Total Pageviews

Tuesday, September 20, 2011

China’s NLOS-BSMs For Export & Hatf-9/Nasr/M-20 NLOS-BSM Explained

NLOS-BSMs of Chinese origin are presently being marketed by two state-owned entities: China National Precision Machinery Import & Export Corp (CPMIEC), and Aerospace Long-March International Trade Co Ltd (ALIT). The latter’s latest product is the M-20, which has been exported to Pakistan, where it known as the Hatf-9/Nasr. Capable of striking targets between 70km and 270km, the all-weather capable M-20, with a Mach 3 cruise speed, comes armed with both a 200kg unitary high-explosive (HE) blast-fragmentation warhead for engaging high-value and time-sensitive targets, as well as a sub-kiloton yield tactical nuclear warhead. Two M-20s housed inside cannisters are mounted on a 8 x 8 transporter/erector/launcher (TEL). For navigation purposes, use is made of a RLG-INS coupled to a GPS receiver (for receiving high-accuracy navigational updates in secure PY-code from China’s ‘Beidou’ constellation of GPS satellites), and an infra-red sensor for terminal homing that gives the missile a CEP of less than 10 metres.
CPMIEC’s 2-tonne B-611M missile is designed to attack supply lines, warehouses, ballistic/cruise missile launch sites, SAM batteries, command-and-control centres, air bases, road/railway transportation hubs, and area targets in urban surroundings. Armed with a 480kg HE warhead, the B-611M has 280km range. Up to two cannister-mounted B-611Ms can be carried by a wheeled TEL.
Another NLOS-BSM from CPMIEC is the P-12, which made its public debut in November 2006. Up to two P-12s are carried in an enclosed compartment mounted on a 6 x 6 TEL. The P-12 has a range of 150km, and it comes armed with either a 300kg HE blast fragmentation warhead, or a cluster warhead containing 19 anti-armour sub-munitions. Both the B-611M and P-12 have a CEP of about 2 metres when using a RLG-INS coupled to a GPS receiver, plus an optronic sensor for terminal homing.
CPMIEC’s latest NLOS-BSM offering is the vertically-launched joint attack rocket & missile (JARM) system, which can fire both the 280km-range BP-12A and the 200km-range SY-400 from a common launch platform.
The JARM, which made its public debut in November 2010, makes use of combined GPS-RLG-INS navigation systems to achieve a CEP of 3 metres  A typical JARM Battery comprises ten 8 x 8 TELs housing either 80 SY-400s or 20 BP-12As, or a combination of both.—Prasun K. Sengupta

94 comments:

Sagar said...

so nasr is not pakigenous as harped by them?:-)

Anonymous said...

this is how the gandhugupta keeps his gandhu audience happy... by talking lies about pakistan... first go and talk about the marvelous DRDO and ISRO... dont throw stones from glasshouses... and what is the proof to this article? some photos that dont even say anything

Anonymous said...

new to this blog?...

Mr. Sengupta is himself a big critic of the DPSU (defence public sector undertaking) of India...you could read below this blog more scathing critisism of Indian industries.

so he is not sitting in glass house, but rather he is a traveller, who is targetting all glass houses.

And by the way from your outburst i assume you are a Pakistani. If you like to beleive what your officials say, rather not visit another site which says other wise. If you want to learn some hidden truth forget the outburst and try to logically rationalize yourself from what others are arguing...
am sure PKS will answer, but as a regular 'audience' of PKS i couldnt stop this much.

PS: I guess one should mature oneself above the use of name calling and profanity. You can counter some one in civilized terms too..

Anonymous said...

The NASR does not look like to M-20 and even the TEL is very different. On NASR you can clearly see small fins on the front/warhead tip (see picture: http://english.ruvr.ru/data/2011/04/19/1266170077/3highres_00000402694538.jpg ) and there are none on the M20. Also Nasr seems to be different in terms of size/diameter.

Anonymous said...

To Anon @ 10:33
1) Funny you happen to be one of those "audiences " as you say otehrwise how on earth are you here? 2)Being patriotic and being a fanatic are two different things - you must be the only person NOT to realise 95% so called Pakistani items are Made in China and Courier delivered including most of your nuclear arsenal. 3) Disagreeing with someone and being plain filthy are entirely different things.If you can't agree then disagree, say so, give your reasons and if you can't handle the truth don't read such articles.But you don't have to be rude, filthy-mouthed to further reveal your ignorance. 4)If you read Prasun's articles you will see that in NO way he hides the truth and praises DRDO or any entity unreasonably.This shows you let your blind fanaticism dull your senses 5)Pakistan is one the poorest countries in the world and simply does not have the infrastructure or resources to do it on its own. This is fact.Even China 15 years ago could do nothing on its own so resorted to hiring ex-Soviet scientists, copying, cloning and sending students to overseas centres in great numbers to reach where they are today - and that being a fast paced economy.So my recommendation to you is be civil or do not cross cyber borders.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Anon@10.33AM: And presumably this 'gandhu audience' includes you as well? Kyo apne aap ko itne koste ho? Agar aap yakin se kehe sakte ho ki Hatf-9/Nasr 'Made in Pakistan' hai to aap aapke Chini bhaiyoon se kahiye na ki IDEX-2011 jaise pardesi exhibition ke dauran wo aap ke Arab bhaiyoon ko jhooti tassalli ne de yeh kehekar ki unka M-20 waakei mein Hatf-9/Nasr hai. Hum toh wohi dauraan rehe hain jo hum ne suna aur jo hume ilm hai.

Anonymous said...

sir i'm begging you....plz upload the arjun mk2 pics that u have....or atleast give a sketch !!! plzzz sir...

Mr. Ra said...

Pakistanis should not be ashamed of the existence of a SinoPaki axis, rather they should be proud enough to declare it openly. They should feel comfortable that Pak is not doing any sin by purchasing the arms from the atheist China, as it is their survival need of the day, hour, minute and second.

