither is the Hatf-9/Nasr/M-20 BSM, nor the Babur LACM.

Anonymous said...

I am a novice and may be asking questions which you might think are stupid ones owing to my lack in knowledge of many features.

1. Is NASR superior to Prahaar.
If its a type of terrain hugging missile , is it a failure of our scientists to develop a creditible answer , am advanced missile .

2. What about the turn rate and angle of attack of LCA compared to JF 17

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

No, Hatf-9/Nasr/M-20 is not superior to the Prahaar. Only two Hatf-9/Nasr/M-20 missiles are carried per launch vehicle, whereas six Prahaars can be carried per launch vehicle. Both are missiles flying a depressed ballistic trajectory and are not terrain-hugging cruise missiles.

Turn/bank rates (instantaneous and sustained), roll rates and AoAs for manned combat aircraft are today totally irrelevant, simply because the combination of IRST sensor along with the helmet-mounted sight and highly agile AAMs capable of sustaining high manoeuvrability of up to 76 G have made dogfights a thing of the past. Today the within visual range AAM does all the manoeuvring, and not the launch aircraft.

buddha said...

if India consider to by 69 MMRCA aircraft later then it will have to pa y almost 9 billion as per news

then is it good to buy by both the air craft in 126 form adding some more money

your opinion is expected
Thanks & Regards

Anonymous said...

I have a question in response to your below comment:
"Instead, what the DRDO needs to do is develop low-cost tactical battlefield support missiles of the NLOS type which can rapidly drop sensor-fused munitions (anti-armour and anti-personnel) over a desired target area with high accuracy, with such accuracies being achieved through integrated inertial navigation systems (fibre-optic gyro coupled to a PY-code GPS receiver) installed on board the missile, and RLG-INS system installed on the missile launch vehicle. In fact, this is exactly what the Indian Army wants and has specified (the Hatf-9/Nasr/P-20 already has such capabilities). This is what the Army wishes the 'Prahaar' would finally be, and not what was test-fired on July 21."

When you say the indian Army had wished for better /high accuracies in the prahaar , but got something else in the july 21st test .
What are the features which the Indian Army didnt get in the tests.
Is it high accuracy of less that 10 CEP.
As you have commented that Prahaar has a CEP of 10 mts and NASR has less than 10 mts because of GPS being used.
Isnt GPS being used in Prahaar too ,if so then why cant it aquire a CEP of less than 10 CEP .

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Buddha: There's no reason to worried about the extra expenditure since 50% of the contract value will flow back to the economy from the industrial offsets.

Mr. Ra said...

What will be the maximum speed of LCA(Navy) at high altitudes and low altitudes.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Mr RA: I have no idea regarding the actual figures for the LCA (Navy) Mk1 & Mk2. Let's see what gets validated after the flight-tests.

Anonymous said...

""Turn/bank rates (instantaneous and sustained), roll rates and AoAs for manned combat aircraft are today totally irrelevant, simply because the combination of IRST sensor along with the helmet-mounted sight and highly agile AAMs capable of sustaining high manoeuvrability of up to 76 G have made dogfights a thing of the past. Today the within visual range AAM does all the manoeuvring, and not the launch aircraft.""

^ And will mk1 and mk2 have this capability ??
so sky ward irst is better then ols30 and even pirate from which it was developed as lighter version ???

anyways which hmd will mk1 and mk2 will use ??

and since we use python 5 do we have the 360deg missile firing capability on the mk 1 itself ??

but the thing is can mk1 exploit this loal capabilty that python 5 offers....??

sir u are saying that mk2 will be stretched only from only behind the cockpit....on the contrary in ur latest update on tejas mrca u have that mk2 will also feature a stretched nose section ??

Anonymous said...

As per long range SAM does india has any purchase plan's(apart from s-300).

current position of india on US offered Patriot 3 (which is short range)

AAD/PAD current position

Anonymous said...

RCS comparison between EF/Rafael/su35 are very lesser compare to su30 mki, this shows our lesser dominance in air,

Does we have taken any steps to reduce RCS in mki .

MoD(A K Antony) once proposed Zhuk AE(aesa radar) for our su30 mki , how far they reached to it,

Anonymous said...

