Dunno why, whenever I see a PAKFA, I never get the impression of a 5th Gen fighter from any angle - shape, cockpit, canopy, engines, intakes, coatings - all seem like a 4.5 gen at the best!! Even the J-20, which Russians laughed off, looked far stealthier and futuristic. Hopefully FGFA is better and hope IAF and MOD don't sacrifice AMCA or take it callously :-(
To Anon@9.02AM: The two flying T-50 PAK-FAs presently are akin to the initial Tejas LCA technology demonstrators. They don't even represent the prototype standard at the moment. The same goes for the J-20 as well. A far more realistic appraisal will be possible only after the T-50 PAK-FA prototype vehicles start emerging, fitted with their full complement of mission avionics and weapon systems, along with the definitive AL-41F turbofan, all of which are still a few years away from deployment. As for the AMCA, let us not even talk about it simply because no one has as yet explained exactly what and how the AMCA will be able to offer which the FGFA/PMF will not be able to.
To Anon@4.47PM: Check out the belly-mounted internal weapons bays. As for guided-weapons like BVRAAMs and PGMs, yes they will all be newly developed ones (like small-diameter PGMs) and optimised for fitment within the internal bays. R & D on such weapons is well-advanced and some of them are available today, like the KAB-250 from Russia and the Israeli MLGB.
hi , IMO , the BIG difference between India & China is that India's Defence agencies start boasting even before the product/technology has been developed.They just boast about plans and then do nothing. On the other hand China keeps quiet and then stuns the world one day with a "already developed" product/technology . Lots of people hold this opinion that chinese defence products are inferior to that of other countries , but i believe that they can hold on their own. J20 too looks formidable...its actually India who is always at the mercy of other countries for their Defence needs. Pakistan has the right ally in China . In any case , in many areas , they have better defence equipments that India.
Amazing pics. Great! Looking forward to what promises to be a very interesting narrative.
I hope you will do an article on the new munitions being developed for the T-50/FGFA. The russians, it seems, are having a few aces up their sleeve and i'd love a writeup by you.
Your post(http://trishul-trident.blogspot.com/2011/04/separating-wheat-from-chaff.html) clearly shows that the Americans are way ahead of the rest of the world in terms of Active sensors (Though European passive sensors are just as good). My first question is that will US congress allow the those Technologies to be transferred to INDIA as IAF desires. Next as now we have shortlisted the Rafale & Typhoon will they be able to develop comparable systems in specified time-frame and deliver them to us. which fighter would be a safer bet. Into which generation,do you think,will the LCA Mach2 fit into. By the way impressed by your blog very informative and hopefully well researched ):
China will always present positive news, because most of the sensitive news is tightly controlled. Agreed that a finished product being put up as a surprise than promising moon and bring up a coin. But in a democratic country, all the developments except the topsec kind has to be widely advertised, to keep the funding for the projects. In china if any plan fails it will never come up as news. But if in India even if an expected failure (like flight testing) occurs, the public outcry will be to close the project. We are 'being in India with the Indian mentality to emulate US'. Very few public and even administrators really know even minutest details of defence and our weakness/strengths. So the smart lot among the scientist fool them by promising moon (by the time it comes up as pin head the guy would have retired!).
To Anon@8.47PM: Kindly allow me to explain in layman’s terms what sets India apart from the likes of China and Pakistan. It is all about an elementary administrative dysfunctionality. In both China and Pakistan the armed forces chiefs are STRATEGIC players, meaning at every step of the way in every matter concerning national security planning, the armed forces are working hand-in-hand at the same level as civilian decision-makers. In Pakistan the MoD works hand in hand with the office of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, whereas in China there’s the Central Military Commission. In the case of India there’s no such coordination and synchronisation of effort simply because Indian is the only democracy in the world where the MoD and the armed forces HQs are in different physical locations, instead of coming under one umbrella. Therefore, the Indian armed services chiefs are mere operational players, and have nothing to contribute toward national security planning. When the then Chairman of the Chiefs of Staff Committee (COSC), the IAF’s ACM P V Naik, was asked late last month at his last press conference about how many times he met and briefed the Prime Minister of India over the past vtwo years, his answer was: not even once. When asked why, he said that present rules allow the Chairman of the COSC to meet and brief only the Defence Minister, and not the PM. From this statement, we can thus easily conclude that whenever the Cabinet Committee on National Security convenes to discuss and deliberate on crucial matters, there’s ZERO military inputs from the three armed services to all members of this Committee. Consequently, almost all members of this Committee, including the PM and the Union Ministers of Finance, Defence, Home Affairs and Foreign Affairs, till this day remain clueless about national security planning and strategies of consequence to India. Today, national security decisions are being taken by the civilian politicians and bureaucrats, while the strategic weapons development programmes are being conceptuialised, designed and developed by scientists and technocrats, with the armed forces being left totally in the dark and the executive branch of the Govt of India being totally about national security matters. Hence it is frequently the case that the Govt of India always gives in to Chinese aggressiveness, blinks first, and turns to appeasement of China. So what’s the solution? Quite simple, really. Create the post of a four-star Chief of Defence Staff without any further delay, make him report directly to the PMO and not to the Defence Minister, and relocate the three armed services HQs within the MoD. These three steps are the only options left if the Govt of India really wants to prove to the citizens of India that it means business about securing India’s national security interests.
To kaustubh: Many thanks. Am working on it right now. Will also give updates on the Super Su-30MKI and MiG-29UPG upgrade projects.
To Anon@9.33PM: Why should India require Kh-55s which are obsolete? China is already producing its own CJ-10 LACMs and C-602 ASCMs. India’s armed forces have since the late 1990s sought such long-range LACMs from the DRDO, but the DRDO folks kept on insisting that missiles like the Prithvi-2 and Dhanush were enough to meet the operational reqmts. This is what happens when the weapons developing entity does not even want to listen to the end-user.
