Total Pageviews

Friday, August 12, 2011

How BEL Defines Indigenisation

The latest corporate advertisement from Bharat Electronics Ltd—a defence public-sector undertaking (DPSU) owned by India’s Ministry of Defence—is highly illustrative of the fraud being perpetuated by the DPSUs in the name of indigenisation. The advertisement claims that BEL is setting up state-of-the-art coastal surveillance systems (CSS) in India and abroad (supposed to be Mauritius), when in reality all that it is doing is using screwdriver technologies to assemble all imported systems and sub-systems that are being received in semi knocked-down condition. For instance, the prime contractor for the Indian CSS is Sweden SAABTech (which won the contract on November 24 last year), while TERMA of Denmark is supplying the SCANTER 2001 S-/X-band radars, with  the thermal imager coming from Israel’s Controp and the CCD camera with LLLTV from Canada’s Obzerv.
The communications package has already been delivered by Frequentis of Austria. It was in April 2009 that the Indian Coast Guard awarded the contract to Frequentis for supplying the maritime voice and data communications for their three MRCCs in Mumbai, Chennai and Port Blair. The system has since been established within nine months in association with Elcome Marine of India. The MRCCs in Mumbai, Chennai, and Port Blair are responsible for providing maritime rescue and coordination services in Indian waters along the whole shoreline and in its designated waters, whereby it is crucial for the centres to maintain radio contact with the individual traffic participants at all times. From October 2009, the new Frequentis voice communications system and GMDSS equipment began supporting the operators at the MRCCs in accomplishing this task. The system comes with additional functionality such as pre-recorded messages for frequently broadcast navigational warnings, as well as ship-land cross connection on MF. The communications system thus enables the Indian Coast Guard to simultaneously operate all available functions from six of the most innovative operator positions available in the market.—Prasun K. Sengupta


Anonymous said...

US already clears Hawkeye E-2D aircraft for India - when it will be inked / supplied .

Anonymous said...

Don't believe in Prasun Chor Gupta.It seems he eats to much craps and defaecates through his mouth here and there.There are other defence journos who are much better that this good for nothing chor gupta.As a responsible citizen,I am advising the fellow readers not to follow this Goat Gupta but if you guys want to make fun of yourselves then go on reading these craps.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous@ 8:28pm

What the F*** are you talking and why the F*** you care. Better mind your business. It looks like you have some interest in defaming Prasun and it looks like it is your business. Mind your business and shut your a** hole.

The way that you have been posting your dislike shows what kind of an a** you are. If you don’t like what you see here, then ignore and move on with your business.

Prasun, ignore these kind of characterless idiots and let us move on with our blog. Once again thanks a lot for your patience to answer all of our questions.


Kumar said...

What the hell?

How could you allow such assh**** like anon above to come and shit here?

This isn’t there place. These dickheads must be other jello journos, i've strong feeling, they are hiding their real ass.

Gali gali me shor hai, Sengupta chhod ke maximum journos CHOR hain.

Mr. Ra said...

Hi! Brahmos-III has been successfully fired at bull's eye at Pokharan.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Anon@5.06PM: What good will that do when the Indian Navy has ruled out the prospects for carrier-based AEW aircraft? Since the Navy wants shore-based AEW & C solutions, might as well as go for something like the G-550 CAEW & CS that offers greater endurance and capabilities than the E-2D.

To Kumar@11.42PM: Usage of the term 'defence journos' by Anon@8.28PM was a dead giveaway about his identity and intentions. But I'm sure we all have better things to prod about than such numbskulls. Am off to attend the MAKS 2011 expo from August 16-21 at Zhukovsky, Russia. Will try to post some updates from there.

To Mr RA: Yes, yesterday's firing was the second and definitive/final demonstration firing of the Block-3 version of BrahMos prior to commencement of series-production of the Block-3. The Army had specifically asked for this demonstration-firing to take place in a surface-to-surface configuration and the OEM's confidence was so high that it was decided to conduct the firing on the range aty Pokhran.