IAC 2 (INS Vishal) AC, as of wikipedia it could be layed in mid 2011 , as per u r knowledge which month it would be .

Anonymous said...

As per your comment , the Hatf-9/Nasr/P-20 and other Chinese battlefield support missiles like the B-611M, BP-12A and SY-400 have a CEP of less than 10 metres as they make use of GPS guidance provided by China's Beidou constellation of GPS satellites.
You have also mentioned that Prahaar too has GPS guidance , then whats the reason that it cannot achieve a CEP of less that 10 mts.
If NASR has a CEP of less that 10 M , does it scores substancially over Prahaar.
What impact would this make in a battlefield scenario .

I also have one more query.
We are now inducting Akash Batteries.
Are they comparable to world class SAM's and are they as effective as any top notch SAM system.
Inshort would they be able to protect our skies .

Also whats your opinion about the NAG ATGM.
Are they world class too comparable to the best in business

Scott B. said...

Anonymous @ July 26, 2011 4:04 PM said : "What will be naval LCA MK2 MTOW? 14-14.5T with 4-4.5T payload."

A MTOW of 14,000-14,500 kg is too high for a STOBAR with 98 kN.

A more realistic number is 13,000-13,500 tons, which gives a T/W ratio consistent with a TO run @ 200 meters.

WRT Mk2 specs (with the F414 @ 98 kN), my speculation is that the objectives are an empty weight of 7,000 kg, a fuel capacity of 2,500-3,000 kg and a max. landing weight of 10,000-10,500 kg.

Low weight remains the key of the equation, so as to get a high T/W ratio and a low wing loading for greater lift.


Anonymous said...

The News confirms INS Satpura will be commissioned by 20 Aug 2011,

How many p 17 has been planned, as per me only 3 launched and getting commissioning , some source's says it may be total 5 nos- p17 and 7 nos P17A. If its 5 nos , what about 4th and 5th .

Anonymous said...

Scott B said,
For LCA mk2 MTOW?
A more realistic number is 13,000-13,500 tons, which gives a T/W ratio consistent with a TO run @ 200 meters.
I agree if there is no increase in wing area For LCA Mk1 with 8.5T thrust engine it is 12500 Kg MTOW for @200m,14 degree run.
For 10T F414 engine max MTOW possible is square root 10/8.5*12.5T=13.5T with increased takeoff speed @4%.
But as Prasun Da had said that there is increased wing area we can expect further increase in MTOW.
Therefore I was speculating a figure of 14-14.5T with payload of 4-4.5T for a empty weight of 7T and clean weight of 10T with internal fuel of 2.5T. And max landing wt of 10-10.5T.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Anon@8.14AM: Yes, both variants of the Tejas will have this capability. Skyward IRST is lighter than OLS-30 and offers minimal systems integration challenges compared to the OLS-30. That’s why Saab chose the Skyward for the Gripen NG. Tejas Mk1 & Mk2 and the LCA (Navy) Mk1` and Mk2 will all use the Dash Mk5 HMD. 360-degree AAM firing capability is impossible for anyone. The missile firing envelope is restricted to the pilot’s field-of-view. Any aircraft equipped with the Python-5/Dash Mk5 HMD combination can exploit all that the Python-5 offers. The nose section of the Tejas Mk2 will not be stretched as said erroneously earlier, but only the section aft of the cockpit will be stretched to accommodate the mission avionics LRUs. For instance, the SAGEM-built Sigma-95N RLG-INS, which is presently located in full view behind the ejection seat on the Tejas Mk1 PVs and LSPs will be relocated inside the fuselage. The nose-section’s bulkheads will be re-engineered to accommodate the AESA-MMR and related environment control system (from Honeywell Aerospace).

To Anon@2.03PM: The Barak-8 LR-SAM will be coming by 2014, so there’s no need for PAC-3 or S-300 or S-400. Regarding BMD developments the 200km-altitude PDV exo-atmospheric interceptor’s R & D has been delayed and that’s why it has not yet been tested. It was due to be tested last year. The PDV’s terminal seeker will be an imaging infra-red FPA-based sensor (replacing the earlier active radar on the PAD) which the DRDO claims is being co-developed with foreign collaboration (i.e. with Israel Aerospace Industries). The PAD-2 endo-atmospheric interceptor is now being developed to have a speed of Mach 6. It will have an active radar seeker, also being co-developed in foreign collaboration with Russia’s AGAT JSC.