To Shree: Many thanks. Objectively speaking, the Russians have a very long way to go in areas like active sensors, sensor fusion, and fifth-generation turbofans. Therefore, I’m sure you’ll agree that it is highly premature to go ga-ga over the aerobatic displays of the two T-50 PAK-FA technology demonstrators and instead wait till MAKS 2017, when the definitive prototypes will take to the skies. The US is today producing fourth-generation AESA-based MMRs, while Russia has yet to commit its first-generation AESA-based MMRs into series-production! That’s the kinda gap I’m talking about. Regarding US weapons export policies toward India, I have every reason to believe that the US will bend backwards to accommodate India, but that is not the real issue. The question one should ask is why were both the Russians and the US eliminated so early in the M-MRCA competition? And the answers are now slowly emerging. While the IAF and MoD both wanted a state-of-the-art solution (which meant the Russians had no hope whatsoever of winning the competition) and were favourably inclined toward the Super Hornet, the series of reverses suffered by India since early this year regarding the Nuclear Suppliers’ Group’s decision not to transfer nuclear reprocessing/enrichment technologies to India made the Govt of India extremely angry toward the US, since the Govt of India had expended enormous political energies to get the 123 nuclear cooperation agreement signed and sealed. Right now, as things stand, India is reqd to sign the additional protocol with the IAEA and deliver on its pledge to submit the majority of its existing nuclear reactors to IAEA inspections, but at the same time is denied the reprocessing/enrichment technologies so crucial for utilising its vast reserves of Thorium. It has thus been inferred by the Govt of India that the overall US objective was never to make India a so-called great power and help its achieve energy security, but the plan was to advance the US’ non-proliferation goals and possibly roll back India’s fissile materials production capacities. Consequiently, it was decided that the US’ M-MRCA offers would be rejected and that’s how and why Boeing and Lockheed Martin were not down-selected. The view in the PMO and MoD now is that while it is all right to procure logistics and support systems/capabilities from the US (like radars and transport aircraft), no direct-employment weapons like combat aircraft, 155mm howitzers or anti-tank guided-weapons or PGMs will be bought in the near future, until the US delivers on its commitments made in the 123 Agreement. Between the Rafale and EF-2000, the four-nation Eurofighter Consortium will definitely offer far more to India in terms of industrial offsets and operational capabilities, than what France and Dassault Aviation/SNECMA Moteurs/THALES can offer. Afterall, the Eurofighter consortium is backed up by the combined corporate might of BAE Systems, Finmeccanica, EADS/Cassidian and Rolls-Royce, something the French parties cannot even dream of matching.
To Anon@2.38AM: Instead of criticising China, India ought to learn not only from China, but also from Pakistan, about what it takes to make swift but enlightened national security decisions and how to implement such decisions. As I've explained above, all it takes is to implement the long-overdue administrative reforms and elevate the country's armed forces Chief of Defence Staff into a strategic player by making him the single-point adviser to the Cabinet Committee on National Security. Once this happens, automatically all three armed services will have no option but to integrate their respective theatre commands into integrated theatre commands, resulting in much higher levels of efficiency. That's when it will be truly possible to usher in the revolution in military affairs (RMA) within India. Until that happens, India with a 1.6 million-strong armed forces and 1.3 million-strong police/paramilitary forces will continue to exist as an insecure and highly vulnerable country. It was indeed a very sad and sorry sight to see the Indian PM being guarded by two P90-totting SPG bodyguards in such close proximity in the morning of August 15. Have we come to a stage where the PM of a nuclear weapons state has to be encased within a fortress-like environment when facing his own countryfolk???? Even the Russian and Israeli PMs and Pakistan's PM have far less intrusive proximate security protocols. That sight of the Indian PM along with visibly armed SPG personnel at Red Fort deeply saddened me.
While I don't claim to question your knowledge or experience, I think we must ponder seriously about AMCA, even if its not as capable or qualitatively indifferent from the FGFA.
What can AMCA offer which FGFA doesn't? The answer is security and self-sufficiency. The same question can be asked about Tejas. What's so special about Tejas that despite all odds we are sticking to it when MMRCA can offer all that anyday better and possibly at earlier dates?
Lets face it, FGFA is not a JV. Its rather an advanced Tech Transfer deal at the best. Whenever PAKFA makes a flight, Indians jump with joy calling it 'Indigenous achievement' (not much unlike Pakis who take pride calling Thunder 'indigenous') conveniently forgetting that Indians haven't contributed a nut in it and we still don't know what shall be Indian contribution in its future variants. How can we be so sure that we won't be bullied by Russians when we require modifications or upgrades in the plane? How can we be so sure that Russians won't nag us with spare parts supply like they did and do with MKI and Il-76?
This is the difference between Indian and Chinese Mentality. While India became complacent after getting the shade of Soviet umbrella and chose to ignore indigenous capabilities for decades, Chinese relentlessly worked on their indigenous toys - parallely developing their own versions while buying planes from Russians. And see today - while its taking us 3 decades to get an underpowered and practically outdated 3.5th gen fighter off the ground, China is working on multiple 5th gen designs which are at various stages of development. We may choose to deride them and feel happy but secretly we all know they have marched decades ahead of us and progressed by leaps and bounds. The reason is neither industrial capability nor funds - its a matter of vision.
If we shelve off or relax on AMCA and place all our weight on MKI, MRCA & FGFA we'll be doing the same mistake we did after Marut. We'll never be able to become self-sufficient even in 100 years let alone 2020. At this point AMCA is even more crucial than FGFA for India.
To Anon@5.10AM: It is always a good idea to have indigenously-evolved solutions, there's no doubt about that. The problem begins when wrong methodologies are applied to achieve such an objective. In the AMCA's case, the main problems I foresee are two-fold: one is the financial constraints if indeed 214 FGFAs are to be acquired over a period of two decades. The second problem concerns the status of prime contractor being bestowed upon HAL. Consequently, what will happen is HAL will try to seek access to 5th-generation MRCA R & D technologies from Russia, while ADA will be engaged in identical activity but of a multilateral nature for the AMCA (as it has done with the LCA programme). Consequently, there will be two entities--HAL and ADA--both seeking similar technology transfers for developing similar products, thereby leading to avoidable financial wastage and duplication of work effort. It would therefore have been far better if ADA were to be made responsible for design and development of the FGFA, with HAL being nominated as prime industrial contractor. Had this happened, duplication of effort would have been avoided and precious financial resources saved. And ADA, having learnt from the LCA experience, would have been better positioned to contribute much more from a design perspective to the FGFA project and at the same time develop the AMCA as a spinoff from the FGFA. But now, it is HAL that is trying to recreate an in-house ADA within its corporate structure that will, in essence, compete with the DRDO's ADA for financial resources. This can only be defined as wastage of money and effort, whichever way one looks at it.