Anonymous said...

but nowhere in the brochure is it stated indigenous dude...

buddha said...

for incoming mechanized regiment

what will be good choice;-Tejasmk2
/Rafale/Eurofighter Typhoon

what happens to shaurya hypersonic missile
can shaurya hypersonic missile act as carrier killer
what is the true range 0f Astra mk1 and Astra mk2
can Prahar missile range be extended upto 400km-500km

buddha said...

sir what is the status of HAL HJT 39 / CAT and HAL HJT-36 Sitara ?

Anonymous said...

@ what range BrahMos Block-3 was tested this time?

Is there any source offering details about the dates and ranges at which missile was tested on each date?

Anonymous said...


@ what range BrahMos Block-3 was tested this time?

Is there any source offering details of tests of BrahMos's like ranges at which missile were tested?

Why cant India use DRDO's AEW&C solution? It would be cheaper and will have full control over it.

Anonymous said...

In the name of "Defense"..

Badnam koi aur hai(the generals etc).. khata Pita koi Chor hai (the civilian lobby led by IAS.

Chalo kab tak chalega .. may be another 62...

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Anon@11.11AM: Nor did I, dude. What's your point?

To Anon@3.53PM: Any missile fired at Pokhran can travel a distance of only 56km as the firing range measures only 59km by 40km.DRDO's SEW & C solution? There's no such thing at the moment. It is still work in progress.

Anonymous said...

Hi Prasun,

1) I also want to know what happened to Shaurya ? When it will be inducted in service and in what number because its a next gen missile in India.

2) Recently Taiwan showcased its new cruise missile which they term as AC killer. Is our Brahmos or Shaurya capable of neutralizing an AC ?

3)Just like IAF and IN are beefing up the security at their bases. What is IA's plans ?

4)IA said few months back that they might also go for smaller fixed wing air-crafts for their aviation wing, has MOD agreed ?

5) UK recently proposed joint development of future naval warships with India. How is MOD, IN and our Shipyards responding ? Is their any chance we might go for this ?

6) What is the design status of the bigger SSBN that will follow Arihant as i think by 2015 the work on those subs might start (i am talking about hull) ?

7) Has the first batch of new Mi17 arrived ? Are we placing follow on order of another 50 ? Is IA also looking to purchase Mi17 or other chopper in its category ?

8) All of your fans will really appreciate updates on FINSAS and FICV (result of final two who will built the prototypes).

9) IA was supposed to place huge orders for Mini UAVs, MALE and HALE UAVs. Have they placed it ? If not when they will be placing it.

Also i would like to add to one of your previous comments about the loitering missile which IA is looking. IA is looking for missile like land version of Dalielah and not Harpy which actually comes under UAVs. I know loitering missile are more or less like UAVs but there are differences between both.

Would really appreciate any update on IA's plan to induct loitering missiles.

Anonymous said...

what i mean is BEL does not say it's indegenous so why are u calling it "fraud committed by BEL in the name of indegenisation??"

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Anon@10.49AM: The Shaurya has not yet received approval from the Govt of India for operational deployment. Be it the Taiwanese Hsiung Feng-3 or BrahMos, for a carrier battle group to be located and engaged takes a lot of effort. Firstly, there’s the issue of over-the-horizon surveillance to be conducted by ocean surveillance satellites which neither India nor China possess. Secondly, there’s the issue of staying undetected beyond the range of naval AEW aircraft and combat aircraft, which is at least 200nm. Lastly, there’s the issue of launching anti-ship cruise missiles in salvo in an effort to saturate the anti-missile defences. Therefore, all in all, missiles like the BrahMos will never be allowed to even enter their engagement envelopes IN CASE the target is a US Navy Carrier Battle Group. The IA has yet to acquire any fixed-wing aircraft. Not just the UK, all other countries interested in selling warships to India have been making such proposals since 2007. The follow-on hulls of the Arihant-class SSBNs will be smaller in size, as only the lead boat (in this case the Arihant) needs to be bigger to cater to hull/propulsion reliability and design validation tests and evaluations. The Mi-17V-5s for the IAF have already begun arriving. Follow-on orders for 50 will be inked before the year’s end. IA will place orders only for mini-UAVs, like the ELBIT Systems-built Skylark-1, which has been modified to cruise at altitudes of up to 18,000 feet. As for loitering munitions, the IA is not looking at the Delilah, which is actually a cruise missile, but at loitering PGMs like the HAROP.