Rather one should envy the dexterous diplomacy of Pak and see how they have created a dynamic balance between the two mightiest superpowers of the world with the unequivocal support from both. Perhaps a feat unparalleled in the world history. They are gliding at Mach-2 on a perpetually vibrating razor edge with the adeptness of a ropewalker and their design does not require any brakes. They deserve the due credit, even if they do not desire it.

Pl see, they just managed Burhanuddin Rabbani.

Shree said...

You repeatedly say that Nirbhay is not a real cruise Missile I have found articles that say otherwise Eg...http://livefist.blogspot.com/2010/02/update-on-nirbhay-cruise-missile.html


u said Brahmos's range can be extended to 500Km by increasing the fuel load will we go for it and if we do will Russia object due to MRTR

Do we have an operational requirement for Tomohack kind of cruise missile?

What do u think is the minimum range of the SLBM required to deter the Chini?

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Shree: The article you've quoted says that the Norbhay will be a subsonic cruise vehicle technology demonstrator. It doesn't say whether or not the Nirbhay will be deployed as an operational weapon system. Consequently, the DRDO hasn't yet perpared any chart or slide showing the Nirbhay's R & DTE schedule. On the other hand, the ALCM's R & DTE schedule has already been unveilled. See this: http://livefist.blogspot.com/2010/09/first-look-indias-long-range-cruise.html
Now, you decide what is true or false. Regarding the BrahMos, as things now stand, neither India nor Russia wants to increase the range beyong 290km. There is an operational reqmt for a supersonic ALCM with n-warhead, and not a subsonic LACM,as explained by this slide: http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_o_no4M2xEPY/TINGv0Xs0qI/AAAAAAAALMk/Lw0ODttFnl8/s1600/Guess_Livefist_SLIDE.jpg
As for the SLBM, the Indian Navy (and not me) wants a range of 8,500km. This is what had been written in the past--not by me--but by former CNS Admiral (ret'd) Arun Prakash.

Mr. Ra said...

http://yarchive.net/mil/russian_missiles.html

"On average a P-270 weighs about 4.5 times as much as a Harpoon. This
loads the odds in favor of Dancers - remember effectiveness is related to
squares of numbers."

Do you agree with above theory of numbers.

Who in your opinion are better, Dancers or Streakers.

Is it correct that India does not need 1000+Km subsonic cruise missiles.

Anonymous said...

Prasun,please please upload some photos of Arjun MkII.I'm begging to you.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

I can't simply because they're not my personal property.

Anonymous said...

Prasun,
any hep with FGFA? Any clear answer whether its gonna have same engine currently flying & same exhaust nozzle, or it will have any complete new engine with stealthier rectangular nozzle. I believe there are 2-3 pics or russian rectangular nozzle design study that have emerged in internet long back(most probably in a refitted Su-27). any idea whether it is gonna be incorporated in FGFA too or it was just a technology demonstrator.

Anonymous said...

Nirbhay's schedule was told during Aero India 2011. It will make its first flight in 2012.

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?id=news/awx/2011/02/14/awx_02_14_2011_p0-289636.xml&channel=defense

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Anon@1.14AM: The FGFA will definitely have new turbofans completely different from the 117S turbofans that are now on-board. There's nothing stealthy about two-dimensional thrust-vectoring rectangular-shaped nozzles of the type on the F/A-22 Raptor. The existing all-axis thrust vectoring nozzles like the KLIVT on the MiG-29OVT are superior to what's on the Raptor. Therefore, KLIVT-type nozzles will be a far better option for the FGFA.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To MrRA: Kindly check this out: http://smallwarsjournal.com/sites/default/files/848-povlock.pdf

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To MrRA: And this one too: http://www.cfr.org/india/united-states-india-shared-strategic-future/p25740

Mr. Ra said...

By the way I don't mind Dancers or Streakers because I am an ANAList anyway! Ha ha

Anonymous said...

"I can't simply because they're not my personal property"

LOL bro u got a lot to learn from people like Gali Janardhana Reddy, Sonia Maino, Sharad Pawar... and even many of the army chiefs u always rub shoulders with: since it's not your personal property, make use of it / loot it. Pictures of Arjun MKII would be worth a fair bit if sold. it will increase ur popularity.

Maybe this shows u are not a Congress-wallah

Mr. Ra said...

Thanx! You may understand that the vulgar/awkward comments appearing at times in my name are actually not from me. Lol...

Anonymous said...

Pakistani Anonymous no one can and should cut the crap because the smell will be unbearable unless someone cuts one instead of a cake on 14th August...ROFL
My advise would be forget you have seen anything here, keep your patriotic spirits high and type Best Mujra in Youtube search function and watch the pakistani mujra. Will ease some of your tension.I hope Prasun doesn't mind the banter - limited must be though :)

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Anon@12.12PM: I can appreciate your sarcasm, especially after the GoI refused to release any photo of the Arihant submarine during its launch and just a little later a photo of the submarine surfaced in a booklet publicising the UPA govt's performance to date. Well, shit happens.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Anon@5.22PM: I don't mind it at all, for as long as it is devoid of vulgarity, abuse and xenophobic sentiments.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Anon@5.22PM: New data has emerged following last week's DSEi expo abou the linkages between the industries of China, Pakistan and Turkey, plus China and Iran. On the turbojet-powered cruise missile front there's the chain beginning with the PAF's H-2/MUPSOW to the H-4 to the Ra'ad and now to the Turkish SOM, all of which are powered by the same China-built turbojets. As for the turbofan-powered CJ-10/CJ-10A & CJ-10K cruise missiles and their linkages with Ukraine's Korshun and Pakistan's Babur, they were confirmed in off-the-record conversations with Turkish military-industry officials, who also confirmed that the Chinese WJ-600 UCAV and Iran's Karrar UCAV are related.

AMARDEEP said...

hello sir,

which Battlefield Range Ballistic Missile is better nasr or prahaar ??if we see the pics NASR is canistered well as of prahaar and carry nuclear warhead also.so which is better?

amardeep (◕‿◕✿)

Shree said...

Will the range of AL Brahmos be more than 290Km as it does not need boosters to lift it?