To Anon@2.48PM: The Navy Chief on December 3 last year publicly stated that IAC-2 is not a priority project and it is very much in the initial conceptual design stage. The priority after IAC-1 is procurement of four LPHs.

To Anon@5.38PM: Who ever said the Prahaar cannot achieve a CEP of less than 10 metres? Of course it can. It is the existing inventory of Prithvi-1 SS-150s that cannot achieve a CEP of less than 10 metres. Regarding SAMs it really boils down to what’s your definition of ‘top-notch’ or ‘world-class’ SAMs. Of course the Akash is not in the same league as the Patriot or Aster-15/30 or SpyDer-ER, but it is as good as Italy’s Aspide/Spada 2000 in the E-SHORADS category. Once the Akash’s range is extended from 25km to 40km then it will be comparable to the Russian Buk-2ME. Hopefully on the Akash Mk2 the DRDO will be able to incorporate an active radar sensor similar to what’s been planned for the Maitri SR-SAM and Barak-2 MR-SAM. The Nag ATGM is as good as the Spike in terms of performance.

Anonymous said...

1, ''How many p 17 has been planned, as per me only 3 launched and getting commissioning , some source's says it may be total 5 nos- p17 and 7 nos P17A. If its 5 nos , what about 4th and 5th .''
(Anon 8:49 PM)

2, Barak 8 is for navy ie., ship based , do we are going to induct for land purpose (Army/IAF)also.

vishakh said...

Hi what about Maitri ?? Is there any progress or a dud project??why getting stalled ??

WOnt be it better to develope short range quick missle using Barak 1 as base as it has proven anti missile capability and Army needs it to protect from missile from pakisthan side??

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Anon@1.21PM: So far funds have only been sanctioned for three Project 17 FFGs. The Barak-2 MR-SAM is for the Navy, while the Barak-8 LR-SAM is for the IAF.

To Visakh: The DRDO/MBDA Maitri appears to be making very little progress and I personally would prefer to see a vertically-launched SR-SAM variant of the Astra BVRAAM being developed, rather than waste money on the Maitri. Afterall, both France and Russia have developed SR-SAM variants of the Mica and R-77, so why can't the DRDO follow the same R & D route? Trying to develop a new SR-SAM from scratch will only result in wasteful expenditure.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

Looks like the MoD's DPR has screwed up yet again when providing data on the Project 17 FFG. Firstly, the displacement is 4,600 tonnes and not 6,200 tonnes. Secondly, the aft mast-mounted radar is not the EL/M-2238 STAR, but the EL/M-2282 AD-STAR. More about all this tonight when I will upload new data and photos.

Anonymous said...

NAG looks a good missile , but has the Indian Army started inducting it .

Also want to know , is the
purchase of 145 M777 howitzers still in place or it too has been cancelled .
If still in place , when do we expect the delivery .

Anonymous said...

Prasun Da, what is the range of AAD & PAD missiles?
Suppose if AAD has 100 km range and ceiling range of 30 km, then can it go 100 km away from the launch point and destroy a re-entring warhead?

vishakh said...

Indian army has a saperate Quick reaction missile program . For which MBDA is proposing MAITRI . Well is there any offer from Israel for the same ??? Is Aster 15 is also being considered ???

