Total Pageviews

Monday, October 24, 2011

CCNS Approves & Fast-Tracks ‘Modified’ Project 17A FFG Programme

In what can only be described as joyous ‘Deepavali-eve’ tidings for the Indian Navy (IN), the Govt of India’s Cabinet Committee on National Security (CCNS) earlier last week finally approved the Ministry of Defence’s proposal for kick-starting the Project 17A guided-missile frigate’s (FFG) design-cum-construction programme, which is already running four years behind schedule. Consequently, the MoD-owned and Mumbai-based Mazagon Docks Ltd (MDL), teamed with Fincantieri, has at long-last, received both the green light and the much-required funds required for commencing work on the Project 17A FFG programme, which now calls for the Project 17A FFG to be an advanced derivative of the existing 5,600-tonne Project 17 Shivalik-class FFG, and NOT a brand-new warship design outsourced from abroad. While MDL will be the lead yard for both detailed design and construction of the first four Project 17A FFGs, Kolkata-based Garden Reach Shipbuilders & Engineers will build the remaining three FFGs. It is estimated that the first Project 17A FFG will be launched five years (within 60 months, or by 2017) after its keel-laying ceremony (to be held in the latter half of next year), followed by the remaining six FFGs being delivered every successive year through to 2022.
The CCNS decision, which is likely to cause dismay to foreign shipbuilders like Fincantieri of Italy, France’s Direction des Constructions Navales (DCNS), Germany’s ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems, Russia’s Severnoye Design Bureau/Admiralty Shipyards, Spain’s Navantia, the UK’s BAE Systems, and South Korea’s Hyundai Heavy Industries, is likely to result in the Project 17 FFG’s design being modified to accommodate new-generation weapon systems like the Barak-2 MR-SAM/EL/M-2248 MF-STAR combination (see: http://trishul-trident.blogspot.com/2011/04/mf-star-deliveries-for-project-15a-ddgs_07.html) instead of the Cashmere area air defence system comprising the 24 rounds of 40km-range 9M317M Shtil-1 MR-SAMs, 3S-90 missile launcher, four MR-90 Orekh target illuminators, and the Salyut FSUE-built E-band MR-760 Fregat M2EM 3-D radar; plus BrahMos vertically-launched supersonic multi-role cruise missiles instead of the the eight Novator-built 3M54E Klub-N supersonic 220km-range anti-ship cruise missiles. The crew complement will likely be reduced from the existing 257 (including 35 officers) to about 110 by introducing high levels of automation, which will translate into a savings of around 20% in operational costs and higher operational availability of the warships. The Project 17A FFG’s superstructure will also make extensive use of composites similar to what’s now being done on board the latter two of the four Project 28 Kamorta-class ASW corvettes now under fabrication by GRSE.
The decision to fast-track the project 17A FFG construction programme comes close on the heels of a major upgrade undertaken by MDL of its integrated shipbuilding processes for FFGs, which will become idle once the third and last Project 17 FFG—INS Sahyadri—is commissioned into service early next year. Therefore, in order to make optimum utilisation of its warship-building capacities and capabilities, the MoD, in an unusual show of pragmatism, had last month decided to fast-track the indigenous warship construction roadmap.

Thus far, MDL’s infrastructure modernisation plans have moved ahead in four areas: installation of a 300-tonne Goliath crane, construction of a new modular workshop for FFGs, and fabrication of a wet-basin for the outfitting of FFGs and DDGs. All three of these will be ready for usage by early next year and will make MDL the first MoD-owned DPSU to undertake integrated shipbuilding concurrently for two lines of warships and two lines of submarines: the seven Project 17A FFGs, the four 6,800-tonne Project 15B guided-missile destroyers (DDG), and the six Scorpene SSKs and the yet-to-be-ordered Project 75I SSKs. In addition to all this, MDL has also built two more modular workshops—one for warship-building (the four Project 15B DDGs) and the other for submarine construction—at the Alcock Yard, which is adjacent to MDL’s main yard. Consequently, by late next year, MDL will have two dedicated submarine construction facilities—one at its East Yard and the other at the Alcock Yard, both of which will be used for the accelerated delivery of the six Scorpene SSKs on order. As things now stand, the first Scorpene will be launched by August 2015, with the sixth being launched by September 2018.
MDL has also become India’s first shipbuilder to commission a virtual reality lab, enabling its naval architects and engineers to virtually walk through the compartments being digitally designed for a warship. This will from now on obviate the need for constructing mock-ups that are time-consuming, and will also contribute greatly towards faster warship deliveries. MDL has also requested the MoD to approve its strategic industrial partnership with Gujarat-based Pipavav Defence & Offshore Engineering Co Ltd, so that it can enlist the latter’s services as a sub-contractor for fabricating sub-sections of a warship’s superstructure, thereby further reducing the time taken for hull fabrication. MDL will thus play the mentor’s role for the emerging private-sector shipyards and teach the latter the intricacies of detailed designing, fabrication, outfitting, systems and weapons integration, tests and trials, and finally, warship delivery.
As for GRSE, its principal strategic industrial partner is likely to be DCNS (which till mentor GRSE in areas such as virtual digital designing and integrated shipbuilding), while the principal fabrication sub-contractor is likely to be either the MoD-owned and Vizag-based DPSU Hindustan Shiptard Ltd (HSL), or Larsen & Toubro’s brand-new shipyard at Kattupalli in Tamil Nadu, which has been set up jointly with Tamil Nadu Industrial Development Corp and is expected to be fully commissioned early next year.
 
So what is the future of the IN’s Project 75I submarine procurement programme? After all, by late 2012, MDL would have completed hull fabrication for the sixth Scorpene, after which its outfitting will start, leaving MDL’s two SSK hull fabrication workshops bereft of any further activity. Even if the RFPs are issued by the MoD before the year’s end (which appears highly unlikely), it will take at least another three years to arrive at the contract signature stage. Then there’s the issue of according priority to the procurement of four LPHs, for which two MoD-owned DPSUs—MDL and HSL—each teamed up with a private-sector shipbuilders, are likely to be selected for building them. In light of all this, it won’t be surprising at all if circumstances conspire together to force the MoD to exercise the only financially viable and least risky option left for arresting the decline of the IN’s SSK fleet strength by the latter half of this decade—ordering a follow-on batch of four Scorpene SSKs from DCNS via MDL—Prasun K. Sengupta

360 comments:

1 – 200 of 360   Newer›   Newest»
Anonymous said...

Seriously 5 years ? Its along time. I thought it was going to be build by modular designing ? And if they make some mistake then this five will convert into 10.

How many FFG will be build simultaneously, considering 2 shipyards are involved in this project ?

When is the work gonna start ?

Advanced derivative of P17 ? Then we don't need much funds for this, or do we ? What will be advanced here in P17a ? Will MDL be using MFSTAR radar again ?

Why are we going for poorly designed p17 when we are getting some of the best designs in the world ?

I thought after this project India will also start making European style warships but we are still stuck with more than a decade old designs.

Is there any picture of the model of P17a ?

Please look at this picture of defexpo 2010.
http://www.thehindu.com/multimedia/dynamic/00031/6TH_DEFENCE_EXPO_31990f.jpg
Is this the design of P17A ?

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Anon^^^: Of course it takes a long time, simply because in the DPSUs people work in only a single shift! In the private-sector fabrication is done daily in three successive shifts, that's the crucial difference. If you introduce a three-shift working policy in the MoD-owned shipyards then the time will be cut by half, it's that simple. Only one Project 17A FFG will be built by MDL at a time, since the other modular construction facility will handle the Project 15B DDG's fabrication work. The Project 17 FFG is not at all poorly designed, but is overweight like the first two Project 28 ASW corvettes. Usage of composites-built structures like that on the French FREMM FFGs will solve that problem as well. The photo at DEFEXPO 2010 is of a BAE Systems-designed FFG, probably the Type 46.

Anonymous said...

1. Is this me or the fast approval is a good news but going for the same design is bad news ?

2. Is brahmos 2 going to be used in these warships ?

3. Can this warship be of the standards of MEKO and FREMM ? I know fire power, air defence and radar system will be the best in the in the world but other things like stealth and automation ?

4. When GRSE will start work on this project ?

5. So our private ship yard won't be making any warship this decade also ? They will still remain sub-contractor ?

6. What is happening with hand held ATGM deal ? Are we still going for expensive and less capable Javelin ? or we have decided to opt for Israeli Spike ? Last i heard US decided not to give ToT.

7. We have a requirement for 40000+ such missiles. Are going for some immediate procurement to reduce this gap ?

Thanx for the great information and thanx in advance for the answers.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To An on^^^: It is indeed good news for the country’s shipbuilding industry and good news for the Navy, since the life-cycle costs of both the three Project 17 FFGs and seven Project 17A FFGs will attain economies of scale. As was explained by me earlier, such economies of scale are crucial if this fleet is split between the eastern and western fleets and consequently, product support facilities are reqd to be set up along India’s eastern and western seaboards. BrahMos Block 1 & 2 will be available (for land-attack or anti-ship strike). The project 17A FFGs will come very close to the FREMM FFGs in terms of automation, modular construction and stealth capabilities. Firepowerwise, however, the Project 17A FFGs will be way superior to the FREMM. GRSE will commence warship fabrication two years after MDL begins building the first vessel. Private shipyards are making warships. Pipavav is building the Navy’s AOPVs while Bharti Shipyard is building a cadet training ship. In addition, obtaining subcontracts is a great way of going up the learning curve for shipyards which have had no prior experience in producing warships. The sub-contracts from the Project 15B DDG, Project 17A FFG and LPH programmes are quite of lot. As for ATGMs it will be the Javelin and the figure of 40,000 is too high, since the Javelins are meant for the Army and naval special operations forces.

Anonymous said...

Thanx for the answer...

When is the Javelin deal gonna be signed ? I heard the number of Javelin produced will be 60000+ . Considering this huge number i think we should start the production soon.

What about ToT issue ? Why we selected Javelin when Spike is cheaper, more advanced and with full ToT ?

Whats the progress of P28 ? I heard first corvette will be inducted in June next year ? Has GRSE started using modular designing and composite tech on 3rd and 4th corvette hull ?

Will there be barak 8, MFSTAR and brahmos on P28 corvettes also ?

When the work on indegenous SSN gonna start ?

HSL tie-up with LnT final ?
http://www.business-standard.com/india/news/lt-set-to-partner-hindustan-shipyard/449956/

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

The number of Javeline ATGMs will not be that high since the consignments are only for the special operations forces of the Indian Army & Navy. The first Project 28 ASW corvette will only be proceeding for sea trials next year, induction will follow a year later, perhaps, as it is the lead vessel of its class and a lot of things will need to be ironed out during the sea trials. Modular design and composites construction expertise imported from Kockums of Sweden is already underway for vessels 3 and 4. None of the weapons and sensors you've mentioned will be on the corvette. The S-band radar will be the Revathy. When will work on the indigenous SSN begin? Interesting question indeed and it is probably related to the visit last week to India of the French PM Alain Juppé. See this: http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/interview/article2565330.ece?homepage=true
The HSL-L & T tie-up is finalised for all intents and purposes, as are the tie-ups between MDL & Pipavav.

Anonymous said...

Hey Prasun,
Thanks for the reply...

So are saying our SSN will be based on french design, may be Barracuda ? But i thought IN was interested in bigger SSN.

Also you wrote first P17a will be launched in 2017 followed by 1 every year till 2023. But this timeline shows that there is only one production line while on the contrary GRSE will be building P17a simultaneously but after 2 years dela as you said.

Don't you think timeline for launching of P17a FFG should be like this :
1st P17a 2017 (MDL)
2nd P17a 2018 (MDL)
3rd and 4th 2019 (MDL & GRSE)
5th and 6th 2020 (MDL & GRSE)
7th 2021 (GRSE)
?

I read somewhere on the paper about Agni 4 and agni 6. I know its a hoax but still are there any such missile projects ? If not then whats after Agni 5 as after this missile, our Integrated Guided Missile Development Program will be over.
----------------------------------
Also i am afraid the number of ATGMs required are 40000 as per army. And as per contract, we will be purchasing some of the Javelins directly from US but most of the Javelin will be produced by OFB under license and this number will go 60000+ just like we did in Milan ATGM deal.
I just wanna know when the deal is going to be signed ?

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Anon@6.04AM: What France has proposed to India is exactly what it has proposed to Brazil, which is France will provide full ToT for in-country production of all non-nuclear components and structures for the SSGN, with India providing the indigenously-built PWR whose design has already been supplied by Russia for the ‘Arihant’. India is also interested in seeking France’s help in further refining the design of this PWR, which has only a 10-year lifespan (which means the Arihant, if it is to remain in service for 20 years, would require two such PWRs, each with a lifespan of 10 years). Since building two PWRs for each SSBN or SSGN is way too expensive, India has sought France’s help in developing lifelong PWRs with 20-year lifespan.
Regarding the P-17A FFG production schedule, while MDL’s launch and delivery schedules have almost been firmed up, that of GRSE has not and therefore, delivery schedules for vessels 5, 6 & 7 are just probable estimates as of now. A lot would depend on MDL’s ability as the lead yard to transfer all the detailed designs and integrated construction schedules to GRSE, and GRSE’s ability to absorb them in a time-bound manner. Therefore, the GRSE component of the P-17A production schedule is still an estimate by the MoD and may be subject to revisions in future.
There’s no Agni-4 or Agni-6. After the Agni-5, there’s the SLBM development programme. As for ATGMs, the total number reqd could well be 40,000 (inclusive of the Konkurs-M, Milan-2T, Kornet-E and Javelins), but just 40,000 for the Javelins is far too high. The Javelin deal is long overdue for signature.

Anonymous said...

So in short Project 17a is now going to set a record for delays in shipyard industry history. There's no way two defence PSU can work together. If we would have selected a foreign firm then the problem of transferring the design and tech would be upto that particular shipyard but now MDL will be transfering the design, there will lot of boasting by MDL and they will try to undermine GRSE every-time they get chance. Also problem is there's no one take care of these untamed shipyards and instead in the name of indegenization we encourage them. I just hope by 2025 all are launched before that its highly unlikely.