Regarding Nirbhay check this out
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?id=news/awx/2011/02/14/awx_02_14_2011_p0-289636.xml&channel=defense

And What is the range of SLBM sufficient to deter Chini n pak 'according to you'?

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To AMARDEEP: The M-20/Nasr is already an operational weapon system, while the Prahaar is still some years away from field deployment. Furthermore, the M-20/Nasr is supported by Chinese SAR-equipped overhead recce satellites for strategic targetting right now, whereas India has yet to deploy such satellites. Therefore, all in all, Pakistan presently scores over India as far as NLOS-BSMs are concerned.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Shree: The air-launched BrahMos too will have a range not exceeding 290km. The SLBM has always been China-specific and should have a range of 7,500km to 8,500km. Regarding the AWST story, the reporter DOES NOT quote Dr V K Saraswat as saying that the Nirbhay will be an operational cruise missile. In the past, whenever asked, Dr Saraswat has always referred to Nirbhay as a technology demonstrator. Secondly, what are we to make of this: "the missile could deliver up to 24 warheads"? Is the reporter alluding to sub-munitions, or 24 independent warheads each capable of engaging a separate target, something which even the US and Russia have not even dreamt about achieving? Beats me.

Anonymous said...

Prasun,When air to surface missiles are considered ike Hellfire or Spear or the Pars3

Does India plan anything alog the lines of Medium Extended Air Defense System of NATO with its futuristic LR SAM and MRSAM?

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

That's what the Barak-2 MR-SAM and Barak-8 LR-SAM are all about! India is well past the planning stage.

SherKhan said...

Great article. Nasr is currently being manufactured in Pak, in small numbers...including the power plant. It will use Paks new sat(s)....(built in China). There are plans to have it deployed in numbers....and extend its range, without compromising its speed and reaction times. PA's aim is simple, to disperse/decimate IA strike formations from range with great accuracy. You will see much greater use of missiles in PA, one of the reasons is its force multiplier, flexible, relatively cheap and can be completely built/upgraded in house.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Sher Khan: Nothing of the M-20/Hatf-9/Nasr is being manufactured inside Pakistan, since it makes no financial sense to produce components for only 80 or so missiles. Besides, there's no existing facility in Pakistan that produces a range of guided-missiles all under one roof. Had such a facility existed, then its workforce could have been trained to acquire multiple skills reqd for the production and assembly of multiple types of missiles.
The same goes for the Hatf-7/Babur and Hatf-8/Ra'ad. What the NDC has been given by China are just screwdriver technologies reqd for assembling the weapons which arrive in semi-knocked-down condition. Another point to be borne in mind is that it makes no sense for a TEL to have shoot-and-scoot features if it is meant to launch missiles carrying nuclear warheads. Shoot-and-scoot is a must only if the TEL is capable of accepting missile reloads for launching successive salvoes of such NLOS-BSMs. Therefore, the Pakistani ISPR's claim of the Hatf-9/Nasr being nuclear-capable is pure unabashed baloney. Range extension of the Hatf-9/Nasr is only fit now for Pakistan's domestic consumption since I've already revealed above that the missile's max range is 270km. Decimation of hostile armoured formations by the Hatf-9/Nasr is also ruled out since, in India's case, the formations will be equipped with both ground-based and aerostat-mounted early warning/engagement radars like the EL/M-2084 MMR that will provide accurate firing vectors for air-defence missiles like the Barak-2 MR-SAM and Barak-8 L-SAM.

saurav jha said...

Hi Prasun,

Is there any plan in India for a long range guided rockets like SY-400.

Any plan to improve range of PINAKA ..?

Anonymous said...

anon@5.22

"keep your patriotic spirits high and type Best Mujra in Youtube search function and watch the pakistani mujra."

Bro, i think only we indians are still seeing mujra and other related types of videos on youtube or x-rated sites. but all that is so last decade for the average pakistani-joe. For more info, u can please google "No. 1 Nation In Sexy Web Searches". then u will know how far behind we are compared to pakistan in this field. Mujra for them is like F-86 Sabre...


Prasun:

"I can appreciate your sarcasm, especially after the GoI refused to release any photo of the Arihant submarine during its launch and just a little later a photo of the submarine surfaced in a booklet publicising the UPA govt's performance to date."

Is that book available online / any links? was it a rendering or a full view of the sub?

In addition Iran has been churning out lots of military products, most of which look half baked. could you please, if youre privy to it, do an article on those developments?

Iran-Pakistan-China axis - doesn't it not seem very good for Pakistan considering the mistrust between the 2 nations? Recent wikileaks cables show Pakistanis pressuring the Iranians to abandon their nuclear plans. and at the very highest level. i don't think iran would feel safe bedding an american stooge?

Mr. Ra said...

SY-400 is really interesting.

Wei Ning Hao said...

Those who don't know about SY-400:
" The SY-400 is a short-range precision-attack ballistic missile system. It was revealed in 2008. It might use technology of the Raytheon RGM-165 or SM-4. This weapon system is intended for the export market. China is calling it as a guided artillery rocket system, hence it is not limited by 300 km range export restrictions.

The SY-400 system has eight containers with solid fuel missiles. Missiles are factory-fitted into these containers and can be stored for years and do not require additional maintenance. Missiles are launched vertically and have a range of about 400 km. The SY-400 can use different types of warheads.

Missiles are fitted with GPS/INS guidance system. They are steered to the intended target in the initial flight phase by four control surfaces and stabilizing fins. Missile uses low lowering rate to extend the range. Multiple missiles can be aimed at different targets.