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Anon@9.30PM: The Indian Army has already placed orders for the Nag ATGM, but is now awaiting the modifications to the NAMICA vehicle to be carried out, especially the installation of the troop commander’s panoramic sight incorporating a thermal imager. But what is disconcerting is the treatment being given by the MoD to the Nag ATGM programme as a whole. For instance, while the Army is involved with the ground-launched Nag ATGM and NAMICA, the IAF is concerned only about the air-launched HELINA and the Dhruv Mk2 & LCH projects. And no one is even bothered to ask if the Navy too requires a HELINA-type missile. The need of the hour is a unified tri-services requirement like what is happening in the US with the Joint Common Missile programme. Only then can the scope and production volume of such weapon systems can be fully realised and made cost-effective/financially viable. The same goes for the requirements for the IAF’s and Army’s SL-QRM missiles. Instead of issuing separate RFIs, a unified RFI should be issued under which the requirement for a modular system (compatible with motorised launcher vehicles for the IAF and tracked launch vehicles for the Army) should be spelt out. This is what the job of Chief of HQ Integrated Defence Staff should be. Afterall, if both the IAF and Army can jointly procure the SpyDer-SR, there’s no reason why the two services can’t formulate a unified reqmt for a common SR-SAM. As for the M777 UFH contract, it will definitely go ahead. When? I’m afraid I don’t have the answer to that.

To Anon@9.51PM: PAD’s altitude intercept range is 80km and AAD’s range is 18km. The PDV’s altitude intercept range will be 200km and AAD-2’s range will be 42km at Mach 8 speed. But mind you, these interceptors and the entire BMD project is just a technology demonstration programme. As of now, neither the Govt of India nor the armed forces have specified an operational reqmt for such a BMD system and therefore there are no concrete plans for either producing such a system or deploying it.

To Visakh: Israel has already sold the SpyDer-SR to the Army and IAF. The Maitri on the other hand is a joint R & D project targetting all three armed services of India. But unlike the Barak-2/8 MRSAM/LR-SAM programmes which have received firm orders from the Indian Navy and IAF, the Maitri as yet has no takers from any of the three armed services for unknown reasons. That is why I’m proposing that rather than develop a SR-SAM from scratch, the DRDO might as well develop a vertically-launched SR-SAM version of the Astra BVRAAM, which the IAF has already decided to procure for itsTejas Mk1/Mk2.

Anonymous said...

Prasun da, IAF has ordered 18 battries of Spyder SAM. Can you tell how many battries of it army has ordered and how many missiles each will have?
Will every division of the army have Spyder?

Atul said...


A stupid question. What is the diff between a destroyer and a frigate? Both carry missiles, ASW, Helis, SAM's etc. The nos might be different. I understand a frigate is a multipurpose and a destroyer is optimized to destroy targets...(not much of a help).

Anonymous said...

any more updates/developments for mk2 ??

the last time i checked cummins qsk38 was a 1400hp engine and not a 1500hp engine as you are saying....

why is that lca doesn't make use of canards ??

as u said mk2 will have the virgillus aesa jammer , tarang rwr , cmds ,lwr-maws as the ew suite but what will go inside the mk1 ??

mirage deal was signed today so don't you think mmrca will go to eftacc to all eggs not to be put in one basket theory plus eft consortium can offer better offsets ??

Anonymous said...

Hi Prasun,

I really appreciate your patience to answer our questions and sharing your knowledge.

IA order for M777, is the current order for 165 pieces is final? Or is there going to be any further orders for the same? If so, what would be the number?

Some time back IA issue RFI for wheeled and tracked tank killers. Is there any progress on these to acquire 400-600 of them? Why is it getting delayed to acquire them? It is really frustration to see this snail pace.

In a recent interview RAF chief said that EF2K won over MKI in a simulated exercise. Is it true that EF2K is better than MKI in BVR or air dominance? Can you please help me understand which one is good in terms of air dominance?


Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Anon@11.33AM: Your answers can be found at:

To Atul@3.46PM: The distinction lines have become blurred due to technological advances. A guided-missile frigate is today more of a general-purpose warship capable of operating as part of am expeditionary task-force in both littoral and deep waters for anti-ship strike, ASW, localised air defence, and anti-piracy missions. A guided-missile destroyer can also do all this, plus become the tactical command HQ for a battle group operating far away from friendly waters. It also carries more offensive firepower and has greater endurance at sea.

To Anon@7.45PM: No further updates on Tejas LCA Mk2. The Cummins QSK-38 is rated at up to 1,700bhp. The 1,500hp version is the customised variant, as I had explained earlier. Info on what is inside the Tejas Mk1 can be found at:
The Eurofighter Consortium being much bigger than Dassault Aviation and having more financial and industrial clout than Dassault Aviation is definitely able to offer much more to India than Dassault Aviation can.