To Anon@5.10AM: India did not become complacent while under the Soviet umbrella, but made the strategic mistake of deciding to use only a single umbrella way back in 1956. Had it really pursued its non-alignment goals like Yugoslavia did under Tito (a Croat) then it could well have had the best of both worlds. Another cardinal sin committed by independenmt India's founding fathers was to adopt the policy of import substitution, instead of going for export promotion, as South Korea, Japan and Taiwan did. Had India gone for the latter, then by now the country would have been a flourishing member of the global supplier chain of the world's major aerospace manufacturing entities. This is another area where the Chinese made the right choices and decided in the late 1970s to adopt the business models followed by Japan, South Korea and Taiwan.
@Prasun 4:39am, Your analysis of the MMRCA decision was revealing to say the least. I must say they had us all fooled with that 123 rubbish. Energy independence is more important than even 5 MMRCA like deals.
However if you look at India's political history it is pretty spineless, so there could not have been a change in mindset in the west to give us better seating at the enrichment podium.
Our babus and their political masters never earned it like china did with their daring initiatives.
So is it the end of the road for India with respect to energy Independence or is there still a way out. I ask because I thought we had reached a respectable level with Fast breeder reactor technology albeit you know with who's help.
Though this is not in the defence domain, I still hope in the future you put an article on steps required for enrichment processing independence.
I agree with most of what you said except that GOI cancelled just because 123 agreement. Its an important deal but everybody knows its hard to achieve. The real reason is nobody not in IAF and neither in government defence agencies like HAL or ADA doesnot trust a little bit. Our previous ACM was a stubborn man (but in a good way). He told MOD what IAF wanted and thats why MOD selected the best fighter jets in the competition irrespective of cost. Only reason for rejecting F18 was that everybody knew they won't get any ToT from US. Also French are offering complete source code which also raised the bar for IAF.
1. what's your take on some news briefs that dealing with a 4 nations that form a part of the EF consortium would be far more difficult than a single point? Wouldn't this be in favour of Dassault?
2. one of the major "opponents" of the 123 agreement and pushing the implementation of new conditions is Germany. The UK too had a hand in it. On the other hand, France has always stood by India (since India's first nuclear test). As such wouldn't it be in India's better interest to buy the Rafale to punish Germany?
sir is there any option for 3 more Scorpene class submarines after the completion of the previous six ? I think India should go for it (if option is there) as the set up will help to build more quickly
To Anon@8.37AM: That the national political leadership was and remains clueless about national security and the importance of strategic programmes was amply demonstrated in the days leading up to the 123 Agreement when it became known that even the likes of Dr Anil Kakodkar were not kept in the loop about the then on-going negotiations. It was only towards the very end just before inking the Agreement when Dr Kakodkar and former President Dr A P J Abdul Kalam, prodded up by former senior DAE officials like Dr P K Iyengar and the late H N Sethna, spoke up about the indispensability of the fast breeder programme that the Govt of India decided not to put the FBTR in Kalpakkam under IAEA safeguards! In other words, there was neither any clarity of thought when negotiating the 123 Agreement, nor were officials like the then NSA M K Narayanan fully in the know about what India needed to do for achieving energy security via the nuclear power generation route.
To Anon@9.52AM: There are a couple of misconceptions in your comment that require clarifications. Firstly, by no means was this a fair-and-square competition involving the six M-MRCA contenders. Such competitions have never been fair and above-board in any other country elsewhere and I see no reason for India to be an exception to the norm. The Ruskies were already told in the very beginning by the MoD not to bid (meaning don’t bid for the sake of losing), but they still did and found out what was officially conveyed to them in the very beginning of the contest. Secondly, if the idea was to go for the best proven product, then the F-16E/F Block 60 and Super Hornet would have been the only ones to be down-selected as only these two (out of the six contenders) had operational on-board AESA-based multi-mode radars. However, this never happened, as we all know now. Thirdly, just prior to Aero India 2011 last February, in a carefully orchestrated leak to selected broadcast media outlets, the MoD let it be known that the European bidders were leading the competition, which was a thinly veiled warning to the Obama Administration to expedite matters with the IAEA regarding India’s entry into the NSG and support within the NSG India’s bid to import without any strings attached the nuclear materials reprocessing/enrichment technologies required for sustaining her long-term plans for the fast-breeder reactor programme. Lastly, the transfer of source-code data and crypto-keys for various mission avionics packages was never denied by the US to India. If such denials existed, the Indian Navy would never have gone for the P-8I LRMR/ASW aircraft, which too are avionics-intensive as far as mission effectiveness goes. Therefore the notion of technology denials emanating from the US needs to be dispelled forthwith as it has no factual basis.
To Anon@10.33AM: Contrary to popular belief, India will not be dealing with the four-nation Eurofighter consortium as a risk-sharing industrial partner, but rather as a customer just like Austria and Saudi Arabia. As such, India’s sole point of contact will be the HQ of Eurofighter GmbH. At the industry-to-industry level, HAL will be dealing primarily with BAE Systems, Cassidian and Rolls-Royce, and not with anyone else. This is similar to the practice followed by India when dealing with Russia’s Rosoboronexport State Corp, which acts as the single-point industrial coordinator for weapons of Russian origin and sources sub-systems and ancillary components till this day from various CIS member-states and the Central Asian republics. Now, with regard to the opponents of the 123 Agreements like Germany or anyone else, they don’t call the shots within the NSG. It is the US, Russia and China that do. And if at all the idea is to punish Germany, then one might as well refuse to buy the A321s and A320s (which are prolific with India’s low-cost domestic carriers) from the Airbus consortium. But will this produce the desired results? Most unlikely, since this will only invite massive retaliation against India from the WTO. In reality, countries like Germany and France always defer to the US and Russia when it comes to crucial decisions within the NSG cartel.