This weapon system is mounted on an 8x8 wheeled launcher. The SY-400 is supported by a reloading vehicle, fitted with a crane, which carries a full set of reload containers ". In short this is an assbuster sysyem.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Wei Ning Hao: MTCR restrictions fo not apply to the SY-400 since its range is 200km, well below the MTCR-mandated 300km restriction. Furthermore, Chinese OEMs have never really adhered to any kind of MTCR restrictions when exporting ballistic and cruise missiles. Thirdly, if the SY-400 is an 'assbuster' system, then no one in their right mind will ever procure the SY-400. On the other hand, if it is an 'arsebuster' system, its export prospects would appear to be distinctly brighter.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Saurav Jha: In terms of range he Prahaar is a pretty good system when compared to the SY-400. Range can be increased any time through the usage of higher energetic propellants, which is what is now being done with the Pinaka MBRL's rounds. The newer rounds under development will see the Pinaka's MBRL rounds go out to 42km from the existing 37.5km.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Anon@12.10PM: Here's the photo published in the UPA booklet: http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_o_no4M2xEPY/TAUXIto0lwI/AAAAAAAAKh0/Il8lpGHIeXg/s1600/ARIHANT-718188.JPG
I presume LIVEFIST forgot to mention the source of this photo thanks to an error of omission (or was it to preserve his exclusivity?). As for relations between Iran and Pakistan, yes, the routine Sunni-Shia divide has always been there and will continue to be, especially after commencement of the proxy war between Iran and Saudi Arabia concerning the future status of Afghanistan. But supreme national interests have traditionally called the ultimate shots, as exemplified by the Iran-Pakistan n-cooperation activities since 1990.

Anonymous said...

Hey Prasun,
Sorry for this off topic question but still can you kindly confirm if our IAF does use Novator K 100 AWACS killer AAM or was it just a hoax??I really need to know.

Thanks.

Shree said...

Recently Pak Navy commissioned (Houbei class 220 ton) missile-armed fast attack craft that uses a stealthy catamaran hull design built by Chini.
Whats dangerous about these is they carry eight C-802s and are quite maneuverable.
We do remenber 1971 war when Osa class(200 Tons) FACs attacked a Pakistani naval base sinking a four ships.And the missiles used where P-15 Termit.

Does Indian Navy has a reason to be worried?

How can Indian Navy counter them?

Anonymous said...

@Prasun sir,do you have any idea how many Nasr missiles PA will induct in their inventory??
Thank you.

Anonymous said...

Prasun,don't you think that we need atleast a thousand Shaurya glide missiles to effectively counter a potential two front war??These missiles should come in very handy to level down enemy nuclear launch sites,comand centers.All we need to do is to break those three gorges of China to bring it to its knees and Shaurya can deliver just the slage hammer.Besides,if the VK Saraswat was right that Shaurya is infact a cruise missile as it has powered flight in its terminal phase and can change its course then it should very well be able to strike a large moving target like an Aircraft Carrier.Am I right or not.Please please share your expert openion with us,will be waiting for your reply.And keep up the good job.
REGARDS....

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Anon@12.13AM: No, there’s no such missile in use by the IAF. And it is not required. A couple of land-launched BrahMos LACMs (about 12) used against the air base housing the PAF’s Saab 2000 AEW & Cs or ZDK-03 AEW & Cs is enough to keep such aircraft grounded. We have to thank Pakistan’s elongated geography for this.

To Shree: The Type 022 Hobei-class catamarans can each carry only four C-802A ASCMs, not eight. Such vessels are normally for coastal patrol and are easily detected by maritime reconnaissance aircraft and MALE-UAVs like the Searcher Mk2 and Heron-1. Nothing to be worried about, since these catamarans are used only for littoral warfare and that too when operating in and around coves like the ones in the Andaman & Nicobar Island chains and the Spratlys/Paracels. Such catamarans will be easily detected by the coastal surveillance radars that will soon dot the coastlines of Gujarat and Saurashtra. Therefore, I wouldn’t lose any sleep over the existence of such catamarans in my neighbourhood.

To Anon@12.27AM: About 80 Hatf-9/Nasr NLOS-BSMs have been ordered to date for the Pakistan Army.

To Anon@12.27AM: I definitely agree with you regarding the need for the Shaurya in large numbers as such missiles can deliver decapitating strikes against fixed transportation infrastructure nodes located in close proximity to the LAC throughout the Tibetan plateau. And the forthcoming test-firing of the Shaurya only signifies the fact that this cannistered and rapidly deployable missile—capable of delivering various types of conventional warheads--will surely enter service with the IAF (and not the Strategic Forces Command) in large numbers in future.

SherKhan said...

Prasun,

Pak have making some serious investment in H2/4, babue, raad, nasr,(and A-100E) for the 10-15 years now. They have had help as you rightly pointed out from SA to China. I do wish you could visit and see some of these facilities for manufacturing and research. Some key components are imported due to cost reasons but this operation is not about showcasing. These standoff weapons are the Paks primary strike options now and they will be present in serious numbers. In a war (i hope it never happens) the IA radars will have many other things to worry about too...such as MAR-1. My point is Pak do not completely rely on anyone now. The critical systems are almost all being made at home and this will increase as it has happened with al-khalid, various APC, jf17, etc...The above mentioned systems allow PA to hit IA strike formations well into india whilst safely being under PAF/AD cover in pak. They allow pak to go on the offensive whilst being defensive. That is their true value.

Your point wrt to them being able to deliver nukes(or not as is the case :-))....is correct and hence you will see these deployed in numbers in the years to come at corp level....in conventional roles. Did you notice the trajectory of the test missile....how flat it was, specifically designed.

Pak approach is simple...leverage as much as they can from anyone willing to sell technical knowhow and then bring it in-house...why re-invent the wheel, eh Prasun.

Anonymous said...

Hey Prasun,

India is now moving towards developing longer range cruise missiles. Do we have any program or are we capable of building the hand held laser designators which US army used in Iraq/Afg. war for giving the exact location to an already launched missile ?

Can you throw some light on HSTDV program ? Whats the progress ? What will be its features ?

Do you have any idea about a program called "Khanda hypersonic missile " ? According to the unconfirmed chatter in some defence forums on the web this missile will be ready by the end of decade and will use the tech developed from HSTDV program. It will also be the first of three hyper-sonic cruise missile to use scramjet.