To Anon@11.06PM: The requirement by Army HQ is close to 400 UFHs, and the first tranche is for 165 M777s. There’s been no noticeable progress on the issue of procuring 300 light tanks (tracked and wheeled). Now turning to the issue of who prevails in dissimilar air combat between the EF-2000 and Su-30MKI, I can’t figure out on what basis the RAF Chief made such remarks. For one, no one other than the IAF knows the true performance parameters of the Su-30MKI. Even during the Red Flag and Indradhanush air exercises the Su-30MKIs were operating in self-imposed restricted flight regimes. Furthermore, even the RMAF’s Su-30MKMs have to date not been exposed to the air forces of either the UK, or the US or Australia. Therefore, there’s no way either the USAF or the RAF will know the true performance characteristics of the Su-30MKI and without access to such data, no realistic flight simulation package can be prepared. Till to date, even the USAF is only aware of the performance characteristics of the Su-27SK and Su-30MK as it has already been exposed to these two aircraft types and that too in Russia. Therefore, the RAF can only be expected to have obtained data on these two aircraft types from the US, but nothing regarding the Su-30MKI or Su-30MKM or Su-30MKA of Algeria. Furthermore, one cannot access any com bat aircraft’s air dominance capabilities in isolation in a one-versus-one scenario, especially with regard to the Su-30MKI. While the RAF’s EF-2000s will always be operating in conjunction with RAF E-3D AWACS, the Su-30MKIs will be operating along with the A-50EI PHALCONs and between these two AEW & C platforms, the PHALCON outperforms the E-3D AWACS in most parameters. The balance will tilt in favour of the EF-2000 only after it is equipped with Meteor BVRAAMs but even then if it is pitted against the Super Su-30MKI, the advantage will still lie with the Super Su-30MKI thanks to its MIRES AESA-array and conformal L-band AESA antennae. Hopefully the R-95 ramjet-powered BVRAAM will be available by 2014 from Russia's Vympel JSC.

Anonymous said...

sir you have said that mk2 will have "frameless canopy actuation system" does this mean that mk2 will have a f 16 like canopy !!??

sir can you PLZZ make a detailed post f-insas....

why is it said that fe414in56 will be the highest rated fe 414 since it produces the same 100kn thrust ??

acc t oyou who will be the most likely winner of the aesa radar for the mk2 ??

sir it said that aesa radar for eft will go in production only by 2015 , so are they going to provide regular captor initially untill the aesa is ready if they win the mmrca ??

Anonymous said...

To Prasun and other blogger:

Is there any technology(underdevelopment/operational) which involves hard kill of A2A missile that an aircraft can employ?
Something like CIWS in ships.

In a command guided missile system like Akaash can a hostile aircraft interrupt the command link between missile and tracker by electronic means thereby making the missile ineffective?

Anonymous said...

i second... next post should be about INSAS!!!

The Forces... Fan said...

Dear prashun ,
I’m not well read in defence domain … but I would like to know 2 things
1. What happened to our Bhim ? is it still shelved ? Does army have @least 1 operational piece ? do they have plans 2 revive ?
2. Regarding Arjun MBT , the turret design is always praised … but do we have efforts to redesign it , to reduce the silhouette n radar signatures ? make it looke sleek n mean like the merkava (I know tht look don’t matter , when @ WAR)

Anonymous said...

although you're a chor i cannot stop reading ur articles ... ...

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Anon@9.14AM: Yes, the canopy will be like that on the Su-30MKI or Mirage 2000 or F-16 or F/A-18. F414-IN56 will be the highest rated turbofan FOR THE Tejas Mk2, and not the highest rated variant of the F414-GE-400. No guesses here, although the EL/M-2052 has the upper hand due to the EL/M-2032 already flying on the Tejas Mk1. The EF-2000, if selected for the IAF, will from the outset come with the Captor-E AESA-MMR.

To Anon@10.24AM: The DIRCM is the only available hard-kill option available against inbound SAMs and AAMs. Regarding the Akash, any RF-based command guidance link can be disrupted or jammed, provided the jammer is powerful enough to take on the Rajendra BLR. But a far easier option is to just duck below the engagement envelope of the Rajendra BLR or deploy loitering anti-radiation missiles/drones against the Rajendra BLR, like the HARPY and HAROP-type of drones.