To Anon@10.49AM: Just read the first sentence of the BEL advert and see for yourself if it matches with what SAAB said in its press release. How on earth can BEL claim to be setting up a coastal surveillance system for India when the SAAB press release clearly states that SAAB along with its Indian partner ELCOME Marine will be implementing the contract awarded by the DGLL? Even the latest CAG report on the Indian Coast Guard makes no mention of BEL having won any such contract from the DGLL. Even BEL, when announcing its year-end performance results for 2010 never even mentioned winning any such contract from the Govt of India. How, then, can BEL claim to be doing what it has said in its advert? This BEL advert is thus a Class A+++ con-game, misrepresentation of facts and disinformation, all of which now stand proven beyond reasonable doubt.

Anonymous said...

Hey Thanx Prasun.

I have a few more questions.

1) Will our armed forces induct Shaurya or is it possible that they might not even induct such a great missile ?

2) Both HAL and Sukhoi is talking about a futher order of 40 Su30 mki is possible. Any news from the IAF ?

3) You said many nations are talking about joining hands with India in warship development. Can you name them and share their offers with us ?

4) How capable is kavach countermeasure system in comparison to other competitors ?

5) What happened to Indo-Israeli next gen Mayawi Electronic warfare system ?

6) HAL and Saab joined hand recently to build new countermeasure system for helicopters will it be incorporated in our LCH ?

7) If you compare LCH to other attack helicopters whether its Russian or european or US or even turkeys new chopper, it looks like LCH lacks many things like Radars and some special sights. Will these things be incorporated in the final production variant of LCH ?

8) Are there special ops version of Dhruv and Mi17 with our forces ?

Please for god sakes give some reply on FINSAS program. I have asked 3-4 times but you never responded. Its not just me everyone wants to here about the progress on FINSAS program. I hope you take this request into consideration and open a new topic on this great indian army modernization plan.

Anonymous said...

hahahahhaha so does it mean BEL is advertising about something its got no hand in??? lol what the fucks up with those chaps???

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Anon@7.51AM: It is not up to the armed forces to decide whether or not they want the Shaurya, but for the Govt of India to decide whether or not to replace the Prithvis and Agni-1s with the Shaurya. Unfortunately in India, strategic programmes are not being run by or for the armed forces, but by scientists and technocrats that are detached from reality.
Additional Su-30MKIs are possible beyond the 272 currently planned for. For further details on future warship developments, go to:
Kavach is still under development and its performance results have yet to be validated. What matters is not the quality of the dispenser, what the kind of dispensible decoy being used. The Mayavi was never meant to be an India-Israel co-development project. It is now being developed by DARE along with Cassidian and Elletronica. Yes, the same radar/missile warning/countermeasures system for the Dhruv Mk4 will go on the LCH as well. The LCH's design is still evolving but it is clear that if it is to be optimised as an UAV interceptor then it should incorporate a millimetric-wave radar sensor. There vare presently no helicopters optimised for special operations, but the Mi-17V-5s and Dhruv Mk4s will be capable of supporting special operations air assault operations. The F-INSAS project is still mired in red-tape and is still several years away from deployment. Nothing new to report about.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Anon@10.50AM: That's right. BEL is claiming credit for something in which it has no major R & D-related inputs, and neither is it the prime contractor. Shit happens, and to top it all such DPSUs are in cahoots with certain India-based broadcast journalists to give the false impression that everything is alright and in capable hands, thereby fooling the Indian taxpayers, when in reality coastal security challenges are several years away from being met. For instance, just compare what the CAG has stated (at: and what disinformation these broadcast journalists have belched out at:

Anonymous said...

Thanx alot again...

Lastly i want to know how many dhruvs IA is inducting ? I heard 159 including something around 70 which will be armed version (ALH mk4) for which the development cost is being paid by army itself.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Anon@7.08AM: ALL armed Dhruv Mk4s will go to the IAF, not to the Indian Army. The Dhruvs operated by the Indian Army will be used only for casualty evacuation. Remember, and don't forget, that the IAF owns and operates all attack helicopter/armed air assault helicopter assets, and not the Indian Army. The Army operates only the SA.315B Lancer lightly armed helicopter.