Also i heard Maetri SAM is still on table. When are we officially signing the deal because as per MBDA they are way ahead in the development of SAM the only problem is official signing of the deal.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Anon^^^: The record in terms of delays was set by the three Project 16A FFGs built by GRSE and the three Project 17 FFGs, each of which took about nine years to be built. The situation is slightly better for the three Project 15A DDGs and will hopefully improve for the four Project 15B DDGs as well.
As for the Maitri SR-SAM, I really don't understand its rationale and need. If the idea is to develop a SR-SAM using indigenous R & D talent and smart strategic partnerships with foreign OEMs, then the best thing to have done was to develop a variant of the Astra BVRAAM as a SR-SAM. Why the need to design and develop a new airframe, flight guidance system and propulsion system in the form of a totally new SR-SAM? It's just a wasteful effort to re-invent the wheel.

Pawan said...

Dear Prasun ji
As you mentioned that MoD may have to go with follow on order of scorpene so it would pertinent to raise the query that is there any chances that these follow on scorpenes are equipped with MESMA AIP system ?

Secondly as India's SSBN program is very slow, is it possible that instead of diverting resources to SSN/SSGN the SSK equipped with AIP be used to provide escort to SSBN because these SSBN are not going far from Indian coast while on deterrence dive at least in next 10 to 15 years. In this way we can build required SSBN at earliest.

Anonymous said...

1.What is the current process of sencond line submarine/ deadline to start.

2.Which country has possibility to get signed

F said...

Prasun,

The Shavalik class, like many other IN class of vessels, will be fitted with RBU rocket launchers for ASW. As the RBU, like the Bofors ELMA or 375mm launcher, is meant for close range ASW work, is there still a need for such a launcher, given that the Shavalit will be equipped with torpedos and helicopters.

Anurag said...

@Prasun Da,
Thanks for this great piece of article.
But don't you think that IN should have gone for the 120 km version(IAF version)of Barak 2??
Besides,the P 17A will be 148 meter or so in length,so shouldn't IN use 16 Brahmos missiles instead of just 8??I mean there will be plenty of space left especially when the crew will be reduced to just 110!!
The Shivalik class frigates use light weight torpedoes.Shouldn't the IN use Varunastra or the yet unnamed thermal heavy torpedoes on these P 17A??Afterall these are very big warships for a frigate.
And lastly,is there any chance of a customised naval variant of Sword Fish LRTR
being used aboadrd the P 15A Kolkata class DDGs??IN is the biggest enthusiast of indigenigation,can't understand how did they miss this one.
Please try to reply.
Thanks.

Anonymous said...

actually what is the reason for the retards at MDL to only run at one shift? is there any rationale i.e. local government requirements on noise levels etc??

Shree said...

Sir,
I completely agree with what you pointed out regarding the certifications of our ventures.
*But I dont know if it will be easy to convert MRTA,Which will be used to transport cargo and personnel ,and also has diameter same as C130 but less in length.
Also RTA will be used to as a Point A 2 B vehicle and will need its hull to be less in diameter and more width to fit 90 persons.

Give me one example where what you say has been done?????????
Even if it is done it wont be Indigenous

*It is also true that a lot needs to be done in terms of selecting a partner to help us but it is absolutely necessary to do all that and there cannot be a shortcut.

U Yourself said that South Korea and Taiwan formed JV with US, Japan to make world-class export revenue-generating products and I bet it all was not easy...
we are a lot late but ..Better Now Than Never...

*And We know we messed up with Saras but it was our first such project and I am sure NAL has learned a great deal from it and will follow better procedures hereon.
Saying NAL should not pursue such project because of one very first not very successful attempt is like saying India should host Olympics because of CWG.

*And regarding market demand of RTA.
Remember ..the size of our market now and in future and also that... Indian Air Transport has no where reached its full potential so demand for such aircraft only from domestic airlines to connect only domestic Tier2&3 cities will be more than enough to make it profitable venture...
As for the competitiveness of such product ... come ooon it will be Indian ... look at the chinese and russians their national and domestic carriers will place orders in their aircraft anyway.... I am sure it will be the same for us...

*Just think and hope if RTA is successful what other ventures it will lead to..... and if we wont pursue this now then you can add one more to your list in article of lost opportunities......

Lastly I realize that a lot of it will be very hard and there are a lot of 'Ifs' involved and everyone of your questions should be given serious thought but this is one project which is as important as developing our own AESA and Kaveri Jet engine ... RTA should go forward....

Lets all cross our fingers and hope for the best...

Anonymous said...

Hi Prasun,

I hope you read this article:

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/MJ25Df02.html

...this explains exactly the situation about which we had a discussion about before, wrt Pak, India and CAS republics. At the time i said you indians see pak through your eyes...that is not how we work/think. That at the end we will prevail no matter what and never allow india any leeway in CA without kashmir...well its becoming clear....and USA has found out who the daddy is.

Remember the word of Karazi few days ago.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Pawan: If the option is exercised for an additional four Scorpene SSKs, then they will most definitely be equipped with MESMA AIP systems. As for providing AIP-powered SSK escorts for SSBNs, this won’t be possible since the SSBN will be able to attain depths that will be well beyond the hull-crush depth tolerances of the SSKs. Therefore, SSGNs must go hand in hand with SSBNs.

To Anon@3.40AM: The latest is that responses to the RFIs for project 75I have been received, but no RFPs have been issued as yet. And let us not underestimate the financial scope and complexity of setting up a second SSK production line, for India already has a SSK production line at MDL, and a SSBN production line at L & T’s Hazira facility, and an upcoming SSGN facility. In addition, the way the global economic scene is unfolding at the moment, it is estimated that by 2013 India could well be at the receiving end of a cash-crunch of the type last witnessed in 1990.

To FARIS: It is the defence-in-depth concept. At the farthest level one has submerged SSKs or SSGNs acting as hunter-killer scouts for a carrier-based battle group. Then come dunking sonar-equipped shipborne helicopters armed with lightweight torpedoes. The third layer is the warship equipped with towed-array active-passive sonar. Despite all this, if a hostile submarine succeeds in approaching a battle group and launches its wire-guided torpedoes, only then are the RBUs activated as a last-ditch point-defence. The RBUs are not primarily meant to be used against submerged submarines (since present-day wire-guided heavyweight torpedoes can be launched up to 20km away from the targets), but rather as a destructive weapon aimed at either throwing the torpedoes off course in their terminal stage, or physically ripping off the guidance-wires of the torpedo. Essentially, the RBU is like a shipborne APS.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Anurag: For FFGs, a 70km-range MR-SAM will more than suffice, since the LR-SAM will be on the DDG and in times of war warships always operate as either part of carrier-based battle groups or task forces in which both the FFG and DDG will find place. Maintaining eight BrahMos MRCMs instead of 12 or 16 will require minimal structural changes to the FFG’s superstructure and buoyancy levels, which is necessary to avoid delays in the FFG’s construction schedule. The idea behind greater utilisation of automation and composites-built structures is to contribute towards weight reduction of the warship. All those torpedoes you’ve mentioned will be used once they’re operationally certified for usage. The Swordfish LRTR will be too big for a FFG and consequently, the existing EL/M-2282 AD-STAR will be more than adequate. Don’t forget that the EL/M-2248 MF-STAR is already a formidable multifunction radar.

To Anon@6.47PM: That question will best be answered by the govt-affiliated trade unions. Unlike China where a FFG is launched once every 14 months concurrently from two separate shipyards, in India’s MoD-owned shipyards, the work cultural and work ethics are altogether different. Maybe that’s really why the MoD is reluctant to encourage private shipyards to enter the fray in a big way, as the latter will enforce three-shift work schedules and will therefore be much more productive than the MoD-owned shipyards. It’s like comparing TATA and RELIANCE with BSNL and MNTL.

Anurag said...

@Prasun Da,
Thanks for replying buddy.Can you Please give some info about the bulletproof Patkas worn by IA soldiers and how do they fare with other combat helmets used acrossed the world????
PLEASE try to reply,I really need to know.

Thanks.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Anon@8.09PM: The tone of your comment would seem to suggest that you’re either a Pakistani or an India baiter. Either way, it doesn’t affect me in any way. But pray allow me to make a few observations about the news analysis you’ve highlighted from ASIA TIMES. Firstly, with regard to your assertion that “we will prevail no matter what”, the analysis says that “ Pakistan and the US were 90% to 95% on the same page"……She shared the general's optimism. "I think that our cooperative relationships between our military, between our intelligence agencies, are back on an upward trajectory."…. The residual issues pertain to the "operational" parts.------what the analysis doesn’t explain is what brought whom on the same page. Did the US back off or was it Pakistan that did so, especially after Beijing’s refusal to act as Pakistan’s lifetime financial guarantor. The analysis also talks about “the US leaves it to Pakistan to work out the particulars of squeezing the Haqqanis". Does this mean that Islamabad has been forced to squeeze the Haqqanis? If so, then how and by whom? And why does Pakistan now have a change of heart with regard to its past agenda of dominating its weaker, smaller neighbour that has shown the temerity or tenacity--depending on one's point of view--to refuse to accept the Durand Line, which makes Pakistan's 2,500km border and the attendant unresolved Pashtun nationality question existential themes for Pakistan's integrity as a sovereign state? Remember the visit of Karzai to Delhi a few days ago and what transpired there? As for Kashmir, surely you ought to know by now that the issue of J & K was resolved by 2007 between India & Pakistan and all that now remains to be done is to ratify this into a formal agreement. Gen (ret’d) Musharraf himself has spelt this out on record several times before. Why else do you think the Pakistan Army is maintaining less than 3,500 soldiers all along the LoC now? And why since 2009 have scores of so-called indigenous Kashmiri Mujahideen been located, tracked and eliminated with such ease by Indian security forces throughout J & K? Has the ISI been covertly cooperating with its Indian counterpart by deliberately sending the sheep to the wolf’s den? And why did GHQ in Rawalpindi take a pro-active stance 48 hours ago in not only releasing but also refuelling the Indian Army SA.315B Lama LUH that had intruded into Pakistani airspace? Ws it meant to create the kind of atmospherics that will lead to Pakistan COAS Gen Kayani being invited to India for a forthcoming official visit, during which he would probably state that it was the Pakistan Army under Gen Musharraf that had taken the lead (instead of Pakistan’s civilian politicians) in thrashing out a mutually acceptable solution to the Kashmir issue, thereby giving credit to the Pakistan Army—and not its civilian political elite—for establishing longlasting peace between the two South Asian neighbours? If that’s indeed the case, as most discerning Indians believe it to be, then it would appear that things appearing on newspapers or broadcast channels are not often reflective of the actual behind-the-scene ground realities.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Anurag: Already answered that yesterday in the previous thread, with additional inputs coming from Mr.RA 13.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Anon@8.09PM: Should you really wish to know what the ground realities are, then I humbly suggest that you read this: http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/india-today-editorial-director-m-j-akbar-on-hamid-karzai-pakistan-twin-brother-india-ahmedinejad/1/154907.html

Anurag said...

OOPZZ....Z,very Sorry.I didn't take a look at that.
Many many Thanks to both you and Mr Ra.13

By the way,I just wanted to know is this patka world class or not.
THANKS.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Anurag: World-class? It is 28 levels above world-class, which is COSMIC MAGIC-class. Every foreign Army contingent that has taken part in counter-insurgency/jungle warfare exercises with the Indian Army and paramilitary forces since the 1990s has bought these Patkas. It has been supplied in very large numbers to the Central Asian Republics as 'non-lethal' military aid.

Mr. Ra 13 said...

Thanx! and wow I only thought that these Patakas are sufficient and competitive but never thought that they are so much world class.

Mr. Ra 13 said...

Regarding brother and friend theory of Karzai, it may be pertinent to understand that all of their kings have ascended to the thrones only by back stabbing their brothers. Hope it suffices.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Mr.RA 13: Extremely pertinent point you've made. And yet, despite strenuous objections from Kabul, Islamabad has chosen to accord names like Ghauri, Ghaznavi & Abdali for its ballistic missiles. Wonder what that portends for the future!

Mr. Ra 13 said...

The ominous portends may be the hasty retreat of their few remnants through the same tracks, on which they earlier advanced for many hundreds of years.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Mr.RA 13: "Thanx! and wow I only thought that these Patakas are sufficient and competitive but never thought that they are so much world class."
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's right, and as you wrote yesterday, these Patkas have given many a 'Jhatka' to those who have since welcomed their usage with open arms.

soumyadip said...

sir...

although i have no proof to oppose your claims regarding kashmir settlement issue between india and pakistan but don't you think the reasons you have put forward might carry other implications....for example
only 3500 pak troop near border maybe due to the fact that americans have amassed
its troops along af-pak border
so pakistan had to relocate and pak knows indias reluctance in crossing loc even during war time so why bothering deploying them when there is no conflict.
secondly if there was a settlement regarding kashmir in 2007 then why 26-11 happend regarding which india claims to have enough evidence regarding pak/isi involvement.
regarding improved security situations...is it really hard to believe that our security agencies too might have improved over the time.
and the most important thing is....do you think china will ever allow such settlement.

due to utter lack of knowledge regarding Geo-political situation my queries might sound infantile but still i would appreciate if you clear these doubts.Thanks...

Anurag said...

Thanks Prasun da and Ra.I was so exited because the Patkas seemed to be a bit odd to me.But when I checked the links I was surprised-It stops 7.62*39mm AK rounds from 10 M and 7.62*51mm NATO rounds from 30 M!!That's just awesome.It seems that in 5 years or so India will rule the world in armour tech-both body armor and vehicle armor.

Anonymous said...

^^^
Yeah its good against AK rounds and thats what let its entry in the armed forces among others like its good for Sikh soldiers, its light weight.

Whats progress on IA's VSHORAD deal ?

Any other deal other than MMRCA gonna be signed this year like M777 or LUH or attack chopper etc. ?

According to wiki :
BrahMos II land variant design has been completed and 4 Land to Land test variants are ready to be tested. Rest of the variants will be tested in the successive years of 2012-13, design is projected to be completed by October 2011.
Is this true ?

Anonymous said...

Dear prasun,

1. "And why since 2009 have scores of so-called indigenous Kashmiri Mujahideen been located, tracked and eliminated with such ease by Indian security forces throughout J & K?" -- i think this statement is not justified, in the sense that no "scores" have been eliminated. And infiltration as well as cross-border firing still takes place from the Pakistani side regularly.