To Anon@11.41AM: You for sure sound like a totally burnet-out ‘journalist’ that has been at the receiving end of certain govt officials. Nevertheless, allow me to enlighten and illuminate you on certain issues. Firstly, I give my views and opinions whenever they are sought and such views/opinions/explanations are all derived from inferences drawn from factual events that have had, do are about to take place. I can’t help it if they come across as bakwas to you, nor am I interested in your erroneous conclusions, one of which is that I’m a journalist. I never claimed to be journalist, nor am I a paid-member of any news/broadcast entity, nor am accredited as a journalist in any country in this world. Therefore, do not make any false assumptions about me or my profession, since assumption is always the mother of all fuck-ups.
To Buddha: Presently, there are no plans for acquiring any more Scorpene SSKs over and above the six already contracted for. However, the scale of Project 75I could be bigger, and instead of six vessels, up to 10 SSKs could eventually be acquired.
Prasun, now that India is not getting what's agreed, wouldn't it be wiser to just rollback the whole agreement - i.e. deny UN inspectors access to previously agreed facilities.
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.
Prasun You ARE A SELF APPOINTED GOD Who Knows EVERYTHING AND ANYTHING
Basically you JUST TELL STORIES ON THIS BLOG To kids and Mislead Them
If You are SO Confident about your Views and OPINIONS ;WHICH are NOT FACTS then Why Dont You Write in Some Respectable News Papers like Times of India / Hindu / Indian express
Why just stick to a blog where you can Conveniently deny EVERYTHING AND Get away from your Mischief
The entire ENR denial regime is still held by the jingoistic countries who think that they can have the tech superiority for ever through denial regimes. It is impractical to acheive the goals of NPT and CTBT in the current form. The countries are still sticking to the cold war mentality thinking they are still champions.
The ENR technology and reprocessing rights are required for the commercial application rather than the military one, since India is already a nuclear weapon state, having a proclaimed moratorium and nofirst use plus an unwilling NWS officially.
The countries are forgetting that without developing countries adopting nuclear technology, clean energy will remain only an idea...eventhough nuclear energy is far from clean, it is a positive step towards clean and sustainable energy concept.
The after effect of commercial failure of nuclear energy is more focus on not so clean energy aspects such as coal, petrol, and natural gas, which will run for atleast few decades.
The whole thing will change if India ever learns to commercially utilise fast breeder technology since we have plenty of thorium, which eventually it will learn to use if alternates are unavailable.
instead of denials, it is better to have a properly watched nuclear country.
why are you hell bent on guiding some one to your way of thinking. This is prasuns blog and whoever visiting it is doing in his/her will. Why are you not president of India, or USA, why are you not writing in Hindu, Indian express...how childish.
If prasun is telling stories, let it be, do you think readers are just kids...if you think i think you should be on psychiatric supervision. You might be smart but dont assume others are fools, as assumption is the mother of all fups.
readers have the discretion to ask what they like and prasun has the discretion to answer what he likes. no one is forcing any one here. if someone doesnt like the blog, then rather they dont visit it, rather than giving classes. it sucks big.
To Anon@11.40AM: That will be impossible, since India has already started importing enriched uranium from Russia, thereby operationalising the 123 Agreement.
To Anon@1.28PM: Do us all a favour here by ceasing to be blithering ignorant idiot. FYI what I had stated earlier about the 123 Agreement and the ENR issue has already appeared in Indian publications like THE HINDU and FRONTLINE.
To Anon@4.59PM: The NSG has said that unless and until India’s DAE distinctly separates its civilian and nuclear weapons programmes (which to me is impossible to achieve in terms of human resources), no ENR technologies will be made available. Therefore, now the only available option in order to salvage the country’s self-respect is to create an IAEA-supervised international industrial consortium that takes care of all ENR needs exclusively for the imported fuel which is being used by those civilian reactors (both indigenous and imported) that have already come under IAEA supervision, as well as for those reactors due to be imported in future. For the rest, including the new 700mW PHWRs, AHWRs and the FBRs due to come up, the DAE should rely entirely on indigenously-developed ENR technologies and related industrial infrastructure and should swiftly operationalise the new uranium mines in Andhra Pradesh and Meghalaya (instead on pussyfooting due to environmental concerns), and all this should not be put under the IAEA’s supervision unless and until the US, Russia, France, the UK and China remove, in a time-bound manner, all the existing ENR technology-related restrictions. At the same time, the fast-breeder reactor programmes needs to be accelerated at all costs and be accorded topmost national priority. But will the Govt of the day display single-minded, cold-blooded, ruthless and resolute leadership qualities that are so desired? One can only wonder.
To Anon@12.51AM: The J-20 that is flying today is just a technology demonstrator with no on-board operational avionics (like AESA-based MMR or missile approach/laser warning system) and a deficient powerplant. It is similar to the two T-50 PAK-FA technology demonstrators that are flying with intermediate powerplants (117 turbofans) instead of the definitive turbofans that will be available only by 2018. Right now, neither Russia nor China can claim to have developed anything coming even close to either the F/A-22 Raptor or the F-35 JSF.
Dunno why, whenever I see a PAKFA, I never get the impression of a 5th Gen fighter from any angle - shape, cockpit, canopy, engines, intakes, coatings - all seem like a 4.5 gen at the best!! Even the J-20, which Russians laughed off, looked far stealthier and futuristic. Hopefully FGFA is better and hope IAF and MOD don't sacrifice AMCA or take it callously :-(
ReplyDeleteMr Anonymous
ReplyDeleteAre you talking of
PAK FA pictures or have you seen the plane in Moscow
The External shape Alone doesnt determine the stealth characteristics
And THE LESS we talk of Chinese J 20 the better
J 20 is JUST NON SENSE
I guess eventually we have to come to you for answers.:)
ReplyDeleteWhere are the internal weapons bays on this one and what can they carry in terms of load.
Also can they use existing weaponry or will new weaponry have to be designed for this aircraft and won't that take a bit of time.
To Anon@9.02AM: The two flying T-50 PAK-FAs presently are akin to the initial Tejas LCA technology demonstrators. They don't even represent the prototype standard at the moment. The same goes for the J-20 as well. A far more realistic appraisal will be possible only after the T-50 PAK-FA prototype vehicles start emerging, fitted with their full complement of mission avionics and weapon systems, along with the definitive AL-41F turbofan, all of which are still a few years away from deployment. As for the AMCA, let us not even talk about it simply because no one has as yet explained exactly what and how the AMCA will be able to offer which the FGFA/PMF will not be able to.