Anonymous said...

What is your opinion about the aircraft carrier and frigates being put up for sale by Britain at such low prices. Does it make sense for India to go for it? If it does not make sense, kindly clarify the reason/s for the same.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Anon@11.38AM: Such vessels will not be of any use for the Indian Navy since it has already made enormous investments in product-support infrastructure for supporting India-built and Russia-built warships. Procurement of warships of entirely different designs will only create insurmountable problems associated with the need to establish product-support warehouses and workshops for several different categories of systems and sub-systems. Better for navies like the Pakistan Navy to acquire such warships since, firstly, it needs more warships, and secondly, it has already done this before with the UK since the early 1990s and is therefore more experienced in operating and maintaining such warships than the Indian Navy.

Austin said...

Hello Prasun my previous comment got deleted but here are few question on your MAKS trip

1 ) Did you manage to find out more information on FGFA , specifically if its going to be a 18T aircraft or based on existing PAK-FA ?

2 ) Details on Indian contribution to FGFA ?

3 ) I could not see your trip report for IMDS in this months Force ?

Thanks , Have a good trip.

Anonymous said...

I happened to talk to a HAL scientist a year ago and he told me that IA is getting mk4 and that even IA is monitoring and paying the development of this variant. Not to mention according to reports IA is purchasing 114 LCH. So IA is getting attack choppers but not the heavy attack like Apache.

Also in counter to your AC reply. India has operated warships of british origin in the past and not just any warship but the AC itself. The INS Viraat is actually ex-British carrier HMS Hermes. So actually IN is more ready and experienced to use a british AC. But the problem is right now IN don't have facility to dock such a huge vessel and neither does Pakistani Navy. I think we should go for it, replace one british with other and much better. Both Mig29 and LCA can operate from that with little modification and even if they can't then IN already has plans to induct naval MMRCA, they just have to hasten that process a little bit. I am suggesting for this purchase because IN is looking for 3 AC and INS Viraat is getting too old and a bit dangerous to operate. Not to mention it is one of the most modern AC right now. Also we can still go for IAC2 even after this purchase.

No disrespect meant...

Indian aerospace scientist are going on a regular visit to Russia just to see the T-50 fly. I mean after every two week a delegation visits Russia. I wanted to know have they really started the work on 5th gen technologies or they are enjoying free trips to Russia on governments money ?/

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Anon@4.14AM: Just read all the show dailies published during Aero India 2011 last February and you will get to hear from the horse's mouth (the then CAS ACM P V Naik) who the recipients of the LCH and Dhruv Mk4 will be. On the afternoon of February 11, 2011 ACM P V Naik clearly stated that the armed Dhruv Mk4s will go to the IAF, as will ALL 65 LCHs. All these on-the-record statements have already been published.
Regarding the ex-Royal Navy warships, it is not the previous experience of the Indian Navy with such warships or with UK-designed warships that matters. What matters is what kind of investments one is willing to make IN FUTURE in case such pre-owned warships are acquired. I'm not talking about hands-on experience reqd for operating such warships, but the prohibitive cost of keeping these warships afloat and operational. Neither the LCA (Navy) nor the MiG-29K can operate from any existing UK-built STOVL aircraft carrier as such carriesr don't have on-board STOBAR arrangements/facilities. Also, even if the Indian Navy wants to go for three aircraft carriers, it will have to wait for at least another 15 years to achieve this feat since the Navy does not possess the reqd number of escort warships that ought to be deployed with the carrier battle groups. INS Viraat is good to last untill 2020 even as a helicopter carrier, there's nothing dangerous about its operational existence.
Regarding the FGFA, work has already begun on the preliminary design review of both the single-seater and tandem-seater and therefore such visits (conducted by both the Russians and Indians) are a must and are also routine. Most of the technologies to go on board the FGFA will in the near future begin flying on the Super Su-30MKI (for which HAL personnel are now making frequent trips to Russia) and you can read more about these technologies in one of my earlier posts.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Austin: Have already replied to your queries in the previous thread (on the J-10 M-MRCA). None of your postings were deleted by anyone. Regarding the weight category of the FGFA/PMF, all I can state is that it is no use questioning the statements made by a previous IAF CAS (ACM S P Tyagi), as those were the official on-the-record remarks coming from the IAF back in 2005 and there's nothing to suggest that those remarks/statements have become obsolete. The principal design challenge is therefore regarding the tandem-seat FGFA, for which deliberations are continuing. As I've stated above, most of the new-generation mission avionics like the X-band and L-band AESA arrays and miniaturised towed-/expendable decoys meant for the FGFA will be introduced earlier on the Super Su-30MKI. Consequently, to me what's of more importance from a news standpoint here at MAKS 2011 is not about the FGFA/PMF, but about the status of the Super Su-30MKI programme.