2. About the Patkas and your comment at 3:01 AM above, is what you said true (serious) or out of sarcasm (a joke) -- because those Patkas really look like a joke anyway....

Thanks!

F said...

Prasun,

A couple of questions on the IAFs Su-30MKIs.

1. How long did it take for the first Su-30MKI squadron to reach OIC?

2. After achieving OIC how long was it before the first exercise with a foreign nation involving Su-30MKis took place?

Thanks for your explanation on the RBU's. If I'm not mistaken the only Western navy that still relies on ASW rockets is the Swedish Navy with its ELMAs. Most if not all other navies have gone for a strictly helicopter/ship launched torpedo solution. The RMNs Kasturi class are getting their Bofors 375mm rockets replaced with torpedo tubes.

Would you not agree that torpedoes deployed from a stand-off platform, like the SILEX on the Udaloy and the now retired Australian Ikara, used in conjunction with helicopters, still have a useful role to play?

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Soumyadip: The thinning of Pakistan Army forces along the LoC has been underway since 2009. You can read more about it at: http://trishul-trident.blogspot.com/2011/06/has-china-pakistan-combine-checkmated.html

To Anon@2.15PM: I was dead-serious about the Patkas. There was no element of sarcasm.

Anonymous said...

Pak has bigger issues to deal with than an old IA helicopter that came across...though the reaction in indian press has been rather interesting.

The brotherhood has slight different meaning in the muslim world...want to see influence and its impact....look at the names of the organisations:

http://centralasiaonline.com/en_GB/articles/caii/features/main/2011/10/21/feature-01

This is the future...and if you look closely you will see they are sunni (hanifi to be exact).

The days of Mushraff are long gone and Kayani is very aware of the army/ average mans sentiments in pak wrt Kashmir...as usuall things always look betetr afterwards. Don't you guys wish you had taken advantage of the peace off then ratherthan playing games?

Anonymous said...

^^^
I think this is whole bullshit. We should have taken control of the whole Kashmir in 1971. If we would have done that we might be in better situation because there's no way Pakistan could have taken it back. And there would have been no dispute as we already would have solved the whole issue.

Anonymous said...

Hi Prasun,

Russia loses $600 mln Indian attack helicopter tender

http://en.ria.ru/world/20111025/168096811.html

Whats your take on this news?

Shree said...

Hey Man Waiting for your reply to my comment posted at
October 24, 2011 7:51 PM

Indian said...

Hello sir! Do you have any information of launch of Indian aircraft carrier INS Vkrant ? please tell about this much awaiting project
because according AK Antony it will launch in December...............

Shree said...

What do you think about this article???????////

http://the-diplomat.com/2011/10/20/china%e2%80%99s-overhyped-submarine-threat/

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To FARIS: IOC for the Su-30MKIs is reached typically within a two-year timeframe, depending on the annual delivery schedules for the aircraft. FOC takes about five years, since the delivery of flight simulators and part-task trainers got underway in only late 2008. The first exercises with foreign air forces took place around 2006 or 2007, after the first Su-30MKI Sqn achieved FOC. As for helicopter-launched or even warship-launched lightweight torpedoes or even heavy torpedoes being used for last-ditch defence against hostile submarines, it all boils down to acquiring precise data on the location of such submarines with the help of dunking sonars. Without such shipborne helicopters a modern warship is pretty much a dead-duck, unless the warship is equipped with APS-type RBUs, or soft-kill weapon systems (SKWS) like the DCNS/Terma 130mm CANTO-V anti-torpedo decoy, WASS of Italy’s C-310 anti-torpedo countermeasures system, DCNS’ CONTRALTO-V decoy system, and most i8nterestingly, RAFAEL Advanced Defense Systems Ltd’s Torbuster (see: http://www.rafael.co.il/marketing/SIP_STORAGE/FILES/7/997.pdf), which is in service with the Indian Navy. Atlas Elektronik of Germany too has developed such a hard-kill solution, called the SeaSpider (see: http://articles.janes.com/articles/Janes-Missiles-And-Rockets-2005/Rocket-launched-hard-kill-defence-proposed-against-torpedo-attack.html). Also, check these out:

http://www.wass.it/WASSWEB/brochure/C310.pdf

http://www.terma.com/multimedia/SKWS_022007.pdf

http://www.ultra-os.com/images/pdf/subscut.pdf

http://www.ultra-os.com/images/pdf/lescut.pdf

http://www.ultra-os.com/acoustic.php#Anchor-ADCMK34

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Anon@7.11PM: The average man in Pakistan cares bollocks about Kashmir or Afghanistan and is instead more concerned about his/her daily survival which itself, in the absence of electricity and given the multitude of natural disasters since 2005, is in doubt.

To Anon@9.38PM: This was expected, as will be the case with the CH-47F Chinook as well, as the Mi-26T’s direct operating costs are too high, and require at least 100 man-hours of maintenance per flying hour. In contrast, the Chinook requires only about 20 man-hours, while the AW-101 needs about 35 man-hours.

To Shree: I still stick to my earlier statement about a civilian airliner variant of the MRTA being developed within a much shorter timeframe and with far lesser risks. Afterall, the MRTA will be a STOL aircraft (as opposed to the RTA-90 which will require longer runways) and can therefore operate from a far greater number of airfields in Tier-2/3 cities/townships than the RTA-90 will be able to. One cannot change the laws of physics, and therefore the RTA-90 will be able to match the MRTA’s undisputed STOL performance ONLY IF it comes with a high-wing and T-tail configuration. But since this will not be the case (going by NAL’s illustration of the RTA-90), it virtually rules out the RTA-90 being able to operate from the shorter runways existing in Tier-2/3 cities.

To Indian@10.46PM: What more is there to say about INS Vikrant (Indigenous Aircraft Carrier)? Almost everything is already out in the open domain, unless you have any specific queries.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Shree: While the analysis is spot-on regarding the PLA Navy’s nuclear submarine force-levels, it fails to take into account the latest advances in the PLA Navy’s conventional SSK force modernisation efforts and related space-based overhead recce satellites. For instance, the new Qing-class SSK that is now undergoing sea trials and which is also to be supplied to Pakistan, has a fuel cell-based AIP system. In addition, this SSK will also be carrying CJ-10K multi-role cruise missiles (for anti-ship strike and land-attack). In addition, China is also deploying new space-based assets like synthetic aperture radar-equipped ocean surveillance satellites, while expanding its Beidou constellation of GPS navigation satellites. Therefore, on the whole, the PLA Navy is not only steadily adding capacities and capabilities, but is also enhancing its maritime situation awareness domain. However, in terms of deployment patterns, the PLA Navy’s principal orientation will be the South China Sea and Western Pacific, where both the US Navy and Japan’s MSDF will retain their predominant status. As far as nuclear-powered submarines go, the PLA Navy’s future SSBNs WILL NOT be able to attain sophistication greater than the Soviet-era Project 667BDR/Delta-III SSBN and Project 671RTM Shchuka/Vistor-III SSNs.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Shree: read this: http://www.china-defense-mashup.com/2350-or-3500-how-many-nukes-warheads-does-china-have.html

Mr. Ra 13 said...

China can be suspected to have slightly more then 2000 nukes warheads. It is springing to become another superpower.

Anonymous said...

Whats progress on IA's VSHORAD deal ?

Any other deal other than MMRCA gonna be signed this year like M777 or LUH or attack chopper etc. ?

According to wiki :
BrahMos II land variant design has been completed and 4 Land to Land test variants are ready to be tested. Rest of the variants will be tested in the successive years of 2012-13, design is projected to be completed by October 2011.
Is this true ?

Unofficially how many nucleear warhead do we have ?

Anonymous said...

As you have shared your opinion on Chinook helicopters, what about KA-226 v/s AS-550, both of which are in fray for another tender.

Anurag said...

@Prasun da,Happy diwaly.
Can you please throw some info if any of the ordnance factories are producing bunker buster bombs or not??And why do they only produce 1000 lb bombs instead of 2000 lb bombs??
Is there any plan to develop censor fused anti armor/personel claster munitions for bombers,MBRLs,howitzers and Prahar missiles??
Thanks.

spanky's Blog said...

Happy Diwali Sir!!!! Keep ur blog flowing

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

Wishing a joyous Deepavali to you all and your loved ones. Have fun!

Shree said...

What do you make of the New US assessment that chini have 5000Kms of underground tunnel network for ballistic missiles......
is there any substance to this or another tactic by US defences?????

And do we have any plans to deploy synthetic aperture radar-equipped satellites to the IRNSS
What will be the timeline to place all the satellites to orbit?????

Anurag said...

@Prasun da,
Some days ago I found a TOI article by some Mr Burney stating that ARDE had developed a 100 km range ER PGM glider kit with INS-GPS guidence and a bunker buster bomb that could penetrate several meters of reinforced concrete.Can you please throw some info about those projects??

Thanks.

Pawan said...

Very Very happy & prosperous Diwali Sir

Shree said...

One of the most stupid article I read ...

http://www.rediff.com/news/report/india-china-relations-are-very-complex-and-very-sensitive/20111005.htm

Do you agree that India should take crap from chini and not object even preach Indian media not to go on chini bashing just cas they are growing economically ... as the article suggests

Anurag said...

@Prasun da,
few days ago I saw a 2005 ToI article stating that ARDE had developed a prototype of 100 km range ER PGM glider kit with retractable fins and INS-GPS guidence,can you please throw some info about it??
Thanks.

Mr. Ra 13 said...

Thanx! And happy Diwali to all with retrospective effect...

Mr. Ra 13 said...

China is a rising nazi superpower in our neighborhood. It is a bad omen, that's all. India-China relations are neither very complex and nor very sensitive. In an open market economy how much relations and sensitivity would you like to have with your neighbor who has occupied half of your lawn unlawfully and who incidentally has opened a shop to sell cheap unhealthy toffee to the children of the global open market.

http://www.rediff.com/news/report/india-china-relations-are-very-complex-and-very-sensitive/20111005.htm

The above article appears to be a veiled guideline from CPC issued against whole India, only because so far CPC had not been successful in creating the internal contradictions among the Indian bourgeoisie to further its own interests.

Stef said...

Happy Devili Gents:

I have a question for Prasun.

I came accross an article about Peak 5353. Below is a brief extract. What is your take on this?


PAKISTAN soldiers atop Peak 5353 metres on the strategic Marpo La ridge would have had a grandstand view of Vijay Diwas celebrations, marking the official end of the Kargil war. At least some of them must have had wry smiles on their faces watching the J uly 26 spectacle. For although Peak 5353 metres is well inside the Indian side of the Line of Control (LoC), Pakistani troops held the mountain through the Kargil war - and continue to do so today. From the peak, observers on Peak 5353 can direct accurat e artillery fire on to up to 20 km of National Highway 1A, and cripple Indian defensive positions from Mushkoh to Bhimbet.

Stef said...

This article talks about the situation in quite clear detail wrt Pt. 5353

http://www.hindu.com/fline/fl1720/17200340.htm

Anonymous said...

Prasun and fellow blogger:

In the age of smart bombs and other precision munitions, how relevant is the fear that if the enemy holds the higer ground have an enormous advantage. Yes there are advantages but at the same time there are several disadvantages as well. One is, your position is known and one have limited choises in making tactical manoevers. Any adversary with WLR radar, guided artillery, precision bombing will take away those apparent advantages. India during Kargil had a limited choises on all three of the above.

On a related note, what was the intension of those so called intruders? Unless you have some some grand plan such intrusion seems fruitless. What was the biggers picture?

Thanks.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Shree: The US assessment is spot-on and it has photographic evidence to prove it, especially after such evidence was gathered in the aftermath of the Sichuan earthquake in early 2008. The Pakistani nuclear weapons storage facilities in the Northern Areas are exact replicas of those existing in Sichuan. And this is precisely the reason why Pakistan will never give up the Northern Areas even if the UN Security Council resolution on J & K (calling for Pakistani military forces to withdraw from all of its part of J & K) callinjg for a plebiscite were to be implemented today. The present-day civilian/military establishments of Pakistan are acutely aware of this and have come to the conclusion that the only viable alternative therefore remains the formalisation of the LoC into the international legal boundary. While India finds this politically acceptable, Pakistani political circles are finding it impossible to sell this idea to their citizens (because for years of brainwashing of these citizens by both the Army and politicians). A border settlement on these very lines was agreed upon between the two countries when Musharraf was in power, but could not be formalized due to the subsequent internal turmoil inside Pakistan. As far as SAR-equipped satellites go, the RISAT family of satellites will be deployed in future.

To Anurag: There was a project initiated by the ARDE to this effect in 2007, with IMI and RAFAEL of Israel also taking part as R & D stakeholders. While ARDE has designed the glide kit, RAFAEL helped with designing a solid-fuel rocket sustainer motor to be mounted at the rear of the 1,000lb PGM, with IMI coming in with its expertise in bunker-bursting penetrator warhead technologies. The INS/GPS guidance is indigenous (the same as that for the Prahaar) and makes use of fibre-optic gyro integrated with a GLONSASS-K GPS receiver. This type of ER-PGM is typically employed for targetting and destroying static hardened structures like the storage silos for nuclear weapons.

To Shree: After reading the article and also watching various programmes on the LAC situation brought out by various Indian broadcast news channels over the past 3 years, all I can say is that the Indian news media has never made any attempt to demonise the PRC. Instead, such news reportage has always and rightly berated the Govt of India for not fast-tracking the development of India’s border transportation/utilities infrastructure. IMHO the only way the Govt of India can give a positive spin is by fast-tracking the development of border infrastructure and then giving the Indian news media agencies a first-hand account of all such activities. But can the Govt of India do all this? I think not, since very very little is there to be shown. Just imagine how pathetic the situation can be when even states like Arunachal Pradesh & Sikkim till this day don’t have their own airports in either Itanagar or Gangtok. Therefore, let us stay objective and not be envious of our northern neighbour, but instead focus our resources and resolve to improve our own backyard, and then showcase such advancements for the whole world to see.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Stef@1.14AM: That account is absolutely true, and during OP Vijay the armed service chiefs did press the then NDA-led Govt of India to undertake a reverse Kargil in order to straighten out the LoC by going into Azad Kashmir or the Northern Areas by as much as 15km in depth. The armed services had even given guarantees that this could be achieved within a 90-day timeframe. But, as has always been the case post-independence, it was the Govt of India that chickened out and decreed that the LoC must not be crossed. The question which then arises is this: why should the LoC remain sacrocant when India first breached it in 1984 with OP Meghdoot by occupying peaks and ridgelines astride the Siachen Glacier (which was a huge mistake and instead the effort should have been made to occupy Dansum, 16,000 feet ASL where the Pakistan Army’s Siachen Brigade is now stationed), and when the Indian Parliament had already passed an unanimous resolution earlier calling for re-unifying J & K with POK and Northeren Areas? In my view, therefore, just as Jawaharlal Nehru had screwed up in 1948, A B Vajpayee screwed up in equal measure in 1999. India had the perfect excuse and alibi to do a reverse Kargil, and yet in a fit of fickle-mindedness, she chose not to!