Anonymous said...

http://www.telegraphindia.com/1110922/jsp/frontpage/story_14538623.jsp

Have been there or around that part of India when you were in the army (my assumption).
I (and I'm sure not the only one) have eager ears for stories.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Sher Khan: Regarding what you said (I do wish you could visit and see some of these facilities for manufacturing and research), rather than me visit to see first-hand, why can’t ISPR or even PTV produce TV clips of the production lines of all the weapons you’ve quoted? Why can’t the Taxila-based HVF produce brochures showing the Al Khalid MBT’s and Al Zarrar MBT’s production lines? Why can’t the Kamra-based PAC produce brochures showing the JF-17s being built from raw material stage? Why can’t KRL produce brochures showing the production lines of the Baktar Shikan and Anza Mk2? Why can’t KSEW produce brochures displaying the fabrication of various compartments of the Agosta 90B SSKs? The conclusions are elementary: if the production lines of even such conventional weapon systems are not displayed by the so-called manufacturing entities in Pakistan, how can one expect Pakistan to produce photographic or video evidence of the ‘indigenous’ activities involving ballistic/cruise missiles? Let’s face it, the erstwhile USSR went broke trying to making every weapon system indigenously and today is importing entire designs of non-Russian weapon systems (like LPFs, avionics, etc), and you expect me to believe that Pakistan does not completely rely on anyone now? Far to the contrary, the reliance has never been greater than it is today.
Regarding IAF radars worrying about MAR-1, this anti-radiation missile, like the Kh-31P, is meant to be used only against target engagement/illuminating radars, and is not like the Harpy or HAROP that targets and seeks out airspace surveillance radars. In case you didn’t know, IAF airspace surveillance radars can presently cover the entire elongated airspace of Pakistan and the IAF therefore will have a more-then-pretty good idea exactly when any PAF combat aircraft equipped with MAR-1 becomes a distinct threat to Indian ground-based or aerostat-mounted radars of any type. In fact, a salvo of 600 BrahMos land-attack missiles fired within a span of 5 minutes is all it takes to make any existing PAF air bases unusuable for a 72-hour period at the very least. There isn’t any need at all for the IAF to launch counter-base air campaigns with manned combat aircraft. And lastly, do rest assured that no one—not even China--has sold Pakistan any kind of technical know-how. It’s only know-why and is accompanied only by screwdriver technologies.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Anon@3.15AM: Portable laser designators and hand-held versions of such devices have been in service with the Indian Army since 2000 and with the IAF since 1996. They're of course of Israeli origin. As for longer-range cruise missiles, the Shaurya is going to be inducted in future, while the air-launched supersonic missile will be ready for induction by 2015. Development of the HSTDV and hypersonic missiles is being undertaken in cooperation with Russia.

Mr. Ra said...

Thanx for so much information.

Anonymous said...

@Prasun da,do you remember that in annual address Dr VK Sasaswat stated that LRDE had mastered the GaN t/r modules and will use them in next indigenous AESA radars replacing current GaAs modules.Any news on that??
Besides what happened to the DRDO Medium Power Radar with 350 km tracking range against fighters??What's the present stat??Is that project still on or not??
And lastly what the status of Swordfish LRTR MkII??DRDO guys told that they would increase the tracking range of the Swordfish from present 800 km to 1600-2000 km.Has they achieved this objective or still working??Is that project even on or not??Did'nt heard about that for long time.
PLEASE try to reply.
Thanks in advance.

Anonymous said...

Dear Sir

The LATEST news regarding LCA Tejas suggests that some EW suites are being tested

My question is that can we try and make a GROWLER like dedicated EW attack plane

Since tejas is indigenious we can fiddle with the avionics

Such a MINI GROWLER can be very useful in war

It can fly at supersonic speeds inside enemy territory and cripple their avionics

Anonymous said...

Dear Sir

You have mentioned in one reply that
Pinaka range will go upto 42 Km

My question is that WHY these SMERCH systems COST so much

12 Million Dollars .It is a LOOT

I mean what is it made up of that it is so expensive

2 ) What is the unit cost of Prithvi and Prahar Missiles

Anonymous said...

Prasun,I am anon12:37am.Thanx for your reply pal.
So Shurya is infact a hypersonic cruise missile-1st of its kind.Well,that's a great thing to be proud of I suppose.
So Shaurya should be reconfigurable as an Aircraft Carrier killer missile-am I right or not??
By the way,do you know the approximate number of Elta El/M 2084 AESA MPRs ordered by IAF??
And lastly,what's the stat of LRDE's foliage and wall penetration radar projects??Our CRPF and Army soldiers desperately need them in the COIN ops against naxalites and separatist groups of NE.
Please try to reply,will be eagerly waiting.

Thanks.

Anonymous said...

Yeah Prasun i also once asked you about the progress on Swordfish LRTR MkII but no good reply received. Kindly share some info on this...

To Anonymous 10:07 AM
The earlier prototypes of LCA is converted into Growler version of LCA and it will be tested and might even enter the service if liked by forces.

Benito said...

Can't people use some name even be it fictitious than this Anonymous business? Makes it so hard to keep track of which Anon said what...I mean no one will steal your identity from just a name!

Anonymous said...

prasun ,
India has ordered another regiment of Brahmos Block III version .
In a regiment how many missiles will be their .

http://defenseblog-njs.blogspot.com/2011/09/army-to-have-another-brahmos-missile.html

Anurag said...

@Prasun da,any news on the indigenous Air indipendent propulsion??
Thanks.

Anonymous said...

How are dhruv alh and LCH panning out.??
why army not inducting dhruv in large numbers.??
can anyway LCH be compared to Eurocopter tiger in performance if not sensors and all.??

Anonymous said...

aaahhhhh


once again

a typical story by the Prasun K. Sengupta

a story like has has published before

with no evidence at all

Anonymous said...

All of his articles about PAK-China missile cooperation are written as he was at the signing ceremonies of the agreements

he have no access at all to both countries other then collecting brochures

Anonymous said...

New FAC-M purchased by pakistan are not type-022 but This Ship

http://i56.tinypic.com/2sba4j5.jpg

http://i52.tinypic.com/wld8qu.jpg

http://i54.tinypic.com/67paw0.jpg

Anonymous said...