ReplyDeleteTo Anon@4.47PM: Check out the belly-mounted internal weapons bays. As for guided-weapons like BVRAAMs and PGMs, yes they will all be newly developed ones (like small-diameter PGMs) and optimised for fitment within the internal bays. R & D on such weapons is well-advanced and some of them are available today, like the KAB-250 from Russia and the Israeli MLGB.
hi ,
ReplyDeleteIMO , the BIG difference between India & China is that India's Defence agencies start boasting even before the product/technology has been developed.They just boast about plans and then do nothing.
On the other hand China keeps quiet and then stuns the world one day with a "already developed" product/technology .
Lots of people hold this opinion that chinese defence products are inferior to that of other countries , but i believe that they can hold on their own.
J20 too looks formidable...its actually India who is always at the mercy of other countries for their Defence needs.
Pakistan has the right ally in China .
In any case , in many areas , they have better defence equipments that India.
Amazing pics. Great! Looking forward to what promises to be a very interesting narrative.
ReplyDeleteI hope you will do an article on the new munitions being developed for the T-50/FGFA. The russians, it seems, are having a few aces up their sleeve and i'd love a writeup by you.
china already purchased The Kh-55 (AS-15 'Kent') long-range cruise missile from russia with tot , does india has it
ReplyDeleteYour post(http://trishul-trident.blogspot.com/2011/04/separating-wheat-from-chaff.html) clearly shows that the Americans are way ahead of the rest of the world in terms of Active sensors (Though European passive sensors are just as good). My first question is that will US congress allow the those Technologies to be transferred to INDIA as IAF desires.
ReplyDeleteNext as now we have shortlisted the Rafale & Typhoon will they be able to develop comparable systems in specified time-frame and deliver them to us.
which fighter would be a safer bet.
Into which generation,do you think,will the LCA Mach2 fit into.
By the way impressed by your blog very informative and hopefully well researched ):
China will always present positive news, because most of the sensitive news is tightly controlled. Agreed that a finished product being put up as a surprise than promising moon and bring up a coin. But in a democratic country, all the developments except the topsec kind has to be widely advertised, to keep the funding for the projects. In china if any plan fails it will never come up as news. But if in India even if an expected failure (like flight testing) occurs, the public outcry will be to close the project.
ReplyDeleteWe are 'being in India with the Indian mentality to emulate US'. Very few public and even administrators really know even minutest details of defence and our weakness/strengths. So the smart lot among the scientist fool them by promising moon (by the time it comes up as pin head the guy would have retired!).
To Anon@8.47PM: Kindly allow me to explain in layman’s terms what sets India apart from the likes of China and Pakistan. It is all about an elementary administrative dysfunctionality. In both China and Pakistan the armed forces chiefs are STRATEGIC players, meaning at every step of the way in every matter concerning national security planning, the armed forces are working hand-in-hand at the same level as civilian decision-makers. In Pakistan the MoD works hand in hand with the office of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, whereas in China there’s the Central Military Commission. In the case of India there’s no such coordination and synchronisation of effort simply because Indian is the only democracy in the world where the MoD and the armed forces HQs are in different physical locations, instead of coming under one umbrella. Therefore, the Indian armed services chiefs are mere operational players, and have nothing to contribute toward national security planning. When the then Chairman of the Chiefs of Staff Committee (COSC), the IAF’s ACM P V Naik, was asked late last month at his last press conference about how many times he met and briefed the Prime Minister of India over the past vtwo years, his answer was: not even once. When asked why, he said that present rules allow the Chairman of the COSC to meet and brief only the Defence Minister, and not the PM. From this statement, we can thus easily conclude that whenever the Cabinet Committee on National Security convenes to discuss and deliberate on crucial matters, there’s ZERO military inputs from the three armed services to all members of this Committee. Consequently, almost all members of this Committee, including the PM and the Union Ministers of Finance, Defence, Home Affairs and Foreign Affairs, till this day remain clueless about national security planning and strategies of consequence to India. Today, national security decisions are being taken by the civilian politicians and bureaucrats, while the strategic weapons development programmes are being conceptuialised, designed and developed by scientists and technocrats, with the armed forces being left totally in the dark and the executive branch of the Govt of India being totally about national security matters. Hence it is frequently the case that the Govt of India always gives in to Chinese aggressiveness, blinks first, and turns to appeasement of China. So what’s the solution? Quite simple, really. Create the post of a four-star Chief of Defence Staff without any further delay, make him report directly to the PMO and not to the Defence Minister, and relocate the three armed services HQs within the MoD. These three steps are the only options left if the Govt of India really wants to prove to the citizens of India that it means business about securing India’s national security interests.
ReplyDeleteTo kaustubh: Many thanks. Am working on it right now. Will also give updates on the Super Su-30MKI and MiG-29UPG upgrade projects.
ReplyDeleteTo Anon@9.33PM: Why should India require Kh-55s which are obsolete? China is already producing its own CJ-10 LACMs and C-602 ASCMs. India’s armed forces have since the late 1990s sought such long-range LACMs from the DRDO, but the DRDO folks kept on insisting that missiles like the Prithvi-2 and Dhanush were enough to meet the operational reqmts. This is what happens when the weapons developing entity does not even want to listen to the end-user.