Anonymous said...

I don't know about ACM but everyone including defense scientist to politicians to senior armed forces personnel. IAF will only be receiving around 60 Dhruvs over-all.

This is an excerpt from the Indian Army's official website :

" The 21st production aircraft delivered to the Army, will be the first with a glass cockpit and weapons systems integrated. The Army's WSI helicopters will feature a chin-mounted, three barrel 20mm gun from Lockheed Martin and four pylons - each having two hard points - which will enable it to carry eight Nag anti-tank guided missiles, four 68mm or 70mm rocket pods or four tube-launched air-to-air missiles. "
Also the whole development cost of WSI Dhruv is paid by army so why won't they purchase it ?

Also ACM is right that IAF will get 65 LCH but there are reports that biggest customer of LCH will be IA with atleast 114 LCH (it is different from IAF order).

Also yeah i know Mig29 and LCA can't operate in the current state from UK's AC and thats why i said that they can with little modification. Not to mention i added that IN could also hasten the process of inducting Naval MMRCA which can operate from this new AC.
Also IN needs 3 ACs so that 2 of them can always be in the sea 1 on each side. That means IN only needs warships to maintain 2 BCG.

No disrespect meant...

Anonymous said...

What's your opinion about INS Vikramaditya in the following context.
There have been several reports with regards to placement of starboard elevators resulting in constrained landing and takeoff of the number of aircrafts at a time.
Vis-a-vis Varyag where does Vikramaditya stands?

flanker143 said...

sir how about the post on lch ??

whats the status of rustom -h project
is it true that rustom will be inducted in the armed forces??? it is said to have a whooping 12hr it really true ??

will the p15b and p17a vessels be drastically different than their predecessors ?

plzz shed somne light on the aura and amca project ??

is it true that hal/uac il 214 will have a max payload of 20tns ??
if thats true then can one safely assume that our ficv will be definitly lighter than 20tns....??

are further varients of ficv are planed..??

any further updates on lca tejas mk2 and mk1 ??

Austin said...

@ Prasun : I didnt realised that you had responded on the J-10 thread.

Any news on Super 30MKI so far ?

Can you get some information on civil programs like MS-21 , Superjet , AN-140/158 ?

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Anon@9.20AM: Kindly do yourself a BIIIIG favour by not quoting from the Indian Army’s official website, which is replete with errors. Strange as it may sound, it is true. For instance (at:, the website says: “The Army's 'weapons system integrated' helicopters will feature a chin-mounted, three barrel 20mm gun from Lockheed Martin and four pylons--each having two hard points--which will enable it to carry eight Nag anti-tank guided missiles, four 68mm or 70mm rocket pods or four tube-launched air-to-air missiles.” Now, I’m sure we all know that Lockheed Martin never manufactures any 3-barrel 20mm gun, but the 6-barrel 20mm M61 Vulcan gun. Secondly, the Dhruv Mk4 WSI prototype developed by HAL features a chin-mounted 20mm single-barrel cannon made by France’s Nexter Systems. And thirdly, the Nag ATGM is unlikely to be available for flight-tests before 2015 and that’s why the MBDA-built Pars-3LR and Spike-ER from RAFAEL are being evaluated for the Dhruv Mk4 WSI. Another erroneous statement in the same webpage claims that the Indian Navy is expected to order 120 Dhruv ALHs, when the reality is that the Navy has bought only 8 Dhruv ALHs and has refused to buy any more. Therefore, the Indian Army’s website is the LAST place you’d want to quote from when discussing force modernisation issues about the Army Aviation Corps!
In addition, it is not the Indian Army, but the MoD that is financing the Dhruv Mk4 WSI project. Army HQ had in the past made written requests to the MoD gor being granted the authorisation for procuring 114 LCHs, but such requests have since been rejected by the MoD. Lastly, what’s your definition of the term ‘little modification’ which will enable existing UK-designed STOVL aircraft carriers to accommodate the MiG-29K and LCA (Navy) on board?