The Houbei class (Type 022) missile boat i can carry 8 C802/C803 Anti-ship missiles not four

Anonymous said...

" PAF's H-2/MUPSOW to the H-4 to the Ra'ad and now to the Turkish SOM, all of which are powered by the same China-built turbojets."


Sir do realize that H-2 and H-4 are Stand-Off precision-guided glide bombs with range of 60 km and 120 km and dont use any turbo jet engines

Anonymous said...

" PAF's H-2/MUPSOW to the H-4 to the Ra'ad and now to the Turkish SOM, all of which are powered by the same China-built turbojets."


Sir do realize that Turkish SOM is much lighter weapon with 180 km range and warhead of 200kg while

paki RAAD is 350km range weapon with 450kg warhead

its simply illogical to think that both will use same turbojet

Anonymous said...

sir why isn't drdo doing anything in the field of advanced precision guided munition like guided artillery both tube and rocket , guided mortar rounds , tri or even dual mode seekers , damn we still havn't our lgb kit ready for induction leave alone electro optic or gps guidence , the best we have to say for indigenous air dropped munition is our lousy clustor weapon whose name i don't remember , i guess it was after some fruit or something like that......

For akash missiles Why command guidance was chosen inst over an active radar on board the missile itself !!!!!even the much smaller than this like a to a missiles have their seeker of their own.......damn why didn't drdo produce the surface to air of astra missile the range wud have been a tad lesser but it wud have saved alot of money and time.....

Anonymous said...

mr sengpta please give some update on Nag missile status, SPYDER missile missile acquired by IAF, upgrading various air defence systems in IAF

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Anon@9.40AM & Anon@ 1.08PM: The information that you seek on the LRTR can be found at: http://trishul-trident.blogspot.com/2011/08/home-grown-anti-missile-shield-for-new.html
This is what I had disclosed there: Then there’s the issue of making false claims about indigenisation of the hardware components of the BMD system. For instance, in an exclusive interview given to FORCE magazine in March 2010, Dr Saraswat stated on page 10: “We are planning to enhance the detection range of the existing (LRTR) radars (two were ordered in 1998 and delivered in 2001). The exact range is classified. However, considering that we now have the capability and the capacity to build all elements of the state-of-the-art radar, the range enhancement will more or less be an indigenous effort”. Yet, in the same interview, Dr Saraswat made a contradicting remark about the LRTR’s indigenous content by saying: “…for this reason, it is important that the range of the LRTR be more than 1,000km. We have started work on this and it will take up to three years. When I say that this will be indigenous, it means that design and development will be done here, while computers and certain other essentials like T/R modules will be procured from outside. You know that it is neither possible nor desirable to make everything within the country”. What exactly are we to make of such contradicting remarks coming from someone who heads the DRDO?
As for the MPR ostensibly being developed by LRDE, here’s what the MoD’s 2010-2011 Annual Report states on page 89: Medium Power Radar (MPR)–Arudhra: The objective of this project is to develop 4-D (whatever that means) Medium Power Radar (MPR) as a sophisticated multi-mode sensor for modern fast changing battle fields. MPR proposes to use advanced active array technology, digital processing technologies--Digital Beam Forming and Programmable Signal Processing--to meet operational requirements of air space surveillance covering 100 m to 30km altitude and 300km range. The S-band solid state active aperture radar will detect and track any airborne target including helicopter, UAVs, and slow speed low Radar Cross Section (RCS) air targets up to 100 km. The radar will have rotating phased array antenna covering 360° with steering mode with electronic scanning in Azimuth & elevation providing range, direction, height and Doppler velocity information of the aerial targets under tracking. Initially 8 numbers of indigenous MPRs will be inducted by the Indian Air Force. To me it makes little sense to induct just eight indigenous MPRs when the IAF has already placed orders for 34 EL/M-2084 MMRs.

To Anon@10.07AM: What is being tested on the Tejas Mk1 is this: http://trishul-trident.blogspot.com/2011/04/aspjs-developed-for-tejas-mk1-mig-29upg.html

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Anon@10.12AM: On the contrary, they’re quite cheap, although not as cheap as a Chinese A-100E or AR-2 MBRL. Remember, back in 1993 a Tunguska-M SPAAF had a unit cost of US$12 million. Therefore, a Smerch-M with its complement of reload missile rounds (including those containing sensor-fuzed sub-munitions) certainly does not qualify as a loot.

To Anon@10.22AM: Till today, no one in the world has demonstrated through test-firings a ballistic missile’s ability to target and destroy an aircraft carrier. Therefore, claims by various parties that the Chinese DF-21D can do so needs to be taken with a fistful of salt. As of now there’s no plan to modify the Shaurya to become an aircraft carrier killer. Regarding the number of EL/M-2084 MMRs ordered to date, kindly go to: http://trishul-trident.blogspot.com/2011/06/arudhra-mpr-is-elm-2084-mmr-seeing-is.html
I’m unaware of any major revolutionary advances being made by the LRDE regarding its foliage and wall penetration radar projects.

To Anon@7.20PM: Each BrahMos regiment would have 61 missiles, 18 mobile autonomous launchers and two mobile control centres.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Anurag: The DRDO-proposed AIP system is still under development.

To Anon@8:05PM: It depends on how one perceives the Dhruv Mk4 and LCH. If the objective is to make them both as helicopter gunships or attack helicopters, then the right sensor-fit should go on board both these machines, which is not the case at the moment. Without a millimetre-wave target acquisition radar, none of the two helicopters can be optimally employed as anti-armour weapon systems. And even if they are supposed to engage hostile anti-armour forces, then the light observation helicopters/aeroscouts ought to be equipped with such target acquisition sensors, which is also not the case at the moment. All these issues were raised at last week's Army Aviation Corps seminar organised by CLAWS, but no convincing answers were forthcoming, suggesting a doctrinal deficiency that currently pervades through the DG Army Aviation regarding anti-armour operations.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Anon@8.12PM: If that's the case then why don't you disclose your own contrarian evidence to disprove me once and for all? Let the pictures ansd your evidence do all the talking.