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Anon@3.05AM: In high-altitude mountain warfare, an enemy holding the higher ground has an enormous advantage ONLY AS LONG AS his supply lines and rear-area logistics facilities are left intact. That’s why, as I’ve explained above, had a reverse Kargil-type operation throughout the LoC been authorised by the then Govt of India, then the results would have been totally different in terms of what India could have achieved and acquired, while keeping casualty figures at a much lower level. Instead of launching combined infantry/airpower operations in a hurry from May 25, adequate time should have been accorded to both the Army and IAF to get prepared and develop an appreciation of the enemy’s rear-area logistics capacities, and only after all this full-scale offensive military operations should have commenced by all along the LoC by the second week of June 1999, with a clear mandate to cross the LoC and straighten it out to India’s advantage by going in as deep as 15km. As this was classified by both belligerents as a border conflict with limited objectives, time would have been on India’s side as there would not be any howling calls for a hasty ceasefire from the international community.
WLR-type devices will have little or no impact on such high-altitude battlefields. India tried it out subsequently with the TPQ-37 Firefinder and also evaluated the Ericsson Arthur WLR, and both failed miserably. At those high-altitudes, a 155mm round fired by a 39-cal FH-77B goes out as far as 41km, while in the plains it would be able to reach only 32km. Therefore, the smart thing to do is avoid murderous and suicidal assaults in the forbidding heights, and instead focus on getting around and behind the enemy to cut off all supplies of fuel, ammo and food. As Napoleon had once famously remarked: an army always marches on its stomach. Therefore, target the stomach (as the Russians did both in the 19th and 20th centuries against the French and Nazis) and the enemy will crumble. And the best way to get around the enemy is through vertical envelopment using air-assault utility helicopters, attack helicopters and tactical transport aircraft like the C-130J-30 Super Hercules.
Regarding the intention behind such intrusions in 1999, while the Indian side claims that the idea was to pose an existential threat to Indian forces deployed for defending the Siachen area, the Pakistani side claims that the intention was to pre-empt a possible Indian invasion across the LoC which aimed to capture prominent features like the Haji Pir Pass and the Bugina Bulge. It seems the Pakistan Army’s fears about an Indian pre-emptive strike across the LoC stemmed from the heavy artillery fire-assaults launched by India since 1997 against the Neelam Valley inside the Northern Areas (the order for which was given by then Indian PM I K Gujral), selective and detailed destruction of some Pakistan Army company HQs along the LoC by the Indian Army, and lastly the heightened pace of field evaluations by the Indian Army (in eastern Ladakh) of new-generation weapons like the Krasnopol-M and shoulder-launched bunker-bursting LAWs. It seems a collection of all these made the Pakistan Army press the panic button and in order to not repeat the defeat suffered at the hands of India in 1984 via OP Meghdoot, the Pakistan Army this time decided to seize the initiative and forestall India’s invasion plans.

Anonymous said...

i am not privy to the defence details, but i beg to differ on your point that LOC could have been breached. At a time when we were caught sleeping for 2 or more months on the kargil invasion, it would have been rather foolish to beleive the guarantees of the generals that in 90 day time frame we would have been able to carve out some areas across LOC. we got back the areas under enemy occupation was the best face saving, and it was more of a diplomatic war. how can you discount that if we breach LOC pakistan wont make it a full fledged war with a nuke threat and china would have been happy to grab the opportunity. this time neither russia nor the US could have been with us. The following op Parakram showed the chinks in our armour, defenitely it would have been disastrous to make it full fledged war given the political instability of our country in those times. Gen Mushraff had boasted that he knew the precise weakness of our strike corps and deployment incapabilities, that he had accounted these weakness in the invasion. in my uninformed view as usal Paksitan had a brilliant plan, but as usual they failed in the execusion plan and plan B and C.

India tried to be a good boy in the international books (for what god knows?). even op meghdoot had the excuse that this was a cartographical excuse and undemarcated area. having poor agressive intelligence (disabled by IK Gujral, as i read in a report) it would have been counter productive to attack mainland or even POK of pakistan.

May be at op Parakram we had a better chance since we had a preparation but it kept for an unbeleivable 10months just like in napoleanic wars, giving enough time for enemy to counter such strategy.

Anurag said...

@Prasun da,
Thanks for replying buddy.So,what's the status of the ER PGM and bunker buster project??Is it still on??Any possible date of induction??And is there any under ground storage bunkers for nuclear warheads and ballistic missiles in India??
Please reply.
Thanks.

Anonymous said...

Sir,
Could you explain the differences among the Radar bands
C , X , L , S ...

AMARDEEP said...

hello sir,

what is the weapon and sensor suite for project 17a FFg??






thanks

ksk said...

Recently Tata Power SED won a contract to develop and supply two EW systems..
It beat Elta systems to secure the contract...
Could you tell more about he project and is it advanced or something everyone already has???

SherKhan said...

As Prasun has rightly said, PA needed to show Indian leadership that the were more than happy to battle IA and would not take things lying down. This objective was achieved. Think about it, less then 2k PA men tied down over 60K IA men.

PA second aim was that in case IA affected PA supply route in neelem valley area PA could do the same in Drass/Kargil area. This aim was also met with point 5353 becoming a permanent forward point.

PA operation was well planned and executed. They were fully prepared for an all out war. The international politics got in the way and they had to return back to the LoC [exception being Point 5353]. However from PA point of view the operation achieved 2/3 objectives.

In the mountains, being on the higher ground cannot just be negated by technoloy, just look at the USA ops in Afghanistan.

Anurag said...

@Prasun da,
Can you throw some info about the Tempest jammer??How does it fare with other systems like Elta EL/M 8222??
Few years ago,DRDO had stated that they had developed a Radar Warner Jammer(RWJ) that could locate and jam multiple hostile emitters-Any info about that project??Is it operational??

Thanks.

Anonymous said...

Hi PKS, what's happening to the HAL Khatara (Sitara)? Has it met the same fate as its test pilot or is it undergoing "improvement"? Thx and Deepavali vaazhthu!

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Anon@8.11AM: In reality, Pakistan was least prepared for an all-out war in mid-1999 and details of the LoC incursion plans were not shared with even the entire leadership of the Pakistan Army, and least of all the Pakistan Navy & Air Force. The country’s POL stocks were running low and would have lasted only seven days! One can read more about all this at: http://kaiser-aeronaut.blogspot.com/2009_01_01_archive.html
As for nuclear sabre-rattling, the Pakistani nuclear arsenal was not operational until 2001, as admitted subsequently by Gen Musharraf in his autobiography.

To Anurag: The ER-PGM is still under development and will be inducted into service before 2014.

To Anon@11.49AM: That’s why you have Wikipedia.

To AMARDEEP: Have already explained above what will be the changes to the weapons and sensor fit (Barak-2 MR-SAM and BrahMos). The rest will be the same as that on Project 17 FFGs.

To KSK: BROADSWORD was the first to publish details on this project at: http://ajaishukla.blogspot.com/2011/09/defence-ministry-flouts-norms-for-bel.html
&
http://ajaishukla.blogspot.com/2011/07/ministry-of-defence-strikes-blow-for.html
A similar system is already operational with the PLA.

To Anurag: The Tempest EW jammer was developed by DARE for the MiG-21bis & MiG-27Ms. But the MiG-21 Bison and MiG-27UPG use the EL/M-8222. For details on the radar jammers see this: http://trishulgroup.blogspot.com/2009/02/project-samyukta-detailed.html

To Anon@6.34PM: Looks like the HJT-36 IJT project has gone for an extended period of hibernation. Shit happens!

Anurag said...

@Prasun da,
Thanks for replying.
Can you give some info about the Ajanta and Elora EWS??Is it operational onboard any IN warship??How does it fair with other similar systems?
Do you have any info about the Divya Drishti and Varuna EWS??Is there any follow on project after the Samyukta??
Any info about Sangraha??
Is there any project to develop VLF/ULF active sonars?
Lastly,in January this year,during annual address,DRDO chief Dr VK Saraswat had stated that LRDE had mastered GaN t/r modules in the lab level-is there any project to implement them on Sword Fish LRTR or DRDO AWACS by replacing their GaAs t/r modules??
Please try to reply.
Thanks in advance.

Anonymous said...

Can you tell me what exactly is Shaurya?

Is it exclusively nuclear or can be used as conventional weapon?

If its a cruise missile then can it be launched from Ships/SSGNs like tactical Tomahawk?

And if its a maneuverable ballistic missile then is it similar to/can be modified into something like the Chinese anti-ship ballistic missile?

Shree said...

British are selling their Bay Class LSD amphibious ships that are quite new .. is Indian Navy showing any interest in them,as INS Jalaswar seems to be useful also Aussies are quite eager to buy them...
Should India consider buying them or has any other project for similar ships??????

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Anurag: All those queries were answered in various previous threads.

To Anon@11.31PM: Shaurya will be nuclear-armed. It is a manoeuvrable ballistic missile.

To Shree: No, no interest is being shown for those vessels. The Indian Navy wants to customise its LPHs for which new-build vessels are a must.

Anurag said...

@Prasun da,
Earlier you had stated that apart from SFC,IAF would induct a large number of conventionally armed Shaurya missiles-can you give a rough estimation of number of this missile IAF intents to induct??
And how many Brahmos IA is planning to induct??
Thanks.

Anonymous said...

It's anon @October 26, 2011 3:41 PM

It seems, the query was out of your sight. It's the foll query

As you have shared your opinion on Chinook helicopters, what about KA-226 v/s AS-550, both of which are in fray for another tender.

Pawan said...

Prasun Ji

How many AH 64D, do you think india would buy?

Anonymous said...

Prasun, thank you for the detailed explanation. I'm anon @ October 27, 2011 3:05 AM.
I was watching videos of Apache helicopter in Youtube and your arguments of Army having such assets makes so much sense. Helicopter gunship are one way artillery in flight. I think 22 attack helicopters are too few. Although India in near future (hopefully) get weaponized Dhruv and he LAH. What is your take on that quantity?

If India is at war, a very obvious choice of attack for the enemy is to destroy Bombay High (http://www.rediff.com/money/2005/jul/28bspec.htm) by either aerial bombing or a salvo of cruise missile. How is it defended now?
Thanks again.
On a different note on the Frontline issue in the link provided by Stef@October 27, 2011 1:21 AM, there are two interesting articles Michael Witzel,Steve Farmer and Romila Thapar.

Pragmatist said...

"To Anon@6.34PM: Looks like the HJT-36 IJT project has gone for an extended period of hibernation. Shit happens!" _ yes but have you not heard that it is the arseholes that make it happen? The Indian military under their clueless civilian politicians must on some days feel they are the pigeons and on other days feel they are the statues!

Anonymous said...

EU has just gone begging to China for 100billion. Wonder how long before they are selling high tech to China? Things are looking very ominous for India.

Anonymous said...

Look at this baby:

Pakistan on Friday conducted successful test fire of an indigenously developed multi-tube having stealth capabilities Cruise Missile Hatf-VII (Babur). Babur has a target range of 700 kms, said ISPR in a news release here. The missile test was conducted to validate the design parameters of the weapon system and a new Missile Launch Vehicle (MLV). “Babur Cruise Missile is low flying, terrain hugging missile with high maneuverability, pin-point accuracy and radar avoidance features. “It can carry both nuclear and conventional warheads and has stealth capabilities. “It also incorporates the most modern cruise missile technology of Terrain Contour Matching (TERCOM) and Digital Scene Matching and Area Co-relation (DSMAC).”
A special feature of Friday’s launch was the validation of a new multi-tube MLV during the test. The three tube MLV enhances manifold the targeting and deployment options in the conventional and nuclear modes. With its shoot-and-scoot capability, the MLV provides a major force multiplier effect for target employment and survivability.

Anonymous said...

Prasun Sir,

It seems the Dassault folks expect the price difference vis a vis the Eurofighter to be in their favour; Are they being realistic?

http://translate.google.co.in/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.lemonde.fr%2Feconomie%2Farticle%2F2011%2F10%2F28%2Fdassault-et-eurofighter-retenus-par-l-inde-pour-equiper-son-armee-de-l-air_1595384_3234.html

spanky's Blog said...

Hi prasun,
Somehow my last comment got deleted.

Recently GRSE launched the second ship of P-28 ASW corvettes.The MOD release claimed that the ship is 80% indigenous?? Is it really 80% indigenous?? 80% is a pretty tough number to believe...

Also the MOD release claimed the the the engine for the P-28 is indigenous..IS it true???

Can you kindly tell us how does P-28 ships fare wrt to other world class ships?

Thanks

Anonymous said...

Look this guys...

http://bharat-rakshak.com/NEWS/newsrf.php?newsid=16307

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Anurag: Yes, the IAF did make a request for procuring about 300 conventionally armed Shauryas while the Indian Army had requested for up to 600 BrahMosBlock-2/3s for its proposed new mountain-based artillery division. But the crossover points with regard to tactical targetting priorities have not yet been resolved.

To Anon@10.04AM: Eurocopter’s AS.550C3 LUH is the frontrunner. And the height of stupidity is the MoD’s decision to authorize HAL to develop a brand-new single-engined LUH derived from the twin-engined Dhruv ALH. The logical way ahead should have been to authorise HAL to develop the indigenous LUH while at the same time subjecting the existing SA.315B Lama/Cheetah helicopters to a deep upgrade and modifying them into the Cheetal configuration. Procuring one LUH type from abroad and at the same time developing a home-grown LUH will only increase the AAC’s cost of operations, stretch its logistics and product-support capabilities, and introduce needless duplication in terms of the LIH fleet inventory. How much more stupid can one get????