To Anon@11.56AM: Only two prototypes of the Bhim were fabricated and they are now the DRDO’s property. The Army plans to revive NOT the Bhim’s R & D programme, but the tracked 155mm/52-cal self-propelled howitzer programme under which competing SPHs would be invited for in-country firing and mobility trials on a no-cost no-commitment basis. Technology has advanced a lot since the Bhim first emerged in the late 1990s and today more efficient and lightweight tracked SPHs like the DONAR from Germany’s KMW (which now has a JV with Ashok Leyland) are available. Both the hull and turret of the Arjun can be redesigned and re-engineered since the CVRDE now has already roped in an established MBT designer-cum-producer like Israel Military Industries (IMI).

To Anon@1.59PM: Kaun chor, kya chori? Yeh kya bakwas chal raha hai? Bakwas karna hi hai toh aur kahi chale jaao na…BR walleh bahut bakwas karte hain, wahi chale jaao, jahaa BR walleh BrahMos aur Agni mein jo fark hain woh nahin jaante. Sabse bada chor hain woh BR wallah Shrinivasan, jo yeh bhi nahin jaanta ki DRDO ka BMD project sirf ek ‘Technology Demonstration Programme’ hain, jiske bare mein Dr V K Saraswat ne FORCE ke March 2010 issue mein zikr kiya. Us waqt Saraswat ji ne pehli baar yeh bhi kahaa tha ki BMD ke dono radar videshi hai aur agar use desh main banana ho toh phir sabhi computer, C4I command post aur T/R modules videsh se kharidna parega.

Anonymous said...

Dear Sir

You are doing a GREAT WORK with your Blog by giving us common folks valuable information

Please dont get angry

These Bharat Rakshak people are just too FULL OF THEMSELVES

They feel that ONLY they possess defence related knowledge

Your blog has made their life tough as you are doing a very GOOD JOB and giving them a Run for their money

Just delete their stupid posts

Anyway MY QUESTION is that will we have IRST for LCA mk 1

Anonymous said...

sir can you plz make a detailed post on the Indian ballistic missile defense system ?? wud be very very thankful to u for the same....

how many t 72s are going to be further upgraded so that they will serve well past 2020 ??

i actually wanted to asked if whether tejas will have a bubble canopy like f 16 , j 20 or f 22 ??

is astra comparable to other bvraams of other countries like when it compared to amraam or r77 etc ??

why can't the skyranger's 35 mm gun be used on the ficv's , u see it very effective against infantry , armoured vehicles and even tanks as it can destroy its lightly protected optronics with its ahead ammo and render the tank useless with out its aiming sights....

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Anon@9.14AM: If you're referring to the existing canopy design then yes, it will be retained. Only its opening and shutting mechanism will be of the actuated type.

To Anon@10.54AM: The August 2011 issue of FORCE has a detailed analysis of the F-INSAS project.

To Anon@7.47PM: Many thanks. The Tejas LCA Mk1 or LCA Navy Mk1 wonlt have any on-board IRST sensor.

To Anon@9.53PM: I'm working on the write-up on the DRDO's proposed TMD system and its various phases. Will upload it next week. While the overall project is only a technology demonstration venture as of now (meaning no production orders have been placed by the MoD thus far), the Missile Monitoring System project has been sanctioned and deployments will begin by 2014. This satellites will be used exclusively by the NTRO for providing real-time early warning about missile launches from any hostile territory around India in both peacetime and wartime. More details on the satellites are available at:
In addition, the three existing A-50EI PHALCONs are being upgraded to provide early vectoring cues on hostile ballistic missile launches. More on that later.
The number of T-72Ms/M1s due for upgradation is around 1,700. The existing cockpit canopy design of the Tejas Mk1 will be retained on the Mk2 as well. The definitive Astra Mk2 will be comparable to the R-77 BVRAAM. The Skyranger's 35mm gun can always be used by any FICVs or AIFVs. The Mowag Piranha already uses it. But a 40mm gun like that on the CV-90 will be a better choice. But any such cannon will not be as effective against MBTs. But presently, even the rapid-fire guns of the existing Schilka and Tunguska-M can be used against ICVs and AIFVs.