To Anon@8.25PM: The FAC-Ms whose image-links you've posted are being acquired by both Bangladesh and Pakistan, while the Type 022 Hobei-class catamarans are being procured only by Pakistan.

To Anon@8.32PM: If the MUPSOW and H-4 are indeed standofff precision-guided glide bombs then how does one explain the existence of dorsal air-intakes on both these weapons?

To Anon@8.34PM: The range of any turbojet-powered standoff PGM is determined not by the thrust-rating of the turbojet, but by the internal fuel capacity. Furthermore, I never stated that all the PGMs you've mentioned are powered by identical turbojets--something you've wrongly assumed. Kindly take note that such erroneous assumptions are always the mother of all fuckups.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Anon@9.43PM: Between the Navy and Army, the Navy is more serious about GPS-guided PGMs and is in talks with the US for procuring ERGMs for its Project 15A Kolkata-class DDGs. The Army’s field artillery capabilities are in pathetic shape for the past decade at least, and it is hoped that if the motorised 155mm/52-cal howitzers and LW-155 UFHs are acquired on a fast-track basis, then GPS or IR-guided rounds carrying sensor-fuzed munitions will be procured along with such howitzers. The RFI for terminally-guided 120mm mortar rounds is already out and the procurement is expected by 2013. But it must be noted that for GPS-guided PGMs to be really effective, India has to hasten the pace of deploying her own constellation of IRNSS GPS navigation satellites. And by the way, the cluster munitions used by the IAF were not indigenously developed, but were reverse-engineered from the cluster munitions imported for the IAF’s Jaguar IS aircraft in the early 1980s from Chile’s CARDOEN Industries. As for the Akash E-SHORADS, command-guidance technique was adopted since it was the easiest to master and the DRDO still has no in-house expertise for designing and developing active radar seekers. That’s precisely why the terminal radar seekers for the PAD, PDV, AAD-1, AAD-2, Barak-e MR-SAM, Barak-8 LR-SAM and Astra Mk1 BVRAAM are all imported from either Israel or Russia. And commonsense would have suggested that the Astra Mk1 be re-engineered as a vertically-launched SHORADS, instead of co-developing the SR-SAM with MBDA. But it seems that commonsense has become a rarest-of-the-rate virtue inside the DRDO!

Anonymous said...

You are the one making Wild claims with no evidence at all not me so burden of proves rests on you not me.

and you answer has already proven that you have nothing to backup those wild claims.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Anon@8.18PM: "All of his articles about PAK-China missile cooperation are written as he was at the signing ceremonies of the agreements...he have no access at all to both countries other then collecting brochures"
----------------------------------
Haven't you read about 'remote viewing' abilities? If you haven't, then don't be a self-righteous brat!

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Anon@11.13PM: Claims may appear 'wild' to you, but perfectly logical to many others that far outnumber your ilk. If you have the wherewithal or intellect to disprove me, then by all means bring it on into the open.

Anonymous said...

Haven't you read about 'remote viewing' abilities? If you haven't, then don't be a self-righteous brat!


I have

but i am not a big fan of day dreamers

Anonymous said...

and how does more people accepting makes the wild claims with little truth an acceptable habit?

Anonymous said...

All those using the 'remote viewing' abilities are highly appreciated as they bring the truth with facts not with imagination

Anonymous said...

@Prasun,I am Anon10:22AM.You are right that the ability of a pure ballistic missile like the DF 21D to engage an AC is by far questionable.But according to DRDO chief the Shaurya is a hypersonic cruise missile and not a ballistic missile as it has a flat trajectory,it never exits atmosphere,has a rounded head,no reentry vehicle but most importantly the Shaurya has completely powered and steerable terminal flight(unlike a ballistic missiles which are more or less free falling in terminal phase)and lastly it can change its course-all these charecteristics indicate Shaurya to be a cruise missile.So why the Shaurya can't be configured to attack a moving target like an AC??May be I am getting confused here.Your help is needed.So PLEASE try to reply pal and correct me where I am wrong.

Thanks.

Anonymous said...

Hi Prasun, A different topic. Apology for that.

Adm Mullen issued a stern warning to Pak administration. So now it is obvious to Obama admin that Haqqani group with the help of ISI and Pak army is responsible for most of the highly sensitive attacks in Afghanistan.

I wonder why does ISI do this? Why should it wants to show superiority against CIA? What is the point of challenging CIA or USA? How can ISI arrange such attacks?

Sometime back, I met with a GoI official, who worked in Home Ministry, said that ISI's strength is "foot soldiers", - referring to Pakistanis and other Muslims around the world, who are ready to help ISI or Pakistan/SA any where. So when it comes to human intelligence ISI scores very high among many intelligence network.

So my question why should ISI challenge CIA? and what is the objective of ISI?

Why can't CIA get Haqqanis just like it did on OBL?

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Anon@11:44PM: Why don't you just go ahead and prove me wrong, instead of engaging in cockfights? Why not expose my 'wild claims' with your truth supported by facts? Why not publish photos showing the Ra'ad's indigenous contents and those for all the missiles in service inside Pakistan? Because if you can't then it is you that's making 'wild' allegations.

To Anon@11.47PM: The Shaurya is a depressed trajectory ballistic missile, going strictly by definition. Even if it can be employed as a hypersonic cruise missile, it won't have the pinpoint strike capability that existing supersonic and subsonic cruise missiles have. As I had said before, no one has thus far developed the kind of terminal seeker on board a hypersonic ballistic/cruise missile that can ensure pinpoint strikes against any kind of land-based or maritime/seaborne target. Therefore, the bottomline is: without such a terminal seeker, detecting and hitting moving or floating targets is an impossibility. Furthermore, to detect such targets in the vast oceans and seas, one requires a constellation of ocean surveillance satellites equipped with synthetic apeerture radars, which China and India both currently lack.

To Anon@11.50PM: You can find most of the answers here at: http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/article2476841.ece?homepage=true

Anonymous said...