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Anon@8.19PM: What kinds of constraints are we talking about? At any given time the INS Vikramaditya will not be launching more than six MiG-29Ks for a given sortie. So where’s the constraint? If one were to compare the Vikramaditya with the refitted Varyag, then the former scores above the latter since the Varyag has been refitted to serve purely as a training vessel for now. In my estimation, if at all the refitted Varyag is ever employed in anger, then it will most likely be used in the South China Sea against the smaller ASEAN member-states that have territorial disputes with China in the Spratlys. It will never be employed against any other country, even against Taiwan. For the most part, this carrier, like China’s fleet of SSNs and SSBNs, will spend its time within China’s territorial waters. The PLA Navy’s real power projection capabilities will be displayed only after the arrival before 2020 of its first indigenously-built operational aircraft carrier. Meanwhile, by 2015, the Vikramaditya will most likely be retrofitted with the Barak-2 MR-SAM, as per present plans.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Austin: Regarding the Super Su-30MKI all the performance and design details were already posted in an earlier thread at:
There's therefore nothing new to add, except to reiterate that most of these innovations and new technologies will also go later on board the FGFA/PMF. The IAF and HAL are discussing the possibility of adding a pair of rear fuselage-mounted L-band AESA arrays to give the Super Su-30MKI a 360-degree airspace surveillance capability out to a rear-facing distance of 60nm. Structurally speaking, this is achievable, according to Sukhoi OKB. As per present IAF plans, only a quarter of the Su-30MKI fleet will be upgraded to the Super Su-30MKI standard. These upgraded aircraft are also likely to be the recipients of Vympel's RVV-AE-PD BVRAAM, whose low-key development has been continuing all these years, with a final decision on its production cycle due later this year. The Ruskies are very keen to offer this BVRAAM as standard fit on the FGFA/PMF (at around the same time the MBDA Meteor and Raytheon's FRAAM begin entering service)and it is now almost confirmed that the IAF will be its launch export customer. On a lighter note, it has been most amusing to watch journalists of both Indian and non-Indian origin here at the expo to go ga-ga over the T-50 PAK-FA, and paying virtually no attention to the Super Su-30MKI project. R$egarding civilian programmes, regretably they're not on my list of priorities.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To flanker143: The IAF has mandated that certain fundamental design changes be incorporated into the LCH’s fuselage with regard to the existing tandem-seat cockpit areas (which presently overexpose the aircrew), the tail landing gear (either make it retractable or place it at the tail-end of the tail-section), and adoption of a lightweight nose-mounted millimetric-wave search-and-track radar (either belly-mounted or above the starboard stub-wing), adoption of a pair of skids instead of the tricycle landing gear, and exploring the adoption of a fly-by-wire flight control system. Both the Rustom-1 and Rustom-2 UAVs are slated for service entry. By when? Even the DRDO can’t answer that yet. All your other queries were answered in previous threads.

Austin said...

Prasun,Vympel RVV-AE-PD BVRAAM or the ramjet r-77 is practically dead.

What they have shown is the RVV-BD at MAKS which is an export variant of the R-37M , this would be offered for export right now with a range of 200 km.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Austin: The RVV-AE-BD BVRAAM will not be flight-qualified on either the Super Su-30MKI or the FGFA. Instead, it is meant for the upgraded MiG-31M.

Austin said...

Prasun , the R-37M has been flight tested and operational on Mig-31M for quite some time,they have a range of ~ 280 km according to Yefim Gordon.