To Pawan: The total reqmt is for about 60 dedicated attack helicopters. But even if one buys all this, it will be of no practical use since these will be operated by the IAF and will not come under the Army’s integrated ORBAT. Attack helicopters need to always operate in tandem with the Army’s LUHs and armoured/mechanised formations at all levels of command, something which is not possible now as such helicopters are the IAF’s assets and therefore the attack helicopter squadrons follow the IAF’s protocols on basing, deployment pattern and training schedules. Presently, attack helicopters are used for training purposes during exercises that are staged only twice every year (in summertime and during winter), which is clearly not enough to make the attack helicopter to function as the Army’s integrated warfighting assets.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Anon@11.59AM: As I had explained previously, the AAC’s concept, articulated as far back as 1986, had called for an attack helicopter fleet of 120, comprising 80 helicopter gunships like the Dhruv Mk4/Rudra, 40 dedicated attack helicopters, plus about 80 armed LUHs functioning as aeroscouts, in other words, something very similar to the French Army’s ALAT, which proved its capabikities in 1991 during OP Desert Storm. The plan was for the AAC to function as an independent combat arm, like field artillery, mechanised infantry, etc. But it was the IAF which, in consort with successive MoD bureaucrats and politicians, thwarted such well-conceived plans. Such subversion continues till this day. As a result, the LCH, which could have been designed and developed properly as an anti-tank helicopter equipped with up to 12 anti-armour missiles like the Spike-ER or HELINA or PARS-3LR, is today nothing but a trunciated ‘combat’ helicopter supposedly to shoot down inexpensive UAVs!!! Even after such state of affairs, the LCH could have been developed in two versions: one for the IAF to shoot down UAVs(!!!); and the other featuring heavier stub-wings and skids but armed with 12 anti-tabk missiles. But even such a logical compromise solution continues to elude us till this day. As a result, both the Rudra and LCH will be able to carry only four anti-armour guided-missiles, a terrible underutilisation of the weapons launch platform. You see how inter-services politicking is playing havoc with the Army’s operational reqmts?
Regarding the air defence of Bombay High against cruise missile attacks, the only way to defend this site is by basing one FFG and one DDG on picket duty and equipping them with the Barak-2/ELM-2248 MF/STAR combination.

To Pragmatist: I agree with you.

To Anon@3.17PM: And pray look at the three-tube MLV’s design and try comparing it with that for the CJ-10 LACM. The resemblance is obvious.

To Anon@4.05PM: Yes, the price difference will be in Rafale’s favour, but the Eurofighter consortium’s ability to offset the higher costs of procurement through larger and diversified direct/indirect offsets packages is far greater than what Dassault Aviation can offer.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Spanky’s Blog: That figure is pure baloney, to say the least. The corvette is powered by four SEMT-Pielstick 12 PA6 STC diesel engines (whose OEM is Wartsila now), each rated at 3888kW. These engines and their gearboxes are all imported by Kirloskar and only licence-assembled in India. As such corvettes are for coastal ASW patrol and for guarding the approaches to the harbours and ports, their superstructure designs are satisfactory, but not exactly cutting-edge. In fact, the first two vessels are overweight, and the latter two will incorporate a fair bit of composites-built sub-structures, with the composites being procured from Sweden’s Kockums AB.

To Anon@11.11PM: That’s real Indian innovation at work! Regretably the likes of M M Pallam Raju will only give envious looks to such innovators and force them to remain as sub-contractors to DPSUs, who will have exclusive rights to covet the glory!

Anurag said...

@Prasun da,
Thanks.So we can be rest assured that IAF will induct 300-400 Shaurya and IA about 600 Brahmos??
By the way,any update on the HAL Multirole Helicopter project??And what's the status of the upgunning project of the M46 Catapult??How many M46 will be upgraded-any idea??
By the way,last year HAL chairman had stated that IA wanted to buy 114 or so LCHs when ready for its AAC,what happened to that??P 28 corvettes are equipped with the S band Revathi 3d radar-is it compatible with Barak 1 and is there any chance that 3rd and 4th P 28 as well as P 28A using Barak 2 MRSAM instead of Barak 1??
Thanks.

Anonymous said...

i think instead of blaming the politicians for lack of interes in defence pvt R&D it would be worthy if some one is really interested in R&D PVT in India. yes it is a high risk investment, but if you are aiming to be rich only by playing with share market then better fume at MoD every time a botched up tender is rejected.

Defence R&D is a cutting edge technology development, so what ever comes up has immense potential in civilian market. but our corporates wants to fish without getting their hands wet!.

even in simple areas such as food processing or low tech areas we prefer to import technology and not do inhouse R&D. I am not saying reinvent the wheel, but why not be the first one to invent the wheeldrums?

there is a lot of money with the investors, NRIs, but they prefer to create an unsustainable bubble in real estate or in gold. why not try to invest in our youngsters who have got plenty of talent to invent (not the euphemism innovate or the desi name jugaad).

there are many instances where the inventive capabilities of a few comes to limelight once they become successful, but there are thousands who are not even identified. Remember USA is USA because of invention (and not by the real estate which is pulling it down now)

govt is doing its token on R&D with lukewarm response, but pvt R&D defenitely will create confidence and do wonders.

KSK said...

Regarding Arihant SSBN if you consider only its ability to hide from various ASW what type of other SSBN can be compared to it(Delta 2 3 4 or Chinese 92 94 and others).Also for sensor suite it employs...

*Is it double hulled?
*How many propellers does it have?
*How many missiles can it carry?
*How much power does its reactor generate and is it silence satisfactory?
*What type of indigenous innovation went into it?

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Anurag: The sure thing for now is the induction of the BrahMos Block 2/3s. For the conventionally armed Shaurya, several key technological hurdles need to be overcome, such as the terminal guidance sensor, similar to what India is on the lookout for when it comes to the Agni-5. The IMRH has to wait since HAL’s aircraft design human resources are fully committed now to the MRTA, FGFA and LUH projects. Afterall, there’s only such much that a single company can do at once. The M-46 upgrade is planned for about 480 units. But this is a futile exercise and wonl;t serve any purpose. It will be far better for the OFB to go for the FH-77B upgrade option in cooperation with BAE Systems & Mahindra Defence. Yes, the Army wants to buy 114 LCHs, but not in the configuration that it now exists, since this configuration is optimised for the IAF. Revathi has nothing to do with the Barak-1. Barak-1 has its own sensors like the EL/-2222 STGR integrated with the Ellora EW suite. Why should an ASW corvette have area air defence systems like the Barak-2? The Barak-2 is only for FFGs and DDGs.

To Anon@12.04AM: On the contrary, it is the politicians that are responsible for enacting legislation aimed at nurturing and mentoring military-industrial R & D. The MoD’s job should be that of an enabler and facilitator, which is not what it is doing without fear or favour at the moment. One cannot expect global OEMs to flock to India when they’re being offered only 26% stake in JVs, when at the same time JVs like BrahMos Aerospace have been allowed in which the Russian party has 49% stake. Such fickle-minded industrial policies have no private-sector takers in today’s globalised environment. If this continues, such global OEMs will not think twice about setting up JVs in countries like Sri Lanka, Indonesia or even Vietnam, and the Indian Navy, like it has already done so, will have no choice but to buy fast-attack interceptor craft from private-sector Sri Lankan shipbuilders. So yes, the politicians are indeed and totally to be blamed for this state of affairs.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To KSK: It will be like the Delta-3 or Type 094 Jin-class SSBN. It has a single propeller. It is double-hulled. The definitive SSBN design will carry only eight SLBMs, though. The sensor suite is similar to what is now on the diesel-electric SSKs. Bow-mounted panoramic sonar is cylindrical, and not spherical. Other specs were uploaded by me earlier at: http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-SsRQP11h0ds/To89TA18RzI/AAAAAAAAAV4/qA__Oh48rsQ/s1600/Arihant+Statistics.jpg

Mr. Ra 13 said...

Why Apache-64D is being selected. In what prime aspects it is clearly superior to Mi-28N apart from the bigger Radome.

BTW, why Russia has ordered only for 67 Nos of Mi-28N.

Anonymous said...

Hi Prasun,

Here is link to the video of the new babur launcher:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=snm1fI3N3kc

It doesn't look much like the CJ10. The only similarity seems to be the number 3.

The missile can now be launched vertically. Thereby being readed for the PN, especially the new 6 subs from china.

Look at the launch profile...it very quickly goes horizontal....is this to avoid being detected?

Anonymous said...

that is my point. why the R&D has to be an extension with OEM. why not a new one by itself. Here i am not talking about designing a nuclear submarine...i am speaking about simple technologies, and i am not speaking about the big wig industries but medium scale R&D. I am not differing on the view on gap filling, but what i am speaking is about futuristic things in efficient and cost effective manner.

if you want to be an extension of global bigwigs, you are riding on the sidesteps of some leader. easy way agreed, but you will never be the driver.

Anurag said...

@Prasun da,
Thanks for replying buddy.
So,what do you think-will Russia provide the terminal seeker tech for Agni V MIRVs or not??
2ndly,my thought behind the use of Barak 2 area defence SAMs onboard P28 was to protect these ships from emerging super sonic AShM threats.
By the way,according to various Chinese sources their C 803/YJ 83 missile's maximum range is 160 km when launched from ships and 250 km from air crafts.So,in the same logic PJ 10 Brahmos should have atleast 450 km range when launched from Su 30MKI-what's your view on this??
Lastly,you were right that the L45 Metamorphosis howitzers are not upto the mark but they can make up the numbers and besides they are still better than those 130mm M46 Catapults,what do ya say sir??
Thanks.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Anon@1.18AM: Yes, the round launch-tubes of the Babur don’t look like the box-shaped ones for the CJ-10, but when you compare the Babur’s launch tubes with those of the YJ-62 ASCM, and also take into account the fact that all these cruise missiles, as well as the Nasr NLOS-BSM, make use of the WS-2500 wheeled TEL made by the Wuhan Sanjiang Import & Export Company Limited (WSIEC), a subsidiary of China Sanjiang Space Group, then the picture gets clearer. And why the need to have wraparound armoured shelters around the round launch-tubes if the TEL has ‘shoot-and-scoot’ capabilities? Every LACM can be launched vertically, including the Novator 3M-14E Klub, be it ship-launched or land-launched. The post-launch flight profile is similar to that of the Klub, Korshun and Tomahawk T-LAM. Furthermore, the range is definitely not 700km as is being claimed, but closer to the 1,000km-mark, which is what was told to me by officials from Ukraine’s Ukrspetsexport as far back as 2005.

To Anon@1.51AM: The link with an OEM has to be maintained constantly simply because of certification issues. For instance, any manufacturer of commercial NiCad batteries for mobile cellphones cannot simply develop a NiCad battery for torpedoes or combat aircraft or submarine without getting it tested and certified by the weapon system’s OEM. Likewise, a company specialising in bullet-proof or shrapnel-proof composites armour panels cannot simply offer its products in isolation; it has to first team up with an existing producer or MRAPs or ATVs and get its products certified for usage. To become a driver, one must start as a follower and observer.

To Anurag: The issues regarding Agni-5 are still under discussion and nothing’s been finalized thus far. The P-28 corvettes will not be exposed to supersonic ASCM threats simply because neither China nor Pakistan have any plans for developing or deploying such missile on board their submarines for the foreseeable future. And since these P-28s will not be ocean-going vessels, they will not be exposed to hostile warships equipped with such ASCMs. China does not apply MTCR restrictions to the export of YJ-83 and YJ-62 ASCMs, whereas Russia has applied MTCR restructions on the BrahMos. The air-launched version of the BrahMos will be shorter in length as its booster rocket will be much smaller than what’s on the land-launched version of BrahMos. The upgrade path of the M-46 through the 155mm/45-cal route has been tried and has failed, especially those involving European and Israeli solutions. The only two viable solutions now come from either Russia or China.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Mr.RA 13: Firstly, what has been stated by ‘anonymous’ IAF officials is that the AH-64D had come out tops in the competitive evaluations. No one from the MoD has as yet confirmed that it has been selected and will be ordered through FMS channels. Having said that, it needs to be emphasized that in terms of self-protection and power-to-weight ratio the Mi-28NE (when equipped with Klimov VK-2500 engines) is better than the AH-64D. Then there’s the commonality between the powerplants of the Mi-17V-5 and Mi-28NE. During the last MAKS 2011 expo the Russians also exhibited scale-models of mast-mounted AESA radars similar to what IAI has developed (the EL/M-2054 SAR/GMTI payload for UAVs). But I’m suspecting that what tilted the balance in favour of the AH-64D Apache LongBow was the no-nonsense corruption-free FMS financing route. The Russians, as is well known, are averse to the inclusion of the ‘integrity clause’ in procurement contracts, since Russian marketing practices typically call for Rosoboronexport State Corp having its in-country agent, plus the helicopter-supplier, Rostvertol JSC, having its own in-country agent as well.
Russia is procuring both the Mi-28NE and Ka-52 Alligator.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Anon@1.18AM & Mr.RA 13: Read this PDF document from page 15 onwards: http://cns.miis.edu/observer/pdfs/ob_0507e.pdf

Anonymous said...

I guess the wrap around provides extra protection bit like the SP Guns? I do think you are indeed correct on the 1000km range, because the naval version is stated to be 1000km range. Any idea how many launch platforms are planned?

spanky's Blog said...

Thanks Prasun for the reply!!!!I was also wondering the same thing..Dont the MOD guys censor their own releases??They desperately need a professional PR agency to do these stuffs and stop idiotic releases...

U said P-28 r not cutting edge but that may be compared to western techs..In the immediate neighborhood can P-28s become a game changer in sub warfare and tilt the scales??

Anonymous said...

Is there any effort by any manufacturer for building a submarine launched anti maritime reconnaissance planes? I can figure that it better be one shot and one kill other wise its a dead give away to the submarine's location.

Mr. Ra 13 said...

Thanx for the clarifications...

Anonymous said...

This multi platform has given the strategic forces a true multi-dimensional strike capability.
One launch pad, three weapons, with three different inputs to strike three different pre determined targets.
It's like an aircraft taking off from a PAF base and attacking three different targets in a single sortie.

The launcher is similar to the one for NASR. It seems PA are building in lot of commonality in their systems.

Anonymous said...