@Prasun,I am Anon11:47.Thanks pal,now I got your point(though I still think the specifications are more matching with a hypersonic cruise missile than a pure ballistic missile).As far as the seeker is concerned we can import and use the same seeker of Brahmos AShM from Russia like we are doing with Astra MkI or co develop one with them as in the case of Brahmos II,can't we??Besides,if(a big 'If') DRDO is true,the Shaurya has a CEP of less than 10 meters and the ability to completly change course,which is beyond the league of ballistic missiles should be enough to successfully hit a moving AC as they are massive But yeah,the greatest problem will still remain-lack of ocean surveillance satellites with high resolution SARs.Hope we will have some by the end of this decade.PLEASE share your expert openions with us mate.

Besides,in a recent article the Brahmos chief stated that both the IA and IN has indicated that they want the range of hypersonic Brahmos II to be increased to 600 km.My question is that is it possible to do that??What about the MTCR??If that is not achieved won't there be a possibility that our army may even reject the Brahmos II as evident from the Arjun MkI????PLEASE try to reply.I really need to know.

Thanks.

anand raj said...

hello sir ,

u said a ballistic missile never engage a aircraft carrier but if we took the definition of a sub-orbital ballistic flight path it can engage a nimitz class aircraft it its accuracy is gud plzz clear it from ur point of view . in case of shaurya missile it looks like a silo based ballistic rather than a so called CRUISE missile may the DRDO chief is mistaken. if shaurya is a hyper sonic cruise missile why there is a need for brahmos 2 lol

Anonymous said...

Here is picture of Chinese M20 Precision Guided Ballistic Missile and now compare it with Pakistani Hatf IX NASR

One can clearly spot the difference between the missiles

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Anon@12.37AM: The principal R & D challenge—in case of any hypersonic cruise missile, be it the Shaurya or BrahMos—remains the development of a terminal seeker with digital scene co-relation matching capabilities. While such seekers for supersonic cruise missiles have been perfected, those for hypersonic missiles have yet to be. As for the projected hypersonic BrahMos, which cannot be developed only by the DRDO and must therefore be developed with Russia’s participation, the Russian adherence to MTCR guidelines will ensure that the hypersonic version of BrahMos will have its range limited to 290km. Things could be different if, for instance the DRDO were to develop an indigenously designed multi-role hypersonic missile derived from the supersonic ALCM now being co-developed by India and Israel. But this is for certain: Russia will not make exceptions to the MTCR guidelines to suit India’s reqmts. Besides, since the Shaurya is already been developed for eventual deployment, I don’t see the operational need to develop a hypersonic variant of the BrahMos.

To Anand Raj: As I wrote earlier, the world has yet to see definitive test-firing results of a ballistic missile or hypersonic cruise missile targeting an aircraft carrier. While things are possible theoretically, achieving practical results is an altogether different challenge. The conventional warhead-armed Shaurya has thus far been publicly shown (during Republic Day parades & during the DEFEXPO 2010 expo) as a cannisterised missile that is launched from a land-mobile wheeled TEL. This is the version that will enter service with the IAF. As for the silo-based variant of Shaurya, it will definitely have to be armed with unitary n-warheads and if it enters service then it will be operated and maintained by the Indian Army’s Directorate of Field Artillery but it will come under the command and control of the tri-services Strategic Forces Command.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Anon@1.47AM: Yeah right!!! One is green and one is white! What else? The actuator-driven fore-fins? They are kept folded whilst inside the cannister and are fully deployed after ignition of the solid rocket. The M-20 scale-model displayed at IDEX 2011 last March clearly showed the folded fore-fins.

Anonymous said...

anon 9:43

thanks alot for the answers prasun sir....u simply rock !!!!

Anonymous said...

The Haqqani gang and LeT, both are official Divisions in the Pak Army, each about 15000 soldiers dressed in civilian clothes. They get their wages from ISI and their families get pension from ISI, if they get killed in operations. Both the Divisions are under tight control of ISI, and they can not carry out any operation unless ISI orders them to do so. The ISI 'S' Division recruits, trains and funds these two terror groups, and provides them logistical support and strategic advice. Depending upon the geopolitical situation, the ISI deactivates and reactivates the trainng camps for these jihadis. Out of about hundred odd terror training camps, 43 terror training camps adjoining Abbotabad region have recently been reactivated by ISI. Apart from the trainings imparted in these camps, on specialized need basis, training is also provided in regular Military Training centres. For example the 26/11 attackers of the LeT were provided Marine Commando Training in Pakistan Navy Training Centres by a Pakistan Navy Frogman. The 26/11 Mumbai attacks, Parliament attacks, numerous attacks in J&K and Indian Embassies in Afghnistan, etc were all carried out after the ISI ordered those attacks. These two groups are nothing but a mercenary force of the Pak Army for asymmetric and proxy warfare against the neighbours of Pakistan.

Anonymous said...

ThinkTank

Hello PrasunDa....
Isn't Chinese CPMIEC’s latest NLOS-BSM BP-12A and SY-400 are copy of Russian ISKANDER. Though India could have made a copy of that but GR8 DRDO men always dream like " MUNGERILAL KE HASEEN SAPNEY".Never to delever on time...
Chinese Now co-operating with Russian on latest T-95 tanks...where are Indian Strategic Planers...Living Now In American Dreams....India should stand On its own feet....We shouldnot forget once Saddam was there greatest ally...what happened to him alll know...

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To An on Above: That's right.

anand raj said...

hello sir,

my query is about klub missile effectiveness . why its been chosen for shivalik class ?

which AAM is best R 77 or AIM 120D ?
can R 77 will be used in RAFALE fighters?

thanks (◕‿◕✿)

Anonymous said...

Stop the foolish claims without any proof


And stop deleting all the posts which exposes your articles as nothing but bundle of lies

Open your eyes for once

M-20 don't have any fins and it was never displayed with them

Anonymous said...

The M20 is a reverse engineered knock-off of the Russian 9K720 Iskander. Proof is on the net.

Check out this very well researched article on Chinese knock-off achievements.

http://defenceguruindia.blogspot.in/2014/03/the-chinese-are-double-dyed-bootleggers.html#more