Anonymous said...

ok man don't flame... you seem to be obsessed by BR and Shrinivasan
(actually i am not a BR forumer. i read the forum but dont participate)

Anonymous said...

Dear Prasun,

There where reports about india funding K-100 Novator ... the AWACS killer ... for its MKIs, as a JV b.w DRDO n NPO Novator... how true is it ?

Anonymous said...

Hi Prasun,

Why has the Mirage upgrade gone to Thales?Why are we trying to please th French?Is there any other backroom dealing going on for some other system linked to this deal?We seem to be taking care not to hurt he French.What are we to gain from them by cultivating this relationship?
And bcoz of this the EF is likely to win the mmrca r8?

Why has GOI never released records of Indo-China war in 62?

Anonymous said...

^^^Shutup you Rat Srinivaas... go stay put at bharat rakshak... if this is chor then why bother commenting?

Prasun, the silly Pakis have stung IAF regarding Dhruvs in Ecuador. I read your comment in Shiv's blog as well. However I'd like to know whether whatever said is actually founded since the Ecoadorian press themselves haven't released anything as such? or is it just some silly propoganda to please their chinese and yankee masters? what do u know about this? thanks.

Anonymous said...


I'll like to read your defense related article , at the same time I'll request you to post your views on the changes that are going on in middle east and East Africa and their shot and long term impact in world order - for instance China has huge investment in Libya and its one of the principle supplier of oil to China.
You mentioned in one of your comments that you have been writing on defense industries in China and Pakistan. I have read couple of articles on Pakistan and China's defense productions on specific technologies (artillery, communication etc.) in your earlier blog. Similar articles will be much appreciated.

Best regards,


xxxx said...

>>>PKS!!! -- when is the "india specific version of Optsat 3000" due to be ready / launched? and do you still know whether RISAT1 & CARTOSAT3 would be launched this year? I ask because Cartosat was due to be launched by 2010. Further, ISRo hardly has the capability of carrying out more than 2-3 launches/year and they've already done 2 for 2011. Your say please....<<<

Anonymous said...

dear prasun,

can't you edit some of the crap which some people keep posting...beginning to get tired of it.

not sure what's achieved...


Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Anon@10.48AM: The Novator K-100 has already been fully funded and developed by Russia. There’s no need for an additional Indian funding.

To Anon@3.22PM: Any upgrade programme has to involve the OEM for the airframe and in this case Dassault Aviation had teamed up with THALES to make the offer. That’s why the MoD had no choice but to award the contract to the French. France is willing to offer India a whole lot, including cooperation in nuclear submarine construction. But the question is: Is India willing to accept the French offer? In terms of defraying the high acquisition costs of any M-MRCA (Rafale or EF-2000), logic says that the four-nation Eurofighter consortium can offer India a lot more by way of direct/indirect industrial offsets than Dassault Aviation can. The combined might of four European countries is much more than that of a solitary European country. But do rest assured that even if the costs of both the Rafale and EF-2000 are found to be too high and rejected, then the other contenders who were earlier not downselected could well be invited to submit a fresh financial offer, i.e. Boeing could well be asked to resubmit its offer for the Super Hornet. By now it is crystal-clear that the IAF wants a twin-engined M-MRCA and therefore the F-16, JAS-39 and F-35 will not be considered, contrary to what some like Ajai Shukla of BROADSWORD may be lobbying for.

To Anon@4.49PM: If HAL’s product-support for the Dhruv was indeed that bad, then one would have heard similar complaints from Nepal and the Maldives by now. But that hasn’t happened. So obviously the information purportedly emanating from Ecuador are just mere rumours aimed at maligning HAL.

To NR@12.14AN: Will try to oblige. Thanks.

To XXXX: The RISAT-1 is due for launch this year, not am not sure exactly when.

Anonymous said...

'' therefore the F-16, JAS-39 and F-35 will not be considered ''

i think f-35 is not in mmrca .

Anonymous said...

Indian Navy to Order Carrier Capable Rafale Fighter Jet