What are the versions of the Shtil-1 missile on board the P17 class frigate, 1st and 2nd batch of Talwar class ffg, Delhi class ddg and what are their ranges respectively. How many such missiles do each ship of the class carry?

Anurag said...

@Prasun da,
Thanks for replying.Is it confirmed that 3rd and 4th P 28 corvettes will be constructed by composites??Has the contract for composites been signed??And lastly,will there be any redesign in the superstructure of P 28A??
Thanks.

Anonymous said...

1. Is the Elta 2248 superior to SPY-1D in terms of range against both airborne and sea targets? From the pics i see that each of the four faces of 2248 are far smaller in surface area than those of the SPY radar and hence the range may be lesser for the MFSTAR.
2. IAF recently procured 18 Israeli SPYDER systems from Israel. Are these spyder-SR or spyder-MR?

Anonymous said...

OK, if shaurya is maneuverable BM then can it be modified into Anti-ship missile like the Chinese one?

Also, does India have any planned/under-dev. conventional sub/super-sonic cruise missile in class of Tomahawk or ALCM? Almost all missiles seem to be nuclear. Doesn't IAF and IN need long-range conventional tactical cruise missiles?

Anonymous said...

Will LCH be modified for Army/CI forces?

Anonymous said...

prasunda, apologies if you answered already and if it is illiterate, but can the shaurya in its current form be employed in any future warships...k-15 we know may go to ssgns, but any surface vessels?

kshitiz said...

Hi Prasun..I have been following your posts for last 9 months and I want a return favour from your side.I am not sure if its an Obesssion or passion but I just want to share that visiting Trishul-Trident,Livefist and Broadsward pages is the first thing I do when I start my day and these are open throughout till 12 midnight.Other 2 bloggers are less interactive so I am literraly living on diet of your posts and comments.I have written my first blog post and want you to please please sapre some time and have a look at it.Your opinion and comments will matter a universe for me..I want to join IDSA,CLAWS,ORF as a research fellow..Shall I carry on with this passon of mine or ? ? ..Please visit..http://chanakyasabha.blogspot.com/

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Anon@5.15AM: The breakdown of triple-tube launchers as per latest estimates is 20 for the Pakistan Navy for launching the C-602 ASCMs, and 60 for the Babur LACM. That would translate into 60 C-602 ASCMs plus another 60 reloads (totaling 120 missiles), and 180 Babur LACMs, plus another 180 reloads (totaling 360 missiles). The number of Nasr/Hatf-9 NLOS-BSMs (M-20) imported thus far is 80.

To Spanky’s Blog: The in-house PR directorates of the three armed services is atrocious, to say the least. Just take a look at the official websites of the three armed services, for starters. The Army website’s AAC sub-section still claims that the Dhruv Mk4/Rudra helicopter-gunship will be armed with a 3-barrel cannon built by Lockheed Martin (when the Dhruv Mk4 has been shown since 2009 to be armed with a Nexter Systems-built 20mm single-barrel cannon)!!! Back in early 2005 when Ex Sanghe Shakti was being conducted in the plains of Punjab, the briefing officer from the Army HQ’s PR Directorate turned out to be from the Army Supply Corps who, when briefing all visiting journalists, wrongly identified the T-90S MBT as being a T-72. And all the newspapers and broadcast channels covering this event repeated this mistake word for word!
Regarding the Project 28 ASW corvette, what ought to make it lethal is the usage of hull-mounted active/passive panoramic sonars and towed-array sonars operating in the ultra low-frequency wavelength, similar to what the navies of the US, Egypt, Italy, Germany and Singapore have already introduced. Regretably, in the Indian Navy’s case, the DRDO’s NPOL has thus far succeeded in only developing low-frequency sonars (like the HUMSA-NG, Nagan & Mihir), and not ultra low-frequency sonars. The Navy four years ago had issued RFIs for ultra low-frequency towed-array and dunking sonars for which L-3 Ocean Systems of the US, THALES of France and Atlas Elektronik of Germany had responded, but so far there’s been no final selection as yet. These types of sonars can also be employed in bistatic operations, thereby vastly increasing the surveillance envelope. Yet another innovation that the Indian Navy has not yet tried out is to have remotely-controlled RHIBs equipped with a mechanism for lowering and towing an ultra low-frequency dunking sonar, which would cruise about 1 km ahead of the ASW corvette for extended durations. In fact, a network of four such autonomous RHIBs can form an effective ASW screen around a naval task force or even a battle group and this in turn will obviate the need for warship-launched towed-array sonars. Such a concept is now operational with the US Navy’s carrier battle groups, especially when operating in the Western Pacific and South China Sea.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Anon@11.33AM: You mean a submarine-launched surface-to-air missile for targetting MR/ASW aircraft or helicopters? Both the Germans and Israelis have come up with such solutions.

To Anon@5.41PM: Cashmere area air defence system comprising the 24 rounds of 40km-range 9M317M SAMs, a 3S-90 missile launcher, four MR-90 Orekh target illuminators, and the Salyut FSUE-built E-band MR-760 Fregat M2EM 3-D radar—this is for the Project 1135.6 Batch ½ FFGs and Project 17 FFGs. On the Delhi-class DDGs there are two SAM launchers & 48 missile rounds.

To Anurag@6.06PM: Read this: http://ajaishukla.blogspot.com/2009/12/project-28-corvettes-india-issuing.html

To Anon@8.04PM: Right now, there’s no evidence to prove that the Chinese DF-21D anti-ship ballistic missile exists. As for India’s ALCM, see this: http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_o_no4M2xEPY/TINGv0Xs0qI/AAAAAAAALMk/Lw0ODttFnl8/s1600/Guess_Livefist_SLIDE.jpg

To Anon@8.06PM: No, not as per present plans.

To Anon@9.31PM: No, not as per present plans.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Kshitiz: Many thanks. Commenting on matters pertaining to regional geo-strategies requires a lot of listening, observing and discerning. Even my own personal observations on various such issues are based on years of exposure to middle-level and senior-level decision-makers from various countries, especially those hailing from China, Pakistan, Iran and the Central Asian Republics. Regretably, in India today there are very few such non-governmental personalities, while those that hail from the civil services or the armed forces are generally quite reticent to speak about or discuss the ‘core’ issues, with some exceptions like the late J N Dixit or Jaswant Singh or M K Bhadrakumar, who at least took the trouble to write about their experiences. Others, like Brajesh Mishra who could have contributed much more, nowadays choose to either remain aloof or deliberately mislead the Indian public. And as for the so-called analysts at IDSA, ORF, their worlds revolve around diplomatic cocktail circuits and all-paid-for one-day seminars that engage in needless crystal ball-gazing. They’re exposed to only their counterparts from neighbouring countries, and not to any key governmental decision-makers. Consequently, their knowledge-base is limited to only academic assumptions and debates—the so-called Track-2/3 diplomacy circuits. Over the past decade this has become an all-expenses-paid business affair for these so-called think-tanks. Therefore, having seen them from extremely close quarters over the years, I do not hold them in any high regard, since within minutes of encountering them, these think-tanks have invariably and repeatedly resorted to picking my brains, instead of them offering any constructive topics of issues for discussion. And in terms of coherently articulating India’s foreign policy objectives and related grand strategies I have yet to come across anyone even closely approaching the abilities of Shashi Tharoor. As for your blog, all I can say is that I wish you the very best for all your future endeavours.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Anon@6.51PM: SPY-1D is PESA-based, while the EL/M-2248 MF-STAR is AESA-based. The latter’s superiority should be obvious. All SpyDers being procured by the IAF and Indian Army are SpyDer-SRs, mounted on TATA Motors-built 6 x 6 vehicles.

Anonymous said...

PKS - that means, from your above comments, do you feel Shashi Tharoor quitting was a utter loss to the country?

Anurag said...

@Prasun da,
Thanks for posting the link.
So,the 3rd and 4th P 28 corvettes should be stealthier and also have reduced infrared signature as plastics are much better heat insulaters that metals-am I correct??
Any idea,what the displacement will be of the 3rd and 4th ships??
Why we have to import the carbon fibre composites when DRDO has already advanced in composite tech-be it Kanchan armor,Abhay ICV or body frame of LCA to the all carbon Reentry Vehicle for Agni missiles??
Lastly,is there any 3rd batch of Talwar class FFGs planed or ordered??
Thanks in advance.

spanky's Blog said...

Thanx Prasun!!!!for ur reply..I agree with you that the 3 services PR dept are atrocious + the MOD pitches in to add to stupidity...

As per the Naval innovation tried by US navy it seems to b a gr8 idea...I think Navy probably is waiting fr a indigenous ultra low-frequency wavelength sonar given navy's preference for indigenous products.Anyway,Do DRDO has currently any programs for developing ultra low-frequency wavelength sonar????

Black Hawk said...

http://expressbuzz.com/thesundaystandard/orissa-puts-india%E2%80%99s-missiles-in-danger/327991.html


This is what our politicians are up to now. Shocking!!!

Black Hawk said...

http://expressbuzz.com/thesundaystandard/the-battle-for-chandipur-range/328000.html

And this too.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Anon@10.25AM: You bet it was.

To Spanky’s Blog: The DRDO isn’t developing an ultra low-frequency sonars, since it does not have the capability to do so, hence the Navy has been scouting around for imported options.

To Black Hawk: Why blame the Orissa State Govt for this state of affairs? Let’s be objective here and ask one very elementary question: why was the test-range at Chandipur designated as ‘interim’ since the late 1980s? Why have successive governments failed to come up with a permanent test-range in either mainland India or the A & C Islands? For as long as the existing test-range is called ITR, the Orissa State Govt has every right to claim it back. The finger of blame points squarely towards the MoD for failing to create permanent test-range facilities over the past two decades.

Ayatanvan Bhavati said...

@ Dear Prasun..Thanks for your reply and the word of caution. I value your opinion and going forward, will be extra careful and realistic as I move forward in this line of profession. I wish to seek precious word of advice from you if/when I reach cross roads. Thanks again....I try and not ask any specific military/hardware/strategy questions from you because am aware that the situation is more than pathetic and I fell that you invariably share most of the quality information through posts or include them in comments section with replies to other questions. And many a times I feel for you and think that how come you not get exhausted when everyone wants a piece of you. But thats the beauty and I wish you all the very best...

Ayatanvan Bhavati said...

One thing am curious about is...Why have you not started some enterprise/startup or explored possibilities of some big ticket defense related deal? The kind if background, information and the links you have if exploited in the right way will surely see you in a big big league...Some Service Company. Some media/publishing enterprise. Some Hotel/Lounge chain..Merchandise ..anything..Why not ? thats my question.

Anurag said...

@Prasun da,
Is there any plan to order a 3rd batch of Talwar class FFGs??
And why GRSE has to import carbon fibre composites for 3rd and 4th P 28 corvettes when it is available inhouse from a very long time-be it LCA,Kanchan armor,Abhay ICV,Dhruv ALH,LCH to Re entry Vehicles for Agni missiles??
Thanks in advance.

Anonymous said...

Owhh that explains, i've always wondered what's that "Interim" on ITR and only now know that it ACTUALLY means "interim".. i.e. temporary..lol

Ayatanvan Bhavati said...

@ Prasun .. These are early days in my writing and am trying to tone down the jargon of so many adverbs and adjectives. After reading your reply I felt that there is a message (may be not intentional) to be more subtle, smooth and easily readable and am working on it but this habit of using heavy words is difficult to forego.I found a message in your reply and the way it was written so.. thanks .

Shree said...

DRDO said that Agni3 can be used to shoot down a satellite ...
Can DRDO achieve that??

And US and China conducted anti-satellite tests......
Whose was more complex task???

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Ayatanvan Bhavati: Very many thanks. You may also be interested in following the writings of the following:
http://www.vifindia.org/

http://dailypioneer.com/pioneer-news/edit/15995-pakistan-plays-a-double-game.html

http://ramanstrategicanalysis.blogspot.com/

As for starting some enterprise/startup or exploring possibilities of some big-ticket defence-related deal, the start-ups were created way back in the late 1990s in the aviation MRO business arena and my business has since grown appreciably in this sphere of activity. Besides, my company has implemented and is involved with successful contracts concerned with platform customisation for both govt and private aircraft operators. Further details on this cannot be divulged due to the NCND clauses built into the contracts. As far as technical consultancy goes, I’ve been at it for a few Chinese OEMs like CPMIEC, CETC, NORINCO and CSTC for certain Southeast Asian countries between 1996 and 2009. At the same time, I’ve been contributing editorially since the early 1980s and continue to do so. So you see, over the past 28 years, I’ve had the good fortune to engage in all such activities concurrently, and I don’t think I could have asked for anything more from a professional standpoint. And my hands are still full with pending aviation-related R & D projects. And my blog is just a humble attempt to share a few tit-bits about my own hands-on experiences and a fair bit of unexplained histories related to military procurement exercises/processes dating back to the 1980s, which several folks today may be unaware of. All in all, I’ve never really felt the need to become an agent or middleman aspiring to earn commissions from big-ticket arms sales deals, although I’ve come to know of several of them--Indian and foreign—over the years. I’m quite happy and satisfied with the achievements and recognition that have come my way, especially with regard to the aviation R & D-related activities, over the years. And I’ve also had the good fortune of meeting and interacting with senior military officials from various countries, especially the upright ones like one former Lt Gen who was instrumental in setting up the OFB facility in Medak in the early 1980s and he did it in a way that not only ensured the project’s completion ahead of schedule, but also helped the MoD save Rs50 crores in project expenses. One can learn a lot from such esteemed individuals in terms of project planning, management and risk-reduction.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Anurag: There aren’t plans for batch 3 of Project 1135.6 FFGs. Regarding composites, I have a feeling you’re getting mixed up between composite raw materials and completed composites-built structures. India used to and still does import composites-based raw materials, but its co-curing processes (using imported industrial autoclaves) and moulding is done locally.

To Anon@4.58PM: Now you got it, ol’boy! And you also must be wondering why this most elementary observation never dawned on you before. Well, you’re not alone, as all India-based news-media agencies too have never bothered to ask such a basic question to the DRDO or the MoD since the late 1980s!!! It is only about a year ago that the DRDO began making remarks about having a floating range or another integrated test range located somewhere along the A & N island-chain.