To Shree: Many thanks. Objectively speaking, the Russians have a very long way to go in areas like active sensors, sensor fusion, and fifth-generation turbofans. Therefore, I’m sure you’ll agree that it is highly premature to go ga-ga over the aerobatic displays of the two T-50 PAK-FA technology demonstrators and instead wait till MAKS 2017, when the definitive prototypes will take to the skies. The US is today producing fourth-generation AESA-based MMRs, while Russia has yet to commit its first-generation AESA-based MMRs into series-production! That’s the kinda gap I’m talking about. Regarding US weapons export policies toward India, I have every reason to believe that the US will bend backwards to accommodate India, but that is not the real issue. The question one should ask is why were both the Russians and the US eliminated so early in the M-MRCA competition? And the answers are now slowly emerging. While the IAF and MoD both wanted a state-of-the-art solution (which meant the Russians had no hope whatsoever of winning the competition) and were favourably inclined toward the Super Hornet, the series of reverses suffered by India since early this year regarding the Nuclear Suppliers’ Group’s decision not to transfer nuclear reprocessing/enrichment technologies to India made the Govt of India extremely angry toward the US, since the Govt of India had expended enormous political energies to get the 123 nuclear cooperation agreement signed and sealed. Right now, as things stand, India is reqd to sign the additional protocol with the IAEA and deliver on its pledge to submit the majority of its existing nuclear reactors to IAEA inspections, but at the same time is denied the reprocessing/enrichment technologies so crucial for utilising its vast reserves of Thorium. It has thus been inferred by the Govt of India that the overall US objective was never to make India a so-called great power and help its achieve energy security, but the plan was to advance the US’ non-proliferation goals and possibly roll back India’s fissile materials production capacities. Consequiently, it was decided that the US’ M-MRCA offers would be rejected and that’s how and why Boeing and Lockheed Martin were not down-selected. The view in the PMO and MoD now is that while it is all right to procure logistics and support systems/capabilities from the US (like radars and transport aircraft), no direct-employment weapons like combat aircraft, 155mm howitzers or anti-tank guided-weapons or PGMs will be bought in the near future, until the US delivers on its commitments made in the 123 Agreement.
ReplyDeleteBetween the Rafale and EF-2000, the four-nation Eurofighter Consortium will definitely offer far more to India in terms of industrial offsets and operational capabilities, than what France and Dassault Aviation/SNECMA Moteurs/THALES can offer. Afterall, the Eurofighter consortium is backed up by the combined corporate might of BAE Systems, Finmeccanica, EADS/Cassidian and Rolls-Royce, something the French parties cannot even dream of matching.
To Anon@2.38AM: Instead of criticising China, India ought to learn not only from China, but also from Pakistan, about what it takes to make swift but enlightened national security decisions and how to implement such decisions. As I've explained above, all it takes is to implement the long-overdue administrative reforms and elevate the country's armed forces Chief of Defence Staff into a strategic player by making him the single-point adviser to the Cabinet Committee on National Security. Once this happens, automatically all three armed services will have no option but to integrate their respective theatre commands into integrated theatre commands, resulting in much higher levels of efficiency. That's when it will be truly possible to usher in the revolution in military affairs (RMA) within India. Until that happens, India with a 1.6 million-strong armed forces and 1.3 million-strong police/paramilitary forces will continue to exist as an insecure and highly vulnerable country. It was indeed a very sad and sorry sight to see the Indian PM being guarded by two P90-totting SPG bodyguards in such close proximity in the morning of August 15. Have we come to a stage where the PM of a nuclear weapons state has to be encased within a fortress-like environment when
ReplyDeletefacing his own countryfolk???? Even the Russian and Israeli PMs and Pakistan's PM have far less intrusive proximate security protocols. That sight of the Indian PM along with visibly armed SPG personnel at Red Fort deeply saddened me.
This is anon-9:02.
ReplyDeleteWhile I don't claim to question your knowledge or experience, I think we must ponder seriously about AMCA, even if its not as capable or qualitatively indifferent from the FGFA.
What can AMCA offer which FGFA doesn't? The answer is security and self-sufficiency. The same question can be asked about Tejas. What's so special about Tejas that despite all odds we are sticking to it when MMRCA can offer all that anyday better and possibly at earlier dates?
Lets face it, FGFA is not a JV. Its rather an advanced Tech Transfer deal at the best. Whenever PAKFA makes a flight, Indians jump with joy calling it 'Indigenous achievement' (not much unlike Pakis who take pride calling Thunder 'indigenous') conveniently forgetting that Indians haven't contributed a nut in it and we still don't know what shall be Indian contribution in its future variants. How can we be so sure that we won't be bullied by Russians when we require modifications or upgrades in the plane? How can we be so sure that Russians won't nag us with spare parts supply like they did and do with MKI and Il-76?
This is the difference between Indian and Chinese Mentality. While India became complacent after getting the shade of Soviet umbrella and chose to ignore indigenous capabilities for decades, Chinese relentlessly worked on their indigenous toys - parallely developing their own versions while buying planes from Russians. And see today - while its taking us 3 decades to get an underpowered and practically outdated 3.5th gen fighter off the ground, China is working on multiple 5th gen designs which are at various stages of development. We may choose to deride them and feel happy but secretly we all know they have marched decades ahead of us and progressed by leaps and bounds. The reason is neither industrial capability nor funds - its a matter of vision.
If we shelve off or relax on AMCA and place all our weight on MKI, MRCA & FGFA we'll be doing the same mistake we did after Marut. We'll never be able to become self-sufficient even in 100 years let alone 2020. At this point AMCA is even more crucial than FGFA for India.
To Anon@5.10AM: It is always a good idea to have indigenously-evolved solutions, there's no doubt about that. The problem begins when wrong methodologies are applied to achieve such an objective. In the AMCA's case, the main problems I foresee are two-fold: one is the financial constraints if indeed 214 FGFAs are to be acquired over a period of two decades. The second problem concerns the status of prime contractor being bestowed upon HAL. Consequently, what will happen is HAL will try to seek access to 5th-generation MRCA R & D technologies from Russia, while ADA will be engaged in identical activity but of a multilateral nature for the AMCA (as it has done with the LCA programme). Consequently, there will be two entities--HAL and ADA--both seeking similar technology transfers for developing similar products, thereby leading to avoidable financial wastage and duplication of work effort. It would therefore have been far better if ADA were to be made responsible for design and development of the FGFA, with HAL being nominated as prime industrial contractor. Had this happened, duplication of effort would have been avoided and precious financial resources saved. And ADA, having learnt from the LCA experience, would have been better positioned to contribute much more from a design perspective to the FGFA project and at the same time develop the AMCA as a spinoff from the FGFA. But now, it is HAL that is trying to recreate an in-house ADA within its corporate structure that will, in essence, compete with the DRDO's ADA for financial resources. This can only be defined as wastage of money and effort, whichever way one looks at it.