They have the export variant called RVV-BD with a 200 km range and the brochure at MAKS show it being compatible with Mig-35 , check link below.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Austin: As I stated earlier, the RVV-AE-BD BVRAAM will not be flight-qualified on either the Super Su-30MKI or the FGFA. MiG-35??? Let's wait and see when it surfaces with the Russian Air Force. Have come across too many Russian brochures claiming too many things before. Remember the Su-27IB that eventually became the Su-32FN and Su-34? Or the Su-35 which at one stage became the Su-37in the late 1990s when it 1991 itself there was another aircraft model with the Su-37 designation? Therefore, let's leave the Russian brochures aside and instead talk to the decision-makers whose job it is to evaluate weapon systems and suggest procurement decisions. By the way, does anyone know from where HAL has been importing the composites raw materials used for the Tejas LCA's airframne fabrication?

Austin said...

Prasun ,if the Russian have derived an export variant of R-37M then obviously there is an intention to use to on other platforms beyond Mig-31 and no one is buying Mig-31 any more these days.

MAKS report indicate that Mig-35 as one of the targeted platforms and in all likely hood the Flankers will be too.

Since you are out there you are in a better position to find it out and confirm it.

Any more details on RVV-BD would be welcome.

Alenia was consulted for co-cured composite for LCA not sure if they still are ones who supply the raw materials as well.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Austin: A couple of clarifications. Firstly, the RVV-BD shown at the expo is not specifically being promoted for export. I checked with Tactical Missile Corp JSC and as expected, they confirmed that no flight-qualification trials have been conducted thus far with any member of the MiG-29 family. Secondly, the BVRAAM being equipped with on-board data links is not meant to be guided by a combat aircraft's airborne radar, but by AEW & C aircraft. In other words, it follows the same terminal guidance philosophy as that of the Meteor BVRAAM. Neither the RSLU-30MK BARS, nor the IRBIS, nor the Zhuk-AE will be employed for terminal guidance of such BVRAAMs since the radars' maximum range is only 135km in the air-to-air mode. Therefore, only those countries having AEW & C platforms can think of acquiring the RVV-BD. Having said that, this missile is definitely not being considered for either the Su-30MKI or the FGFA, as per both Sukhoi OKB and Tactical Missiles Corp JSC officials. But the most interesting revelation by them 48 hours ago was about the RVV-AE-PD BVRAAM, which is far from dead and is most likely to end up with the FGFA. But no one is as yet willing to go on record about confirming Indian financial support for the RVV-AE-PD programme.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Austin: Regarding composites for the Tejas LCA, Alenia Aeronautica fabricated the airframes of the TDs, and then supplied HAL with the know-how for fabricating all subsequent airframes. The raw materials/resins have all been sourced from Russia ansd these are all specially treated (prior to delivery) in order to possess radar-absorbent capabilities.

Anonymous said...

About boycotting all German products, no, that's not what was meant. India should boycott this particular deal. Germany needs Indian support to achieve economics of scale due to ever shrinking defence budget in the EU block. That's obviously why Merkel rocked-up. Boycotting any or all military-related sales from a particular country cannot become a case in WTO.

This has nothing to do with boycotting Airbusses / BMWs etc.

The message should be clear - India only buys defence equipment (especially something like combat aircraft) from countries who understand and respect India's security & geopolitical concerns.

Anonymous said...

Gupta is blabbering, BEL has not mentioned anywhere in the Ad that they are installing an indigenous system rather they have mentioned that they are setting up the system. Looks like this guy is a Paki sympathizer!

Kalyan said...

Hi Prasun and everyone, Though i am very late in reading this blog. To mention, I have been the part of this project since trials. To some extent i will agree to you that this project is not completely indigenous but you have to believe me that the core of the project-entire software development along with encryption is completely indigenous.It completely makes sense for a good project management to optimize its resources to meet timelines. Whats the use of reinventing the wheel, when the need of the hour is to execute the project as soon as possible than to show your might by developing an indigenous Radar.
Though India needs a better R&D, but BEL is majorly a production/manufacturing company.
I have seen the worth of the project and might of the software development and architecture design in Mauritius and in India.

SaaB has a parallel coastal surveillance project with ICG where in they are roping in their AIS systems to build a surveillance architecture. Please don't confuse it with CSS BEL project.