Shree: Can DRDO achieve that? Of course, it can be done, AFTER the DRDO obtains the imaging infra-red terminal seeker for its PDV interceptor vehicle. After that, it will be possible to use this same type of seeker atop an Agni-3. The US’ ASAT capabilities are far superior as they’re meant to engage not only satellites in low-earth orbit or sun-synchronous orbit, but also satellites in geo-stationary orbit.

Pawan said...

Dear Prasun Ji

I was reading a article about theories behind death of Late Sh. Lal Bhadur shastri. Do you have any information about this. Pls provide any insider information if you have.

Anonymous said...

Cool:

http://www.eaavideo.org/video.aspx?v=1103012503001

Mr. Ra 13 said...

I was thinking "interim" as internal or within the mainland. Now I get it as "ad hoc".

spanky's Blog said...

Thanks Prasun for the informations!!!!

Anonymous said...

lets take a bet PKS who wins MMRCA competition. i bet US$100 for Rafale...

Anonymous said...

What do you think of

http://idrw.org/?p=4903#more-4903

Surprised to reach that AESA has been dropped from Mk2.

Anonymous said...

sir i have heard some rumours that drdo is planning to develop a stealth version of lca aka tejas mk3 is this really possible are they really trying to do it ??

any updates on the arjun mk2 finsas ??

can we expect a range increase on tejas mk2 since it will be using a more powerful and efficient engine plus and increased wing area plus the "refined areodynamics" as the drdo guys were saying .....??

KSK said...

Thanks for your reply Prasun :)

*How many nuclear armed missiles and warheads does India have ?????

*Are all readily deployable??

*Is the missile stored completely assembled or warhead will attached when required??

*How much time will it take to launch them???

*Which will be faster to launch Agni 1 2 or Prithvi or Agni5 or Shaurya or Brahmos in order???

*Can Pak develop Plutonium based warheads???

*How many nuclear armed missiles and warheads do pak have now and in Future????

*Is India still producing more Plutonium based warheads which are smaller for MIRVs???

*Is Israel really Nuclear(Jericho) is there any evidence to this???

Mr. Ra 13 said...

As perhaps AESA radar is being dropped from Tejas MK-2, can it be retrofitted later when the AESA gets developed and tested.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Anon@9.31PM: What the quoted report does not state is whether the concerned AESA-MMR being talked about is the one to be indigenously developed, or the imported off-the-shelf one. During Aero India 2011 itself last February the IAF, Indian Navy and ADA had officially notified all prospective suppliers of AESA-MMRs from the US, Israel, Italy, France & Germany that the Tejas Mk2 and LCA (Navy) Mk2 would indeed have AESA-MMR on board. Therefore, what this latest report means, if true, is that the AESA-MMR to be developed in-house by the DRDO will go on board the Tejas Mk3 since R & D work on such a radar will be time-consuming and therefore should not be allowed to cause any delay in the service-induction of the Tejas Mk2 or LCA (Navy) Mk2.

To Anon@10.06PM: Not a stealth version of the tejas, but a Tejas Mk2 and LCA (Navy) Mk2 that will incorporate several stealth features like radar-absorbent paint coatings, etc. Yes, there will be a range increase, although not substantial.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To KSK: Nuclear-armed missiles? None, since the missiles are never stored in a weaponised and deployed state. They are kept in a disassembled state. Agni-1s and Agni-2s have defined shelf-lives after which they can either be decommissioned or re-lifed. The Govt of India's executive branch is of the view that instead of re-lifing the missiles, they ought to be replaced with new-build missiles of a newer generation such as the Agni-2A Prime and Shaurya, both of which have already crossed their major R & D hurdles. It is expected that by 2014 series-production of both these newer missiles will commence to replace those missiles that are nearing the end of their 10-year lifespan. Therefore, there's no perceived need at this time to series-produce a few Agni-3s as strategic reserves. Given the limited techno-financial resources placed at its disposal, the DRDO had a choice to make between according priority to the cannisterised Agni-5 and developing a deployable Agni-3. The logical choice was to go with the former. One must also not forget that there are two major R & D programmes that are also in need of techno-financial allocations: the ALCM or air-delivered munition (80 of which are planned for production) and the SLBM. Of all these, the SLBM is the most capital-intensive and challenging which (for the DRDO's Sagarika Project Office), according to officials of the ATV Project Office, may not entirely succeed in developing a missile design that will fit within the pressure-hull of the Arihant-class SSBN. While the Indian Navy wants a SLBM accommodated inside the SSBN's pressure-hull, it also doesn't expect miracles to happen and is therefore resigned to the prospect of the Arihant-class SSBN finally emerging as something resembling the Soviet-era Delta-III SSBN. The 150kT boosted-fission warheads are on the Agni-2 only. In addition, presently, the deployment of Agni-2s (to be followed by the Agni-2A Prime) in the North East is a worrisome fact that one will have to live with until the arrival of the Agni-5, which is still five years away. And even with the Agni-3 or Agni-5, the deployment sites will have to be in northern India, somewhere in Bihar or nearby. That is why the SLBM is the ultimate survivable deterrent but whether or not it will be available in the configuration it is envisaged at the moment remains to be seen. I personally don't feel that comfortable with just a land-based strategic deterrent arsenal which is concentrated in the North East. Over the past five years Chinese espionage activities have increased exponentially in Arunachal Pradesh and Nagaland, where the various Naga tribes are always willing to oblige their Chinese patrons in return for monetary gain. On top of that the PLA's special operations forces based in the provinces of Yunnan and Sichuan have stepped up their training for staging heliborne assaults over mountainous terrain and that is one of the main reasons why the IAF is now rushing in its initial deliveries of Akash E-SHORADS and SpyDer SHORADS over to the North East to plug the now-existing gaping holes in air-defence there.
A 7,500km-range ICBM will regretably not offer the kind of survivability that a SLBM provides. As for the Indian strategic deterrent by 2021, well, we can definitely expect the Shaurya and Agni-2A Prime to be in service by then, along with the ALCM. In all, 220 warheads and a strategic fissile materials stockpile of 3 metric tonnes should be in place by any stretch of the imagination. The question marks remain only about the SLBM and Agni-5. Presently, there are about 80 nuclear warheads stored in a disassembled state, with the DRDO having possession of the triggering mechanism and the DAE the fissile cores.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

About Pakistan, yes, all its warheads are plutonium-based. It has about 12 of them fully assembled and ready to be integrated with the ballistic missiles. As for its claims of possessing about 150 fissile cores, I would take it with a fistful of salt, since we all know now know what kind of exotic claims the country’s leaders and scientists have made over the years. If you read this (http://trishul-trident.blogspot.com/2011/09/finally-truth-about-pakistans-wmd.html), you will realise that what Dr A Q Khan did in reality in the 1970s and 1980s was just ‘proxy’ industrial espionage on behalf of China, and all the fruits of his activities were in reality reaped only by China. Therefore, one has good reasons to believe that all that now exists below KRL’s facilities in Kahuta is just hollow-earth, or ‘Khokla’.

SherKhan said...

Hey Prasun,

I think you are over stretching the truth a little when you say Pak have claimed 150 nukes. The 100+ figure is normally mentioned by the western journals and pak media normally requote these figures:

http://csis.org/blog/bulletin-atomic-scientists-releases-new-nuclear-weapons-inventory

or by

http://www.fas.org/programs/ssp/nukes/nuclearweapons/nukestatus.html

Both these bodies are independent of Pak. Maybe you need to update these guys.

Mr. Ra 13 said...

Thanx for clarifications on AESA for Tejas-MK2.

And beware of Hollow Earth... Lol

SherKhan said...

Also have a look at this:

http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=112852

This link seems to compare the Babur with the Tomahawk, it seems the later has been copied all the way down to the launcher. Somewhere else it has been mentioned that the dimensions of the two missiles are exactly the same too. The evidence seems to be pointing this way?

Mr. Ra 13 said...

If I remember correctly a Tomahawk fired to Afghanistan from the oceans fell intact on its way over pakistan. Pakistan collected it and donated to China, which made the Babur-I by copying it. Although this was again a great art. Rest is history.

Mr. Ra 13 said...

Whatever is the global propaganda, but one thing is certain that Pakistani nuclear program was bogus from the very beginning. AQ Khan was a actually a Chinese agent who was boasted out of proportion to be the father of the paki nukes. And in the name of this hoax the pak must have gathered a lot of money from Arabia, Libya and Iran etc.

Gist is that Pak is laden with the chinese made Pu nukes and it is dangerous anyhow.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To SherKhan: Who needs to cite Pakistan’s media-parroted figures when the country’s officials themselves have boasted that the quantum of fissile materials at their disposal is enough to make as many warheads as the French nuclear arsenal? In any case, such figures don’t matter at all, since what needs to be calculated is whether Pakistan’s existing nuclear fuel reprocessing plants have enough capacity to produce such fissile materials, or whether such reprocessing takes place abroad.
Regarding the Babur’s linkage with the Tomahawk TLAM, what needs to be understood is that even if unexploded TLAMs were found inside Afghanistan in 1998, it would have been impossible to recover and re-engineer them simply because no one messes up with unexploded ordnance. Besides, the Korshun LACM was made available to China by Ukraine for mass-production since 1995, and the Korshun was shown publicly for the first and last time at the Dubai Air Show in November 1995 as a full-scale mock-up. From 1996 till now the Korshun has never again been showcased in public, even though Ukraine could have offered it for export with a 290km-range cap, just as the Ruskies have been exporting the Novator 3M-14E. Now, what does this tell you? Why would Ukraine forego the Korshun’s export options, UNLESS it had already been compensated financially in a healthy manner by a party that bought out all design and manufacturing rights of the Korshun? For me the truth finally emerged in the last quarter of 2005 at the DSEI expo in the UK when an official from Gold Bond Trading Co (a UK-based subsidiary of Ukraine’s Ukrspetsexport which sold the T-80UD MBTs to Pakistan in the late 1990s) whom I knew quite well told me strictly off-the-record (after I had asked him how come the Korshun from Ukraine is not competing anymore against Russia’s Klub family of cruise missiles) about the Korshun’s fate in lying in the hands of China and its all-weather friend, Pakistan. This same official also told me that China and Iran had together acquired a few serviceable conventional warhead-armed Kh-55s off-the-shelf for an entirely different project—one which involved the development of soft-kill cruise missile defence technologies like GPS jamming systems and passive surveillance systems, the development of which had required operational cruise missiles to be used as surrogate targets. What all this means is that the Babur or CJ-10 was NOT a re-/reverse-engineered Kh-55, but a fully-developed Korshun LCAM which, like the 3M-14E Klub, could be launched vertically from both land and from a submarine. In conclusion, therefore, I don’t need to read needless speculative narratives in any other forum, as I got my data from the proverbial ‘horse’s mouth’. With that, I hereby rest my case about the parentage of both the Babur & CJ-10. And, needless to say, the concerned authorities in India and Russia are all well aware of this too.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Mr.RA 13: And equally bogus is Pakistan’s claim that it had credibly threatened India with nuclear attack in both 1987 (during Ex Brass Tacks) and again in 1990 and mid-1999, since Gen (Ret’d) Pervez Musharraf has stated in his autobiography that Pakistan had actually attained nuclear weaponisation-cum-deployment status only in 2001.

Mr. Ra 13 said...

That resolves it.

Anonymous said...

http://defenseblog-njs.blogspot.com/2011/11/india-falters-in-getting-its-new.html


2. After Arihant , what is current status of other nuclear sub's.

3. Any improvement in HAL + Pipava JV

Anonymous said...

but sir as you said earliar tejas mk2 will already have the stealth features u have mentioned like ram paints etc so what wud be new on tejas mk3 ?? some new improved paint ?

and even if mk2 doesn't have ram paints....why on earth call tejas mk3 an "MK3" when the only difference wud be the ram paints !!??

the way i see it is you simply cannot have a stealth fighter in such a small size cuz you won't the req internal fuel and internal weapons space...and carring the fuel and weapons out negates the whole point of having a stealth fighter......what say ??

spanky's Blog said...

hi Prasun,
There is a growing school of thought abt the MMRCA contract that this should be canceled.Instead IAF should go for F-35.Their argument is that by the time MMRCA aircraft will come into play, the Chinese will have already fielded the 5th Gen J-20 which will be hugely superior to MMRCA. Thus it makes no sense to buy 4+ generation aircraft which would become irrelevant by 2040.

Would like to know your views on this matter??? Should India really cancel the MMRCA

Anonymous said...

Hey PKS, what do you make of Broadsword's new artice advocating JSF instead of MMRCA? thanks!

(Btw read his replies in the comment form. what a piss-off he is?)

soumyadip said...

sir,

you r saying that p 28 corvettes will not go too deep in the ocean rather will remain in coastal water
and it would be used to protect harbor and ports...now why do modern subs which r equipped with long range ballistic and cruise missile will come so close to enemy mainland when it can do lot of destruction thousands of kilometers away.don't u think it would be reasonable to equip them with ship based ABM missiles.
don't you think coastal security can be achieved with shore based ASW helicopters.
and one other thing that i have always wondered ...why do military use tracer ammunition at night,doesn't it give away your position in the dark.
and as always do forgive me if the question seems childish to you :):):)

soumyadip said...

sir,

if mmrca is for some reason cancelled will there be any legal consequences to be faced by india
and according to broadsword pakfa as of now is not up to 5th gen standard and will never be unless India invest heavily on it,do you agree.

Mr. Ra 13 said...

MMRCA should not be cancelled. It is a prime interim arrangement for replacement of many types of IAF aircraft. So if both Rafale and EFT have exorbitant costs, then the results of F-18, Gripen and Mig-35 shall be critically reviewed for their techno-economical feasibility and purchase conditions.

The F-35 can hold India hostage only during the positive period between the operational ability of T-50 Sukhoi Vs J-20. This equation gets automatically dissolved once this period turns out to be negative.

However the present situation provides ample justifications for purchasing not a single more aircraft for the MMRCA than the specified 126 Nos. Extending the same logics it can be said that India should never purchase more than 40 Nos of F-35 even under duress.

Looking in to the economic condition of USA, in the world of wishes F-35 must be the foremost to wish the earliest expedition of the progress of the J-20.

F-35 and J-20 both suffer from some or other forms of inadequacies, which may not permit them to extract their full potential and growth. Both of these are based upon half baked technologies only to provide some ad-hoc solutions.