ReplyDeleteTo Anon@5.10AM: India did not become complacent while under the Soviet umbrella, but made the strategic mistake of deciding to use only a single umbrella way back in 1956. Had it really pursued its non-alignment goals like Yugoslavia did under Tito (a Croat) then it could well have had the best of both worlds. Another cardinal sin committed by independenmt India's founding fathers was to adopt the policy of import substitution, instead of going for export promotion, as South Korea, Japan and Taiwan did. Had India gone for the latter, then by now the country would have been a flourishing member of the global supplier chain of the world's major aerospace manufacturing entities. This is another area where the Chinese made the right choices and decided in the late 1970s to adopt the business models followed by Japan, South Korea and Taiwan.
ReplyDelete@Prasun 4:39am, Your analysis of the MMRCA decision was revealing to say the least. I must say they had us all fooled with that 123 rubbish. Energy independence is more important than even 5 MMRCA like deals.
ReplyDeleteHowever if you look at India's political history it is pretty spineless, so there could not have been a change in mindset in the west to give us better seating at the enrichment podium.
Our babus and their political masters never earned it like china did with their daring initiatives.
So is it the end of the road for India with respect to energy Independence or is there still a way out. I ask because I thought we had reached a respectable level with Fast breeder reactor technology albeit you know with who's help.
Though this is not in the defence domain, I still hope in the future you put an article on steps required for enrichment processing independence.
Hi Prasun,
ReplyDeletePlease post the narrative soon.
I agree with most of what you said except that GOI cancelled just because 123 agreement. Its an important deal but everybody knows its hard to achieve. The real reason is nobody not in IAF and neither in government defence agencies like HAL or ADA doesnot trust a little bit. Our previous ACM was a stubborn man (but in a good way). He told MOD what IAF wanted and thats why MOD selected the best fighter jets in the competition irrespective of cost. Only reason for rejecting F18 was that everybody knew they won't get any ToT from US. Also French are offering complete source code which also raised the bar for IAF.
isnt the scale of Brahmos on the frigate kinda exaggerated?
ReplyDeletePKS--
ReplyDelete1. what's your take on some news briefs that dealing with a 4 nations that form a part of the EF consortium would be far more difficult than a single point? Wouldn't this be in favour of Dassault?
2. one of the major "opponents" of the 123 agreement and pushing the implementation of new conditions is Germany. The UK too had a hand in it. On the other hand, France has always stood by India (since India's first nuclear test). As such wouldn't it be in India's better interest to buy the Rafale to punish Germany?
Thank you.
Dear Prasun
ReplyDeleteOPINIONS ARE NOT FACTS
What you present in YOUR BLOG about ALL ISSUES UNDER THE SUN IS Basically Your OWN personal opinion
And Being A JOURNALIST IS The EASIEST Job in the world
All your EXPLANATIONS about Reprocessing Technology and 123 Deal Being LINKED TO MMRCA is PURE BAKWAS
That is why DEFENCE OFFICIALS and OTHER Government Officials Treat JOURNALISTS with CONTEMPT
sir
ReplyDeleteis there any option for 3 more Scorpene class submarines after the completion of the previous six ?
I think India should go for it (if option is there) as the set up will help to build more quickly
you opinion is highly solicited
Thanks & Regards
Hi! Excellent pics. Can you please do a write up on F-INSAS program?
ReplyDeleteTo Anon@8.37AM: That the national political leadership was and remains clueless about national security and the importance of strategic programmes was amply demonstrated in the days leading up to the 123 Agreement when it became known that even the likes of Dr Anil Kakodkar were not kept in the loop about the then on-going negotiations. It was only towards the very end just before inking the Agreement when Dr Kakodkar and former President Dr A P J Abdul Kalam, prodded up by former senior DAE officials like Dr P K Iyengar and the late H N Sethna, spoke up about the indispensability of the fast breeder programme that the Govt of India decided not to put the FBTR in Kalpakkam under IAEA safeguards! In other words, there was neither any clarity of thought when negotiating the 123 Agreement, nor were officials like the then NSA M K Narayanan fully in the know about what India needed to do for achieving energy security via the nuclear power generation route.
ReplyDeleteTo Anon@9.52AM: There are a couple of misconceptions in your comment that require clarifications. Firstly, by no means was this a fair-and-square competition involving the six M-MRCA contenders. Such competitions have never been fair and above-board in any other country elsewhere and I see no reason for India to be an exception to the norm. The Ruskies were already told in the very beginning by the MoD not to bid (meaning don’t bid for the sake of losing), but they still did and found out what was officially conveyed to them in the very beginning of the contest. Secondly, if the idea was to go for the best proven product, then the F-16E/F Block 60 and Super Hornet would have been the only ones to be down-selected as only these two (out of the six contenders) had operational on-board AESA-based multi-mode radars. However, this never happened, as we all know now. Thirdly, just prior to Aero India 2011 last February, in a carefully orchestrated leak to selected broadcast media outlets, the MoD let it be known that the European bidders were leading the competition, which was a thinly veiled warning to the Obama Administration to expedite matters with the IAEA regarding India’s entry into the NSG and support within the NSG India’s bid to import without any strings attached the nuclear materials reprocessing/enrichment technologies required for sustaining her long-term plans for the fast-breeder reactor programme. Lastly, the transfer of source-code data and crypto-keys for various mission avionics packages was never denied by the US to India. If such denials existed, the Indian Navy would never have gone for the P-8I LRMR/ASW aircraft, which too are avionics-intensive as far as mission effectiveness goes. Therefore the notion of technology denials emanating from the US needs to be dispelled forthwith as it has no factual basis.
To Anon@10.33AM: Contrary to popular belief, India will not be dealing with the four-nation Eurofighter consortium as a risk-sharing industrial partner, but rather as a customer just like Austria and Saudi Arabia. As such, India’s sole point of contact will be the HQ of Eurofighter GmbH. At the industry-to-industry level, HAL will be dealing primarily with BAE Systems, Cassidian and Rolls-Royce, and not with anyone else. This is similar to the practice followed by India when dealing with Russia’s Rosoboronexport State Corp, which acts as the single-point industrial coordinator for weapons of Russian origin and sources sub-systems and ancillary components till this day from various CIS member-states and the Central Asian republics. Now, with regard to the opponents of the 123 Agreements like Germany or anyone else, they don’t call the shots within the NSG. It is the US, Russia and China that do. And if at all the idea is to punish Germany, then one might as well refuse to buy the A321s and A320s (which are prolific with India’s low-cost domestic carriers) from the Airbus consortium. But will this produce the desired results? Most unlikely, since this will only invite massive retaliation against India from the WTO. In reality, countries like Germany and France always defer to the US and Russia when it comes to crucial decisions within the NSG cartel.
ReplyDeleteTo Anon@11.41AM: You for sure sound like a totally burnet-out ‘journalist’ that has been at the receiving end of certain govt officials. Nevertheless, allow me to enlighten and illuminate you on certain issues. Firstly, I give my views and opinions whenever they are sought and such views/opinions/explanations are all derived from inferences drawn from factual events that have had, do are about to take place. I can’t help it if they come across as bakwas to you, nor am I interested in your erroneous conclusions, one of which is that I’m a journalist. I never claimed to be journalist, nor am I a paid-member of any news/broadcast entity, nor am accredited as a journalist in any country in this world. Therefore, do not make any false assumptions about me or my profession, since assumption is always the mother of all fuck-ups.
To Buddha: Presently, there are no plans for acquiring any more Scorpene SSKs over and above the six already contracted for. However, the scale of Project 75I could be bigger, and instead of six vessels, up to 10 SSKs could eventually be acquired.
To Mr RA: Thanks. Will try.
To Anon@10.22AM; That is not a frigate, but the model of a Kashin 2-class destroyer. And all the models displayed are not built to scale.
ReplyDeletePrasun, now that India is not getting what's agreed, wouldn't it be wiser to just rollback the whole agreement - i.e. deny UN inspectors access to previously agreed facilities.
ReplyDeleteAbout 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.
ReplyDeleteThis 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.
Prasun You ARE A SELF APPOINTED GOD Who Knows EVERYTHING AND ANYTHING
ReplyDeleteBasically you JUST TELL STORIES ON THIS BLOG To kids and Mislead Them
If You are SO Confident about your Views and OPINIONS ;WHICH are NOT FACTS then Why Dont You Write in Some Respectable News Papers like Times of India / Hindu / Indian express
Why just stick to a blog where you can Conveniently deny EVERYTHING AND Get away from your Mischief
The entire ENR denial regime is still held by the jingoistic countries who think that they can have the tech superiority for ever through denial regimes. It is impractical to acheive the goals of NPT and CTBT in the current form. The countries are still sticking to the cold war mentality thinking they are still champions.
ReplyDeleteThe ENR technology and reprocessing rights are required for the commercial application rather than the military one, since India is already a nuclear weapon state, having a proclaimed moratorium and nofirst use plus an unwilling NWS officially.
The countries are forgetting that without developing countries adopting nuclear technology, clean energy will remain only an idea...eventhough nuclear energy is far from clean, it is a positive step towards clean and sustainable energy concept.
The after effect of commercial failure of nuclear energy is more focus on not so clean energy aspects such as coal, petrol, and natural gas, which will run for atleast few decades.
The whole thing will change if India ever learns to commercially utilise fast breeder technology since we have plenty of thorium, which eventually it will learn to use if alternates are unavailable.
instead of denials, it is better to have a properly watched nuclear country.
to anon at 11.28 am
ReplyDeletewhy are you hell bent on guiding some one to your way of thinking. This is prasuns blog and whoever visiting it is doing in his/her will. Why are you not president of India, or USA, why are you not writing in Hindu, Indian express...how childish.
If prasun is telling stories, let it be, do you think readers are just kids...if you think i think you should be on psychiatric supervision. You might be smart but dont assume others are fools, as assumption is the mother of all fups.
readers have the discretion to ask what they like and prasun has the discretion to answer what he likes. no one is forcing any one here. if someone doesnt like the blog, then rather they dont visit it, rather than giving classes. it sucks big.
Any news on the chinese J 20 stealth fighter??How dods it fair against the F 22 or F 35??
ReplyDeleteTo Anon@11.40AM: That will be impossible, since India has already started importing enriched uranium from Russia, thereby operationalising the 123 Agreement.
ReplyDeleteTo Anon@1.28PM: Do us all a favour here by ceasing to be blithering ignorant idiot. FYI what I had stated earlier about the 123 Agreement and the ENR issue has already appeared in Indian publications like THE HINDU and FRONTLINE.
To Anon@4.59PM: The NSG has said that unless and until India’s DAE distinctly separates its civilian and nuclear weapons programmes (which to me is impossible to achieve in terms of human resources), no ENR technologies will be made available. Therefore, now the only available option in order to salvage the country’s self-respect is to create an IAEA-supervised international industrial consortium that takes care of all ENR needs exclusively for the imported fuel which is being used by those civilian reactors (both indigenous and imported) that have already come under IAEA supervision, as well as for those reactors due to be imported in future. For the rest, including the new 700mW PHWRs, AHWRs and the FBRs due to come up, the DAE should rely entirely on indigenously-developed ENR technologies and related industrial infrastructure and should swiftly operationalise the new uranium mines in Andhra Pradesh and Meghalaya (instead on pussyfooting due to environmental concerns), and all this should not be put under the IAEA’s supervision unless and until the US, Russia, France, the UK and China remove, in a time-bound manner, all the existing ENR technology-related restrictions. At the same time, the fast-breeder reactor programmes needs to be accelerated at all costs and be accorded topmost national priority. But will the Govt of the day display single-minded, cold-blooded, ruthless and resolute leadership qualities that are so desired? One can only wonder.
To Anon@12.51AM: The J-20 that is flying today is just a technology demonstrator with no on-board operational avionics (like AESA-based MMR or missile approach/laser warning system) and a deficient powerplant. It is similar to the two T-50 PAK-FA technology demonstrators that are flying with intermediate powerplants (117 turbofans) instead of the definitive turbofans that will be available only by 2018. Right now, neither Russia nor China can claim to have developed anything coming even close to either the F/A-22 Raptor or the F-35 JSF.
there was some news that tata group was going to buy 80% stake in BAE systems? any news about that?
ReplyDeleteI think your point on 123 Vs MMRCA is correct.
ReplyDeleteTo Mr.RA: Many thanks.
ReplyDelete