Mr. Ra 13 said...

As MMRCA is an interim arrangement for replacement of many IAF aircraft, so India should not cancel the MMRCA even if the prices of both Rafale and EFT are exorbitantly higher than the estimation. In such an eventuality, the offers and realities of F-18, Gripen and Mig-35 may be critically reviewed techno-economically and for purchase and operational conditions and the decision taken accordingly in totality.

The F-35 can hold India hostage only during the positive period between the operational ability of T-50 Sukhoi Vs J-20. This equation gets automatically dissolved once this period turns out to be negative.

However you provide ample justifications for purchasing not a single more aircraft for the MMRCA than the specified 126 Nos. Extending the same logics it can be said that India should never purchase more than 40 Nos of F-35 even under duress.

Looking in to the economic condition of USA, in the world of wishes F-35 must be the foremost to wish the earliest expedition of the progress of the J-20.

F-35 and J-20 both suffer from some or other forms of inadequacies, which may not permit them to extract their full potential and growth. Both of these are based upon half baked technologies only to provide some ad-hoc solutions.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Spanky’s Blog: By ‘growing school of thought’ are you referring to a certain broadcast-media entity that runs the blog called BROADSWORD? And if yes, then has he or his Lockheed Martin buddies ever stopped to ask why exactly China refers to the J-20 as a 4th generation combat aircraft, and not a 5th generation product? Has he or his Lockheed Martin buddies ever gone to China to the successive biennial Airshow China expos held in Zhuhai, where the latest R & D achievements of China are showcased? Does he or his Lockheed Martin buddies even know what kind of integrated avionics suites will go on board the J-20? Can he or his Lockheed Martin buddies explain why is China continuing to import legacy turbofans like AL-31FN and continues to aspire importing passive phased-array radars like the IRBIS if at all China’s national R & D institutes have achieved successful breakthroughs in critical areas like supercruise-generating turbofans and AESA-MMRs? Has he or his Lockheed Martin buddies ever visited any operational air base in either the Chengdu or Lanzhou MRs to see the state of force modernisation efforts there? Has he or his Lockheed Martin buddies ever visited the MAKS 2011 expo and spoken to those involved in the R & D efforts involving the FGFA/PMF and T-50 PAK-FA? The answer to all these questions is likely to be ‘NO’. Consequently, what he’s doing is judging a book by its cover. That doesn’t surprise me at all, especially since folks of his ilk like Arnab Goswami or TIMES NOW & the editorial team of HEADLINES TODAY have, since yesterday, bid goodbye to objective research and instead resorted to needless warmongering and belching out outrageous assessments about China’s gun-running activities in northeast India and about China’s ‘superior’ military posture vis-à-vis India along the LAC. The simple fact, for instance, remains that the there is only one full-time operational PLAAF air base throughout the Tibetan Plateau and that is Shigatse AB, from where J-10As and Su-27SKs conducted a month-long exercise starting last August, and this same schedule was first tried out in 2010. Shigatse is also the only air base that is protected by a permanent KS-1A MR-SAM site with TAR, and the rest of the ‘airfields’ quoted elsewhere are just commercial airports. So what on earth is this so-called unbearable and overwhelming PLAAF expeditionary airpower superiority all about? Seems to me that as usual the Indian broadcast media (TIMES NOW, NDTV & HEADLINES TODAY included) is just running around like headless chicken without any sense of self-esteem.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Anon@2.32PM: The arguments of BROADSWORD are devoid of logical reasoning and his replies are absolutely atrocious, to say the least. I agree that several queries or arguments may seem pointless or even stupid, but that’s no way to reply. In any interactive blog civility must never be surrendered, no matter whatever is the level of provocation. I can therefore only conclude that his rebuttals are the byproducts of his mental challenged nature.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Soumyadip: Firstly, submarines equipped with ballistic missiles or long-range anti-ship cruise missiles will never approach coastal waters and therefore, will not be the targets to be tracked by the Project 28 ASW corvettes. For enforcing naval blocades and threatening a country’s sea lanes of communications, the enemy will always use submarines capable of laying sea mines around the approaches to a harbour/port facility. And that is precisely the reason why ASW corvettes and minehunters are still reqd by any self-respecting navy anywhere. Shore-based ASW helicopters need navigation cues from an ASW corvette in order to locate the submerged threat and then launch the torpedoes or depth charges. The task of searching for a submerged threat is always that of a shipborne sonar (hull-mounted or towed-array) and once the target has been spotted, the task of zeroing in on the target’s exact location with the help of dunking sonar is that of the shipborne ASW helicopter. Tracker ammo is used at night only against hostile dug-in infantry forces that are devoid of their own indirect fire-support artillery weapons (like mortars and howitzers). Therefore, even if one gives away one’s firing position by firing tracker ammo, there’s no harm done. Regarding the M-MRCA contract, do relax for nothing will be cancelled or annulled, despite the incessant rants and lobbying of certain ‘desi’ inconsequential retards who have neither been to Russia or to China to figure out first-hand what exactly is the FGFA or J-20 all about.

KSK said...

You said that the missiles are never stored in a weaponised and deployed state. They are kept in a disassembled state.

*So what is the time required to make them ready for launch??????????


*Is Israel really Nuclear(Jericho) is there any evidence to this???

Anonymous said...

Hi Prasun,

Your replies have been really thoughtprovoking and also they nullify many of the myths based on the facts you present. I have been following you blog for the last 2 years and is the best.

I request you to provide your readers with a good article comparing the J20 and PAK FA capabilities.

Mr. Ra 13 said...

Thanx for MMRCA. I too hope it passes.

Pragmatist said...

If I remember correctly the name Broadsword came from "Where Eagles dare"?I vaguely remember Rich Barton speaking on the walkie talkie "Broadsword calling".So I guess some cinematic laxity (a new phrase) can be allowed for his views?

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To KSK: That depends on the n-munitions to be assembled. It can range from six hours to 48 hours. Regarding Israel’s nuclear arsenals, if I’m not mistaken the truth was revealed by the likes of Mordechai Vanunu way back in the mid-1980s, be it about the Jerichos or their n-warheads.

To Anon@12.20AM. VMT. But there isn’t much to compare, for on one hand the Russians have to date shown full-scale models and laboratory test films about the FGFA’s integrated avionics suite and its various elements (like distributed-array AESA-MMRs & distributed IRST apertures and MAWS), while the Chinese haven’t even come up with such products at the laboratory-level, leave alone flaunting them at aerospace expos! Instead, all we hear from time to time are about Chinese industrial espionage activities that have been uncovered while trying to steal the know-hows & know-whys.

To Mr.RA 13. It will, rest assured.

To Pragmatist: ‘Broadsword calling Danny Boy’, was it? Anyone and everyone is entitled to their own views at their own expense, but such folks at the same time cannot be permitted to blandly paint broad strokes by claiming that “I happen to know a great deal about the PAK-FA programme”, or the China Study Group being a secretive Govt of India body, since the concerned writer is only committing intellectual and professional hara-kiri, which is fine by me. After all, such self-styled journos are available in plenty in and around the National Capital Region, the kind who can be taken for a ride and be brainwashed by just an all-expenses-paid-for sumptuous meal during daytime and a couple of rounds of alcoholic beverages during Happy Hours. In return, such journos will agree to belch out utter editorial filth and be even offered joyrides on some combat aircraft as part of an all-expenses-paid tour, provided the beneficiary OEM places a few advertisements over the next few months with the newspaper/magazine that has engaged the services of such a journo. At the end of the day, it’s all about money-based gun-n-games for these Delhi-based entities. And that is precisely why such journos will—during expos like Aero India—always be found during lunchtime—at the corporate hospitality Chalets of the OEMs consuming the free lunches & accompanying beverages.

Pierre Zorin said...

By the way Prasun you have omitted one vital extra along with meals and deals - I guess this could be part of the Happy Hour and known as Happy Ending in Thailand, Vietnam and the Philippines ;)

Anonymous said...

does India has any defence shield against Haft7. do india intend to procure Iron dome defence shield from Israel.
Thanks

Ravi said...

Dude i have been collecting pics of P15 A and in one recent CAD image the number of MRSAM is just 32...Why so less missiles...??? Considering it is the same missile that will be used to defend against both fighters and missiles....when compared with Delhi class, Delhi's are better equipped than this brand new ones...And what i am feeling is these ships are primarily for ASuW and secondary ASW and AAW...Whats your take....???

Pawan said...

Dear Prasun Ji
I read and commented on broadsword in favour of F-35 but not at cost of cancelling MMRCA. Do not think that it will better idea if India strict to order only 126 aircrafts( i mean not exercising option for 63 more) & instead go for 100 or so F-35 in 2020. In this IAF can maintain its Squadron strength & also have latest air crafts though maintaining logistics for such a variety of aircrafts can be a challenge.

and i hope you will agree that China is very hostile to india so we need to be well prepared otherwise our options will be limited.

Anonymous said...

"I can therefore only conclude that his [Ajai Shukla's] rebuttals are the byproducts of his mental challenged nature."

SPOT ON!!!

Anonymous said...

ya ajai shukla is a mentally challenged chinpanzee. i think pks should write a critique on all the rubbish this chinpanzee has said so that nobody will visit his godforsaken blog ever. its time to lock that mad chip in a cage and send him off to africa. like that movie "trading places" end part. or even america where his lockheed buddies can lock him in ohio zoo (they will probably sell him to ringling bros circus).

Mr. Ra said...

I think to compensate and increase the numbers of its fighting squadrons, India should follow its standard formulae i.e. Variants of Tejas, MMRCA, variants of Su30MKI, T-50, FGFA & AMCA. Meanwhile if the need of exigency be there, then 40-50 Nos of any one of the F-35, F-18 or Rafale can be purchased to sharpen the strike abilities.

Meanwhile a word about the game of flyaway costs that the suppliers play:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flyaway_cost

sbm said...

Prasun,

What are your views on this article ?

http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/indian-army-war-readiness-against-china/1/157763.html

SHREE said...

Read this PDF
http://www.dsca.mil/PressReleases/36-b/2011/India_11-44.pdf

DSCA clearly mentions that
"The proposed sale of this equipment and support will not alter the basic military balance in the region."

What the hell do they mean by that......

*Do they not want to sell equipment that would change military balance in the region???

*And what would have happened if F-18 won MMRCA would they still say "The proposed sale of this equipment and support will not alter the basic military balance in the region."??????????

Chintan said...

"In any interactive blog civility must never be surrendered, no matter whatever is the level of provocation." A lack of civility is in plentiful display on this blog after that statement :-) Well broadsword certainly seems to have pushed your wrong buttons somehow. I sense an episode somewhere in the past between the two of you :-) In any discussion, a counter point is healthy. It forces one to think, analyse, gather facts. The passion on these blogs (yours and his) is admirable and it serves a valuable purpose. Hey, its a blog and everyone is entitled to a viewpoint, even though we may not agree with it. Give the guy a break!

Chintan said...

@Shree,
what that means is that India is already vastly superior to Pakistan in terms of conventional weapons. This sales does not alter that equation in that sense.

Anurag said...

@Prasun da,
Hey sir,recently read a news that PLAAF has activated 6 large airfields in the western Tibet around Ladakh from where they can launch their Il 76s,Su 30s.What do you have to say about this??What're the counter steps IAF and IA may take??I would like to know your views.
Thanks in advance.

Anurag said...

@Prasun da,
Did you hear the news that PLAAF has developed 6 air bases around Ladakh??What should be the counter measures of IAF??Please share your views.
Thanks.

Anonymous said...

To Chintan,

the background is the way the two blog interacts with readers. while Ajaiji is more ruthless with any counterview, PKS da argues (except if you are on his last nerve) and interacts even if the comment is technologically stupid. May be it is full military man Vs a technologist type difference .

when you are talking all BS (civility maintained!) and if audience questions the logic an return you are on offense, your blog will soon run dry (except for those adrenalin triggered youngsters who prefer a slugfest)

Arguing a point is good and healthy, but arguing BS (again civility maintained) in a ruthless manner has chock and cheese difference.

Prasunda scores very high on this, and am a true fan of not only his technological literacy programme, but also the way he interacts with audience.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Pierre Zorin: Well, the favourite destinations nowadays are either Thailand or Mauritius, and not as far out as Vietnam or The Philippines.

To Anon@8.59AM: The Barak-2 MR-SAM and its LR-SAM variant are enough to counter inbound TBMs and cruise missiles.

To Ravi: What one must bear in mind is that warships offering area air defence coverage like the DDG, or even a FFG, will not operate on a solo basis. For instance, for a carrier battle group en route during an expeditionary warfare mission (in the Indian naval context), an aircraft carrier will always be accompanied by at least two DDGs and four FFGs. Therefore, now if you were to do a headcount of all available MR-SAMs plus the Barak-1 point-defence system or the Kashtan-M system, the total availability of such SAMs goes very high.

To Pawan: I think it’s high time everyone realised that Lockheed Martin isn’t targetting the IAF’s M-MRCA programme with its F-35 JSF offer. Had Lockheed Martin wanted to market the JSF as a viable M-MRCA option, it would have offered this aircraft from the outset, instead of the F-16IN. Therefore, the question that arises is this: what particular reqmt is Lockheed Martin now targetting? To derive a logical conclusion, one must first factor in the reality about Lockheed Martin’s near-term and long-term corporate goals, which is to capture those markets that need to replace their earlier stocks of Northrop Grumman F-5E/F or Lockheed Martin F-16A/Bs. This is where the single-engined JSF comes in. In India’s case, Lockheed Martin is presently engaged in long-term marketing objectives, which means it wants to be the earliest to enter the fray for replacing the IAF’s Jaguars, MiG-27UPGs and Mirage 2000s starting early in the next decade. This then significantly narrows down the options for us to deduce, meaning that Lockheed Martin is desirous of the IAF selecting the JSF and the Indian Navy selecting the JSF INSTEAD OF the IAF going for the AMCA or the Indian Navy going for a carrier-based navalised version of the FGFA. At the end of the day, after having separated the wheat from the chaff, this is what it all boils down to. And consequently, Lockheed Martin has already begun recruiting its band of ever-obliging over-ground runners like BROADSWORD to begin the JSF’s PR offensive in India.
Regarding China’s hostility towards India, China is only as hostile to India only as much as India is paranoic about China’s non-existent war-waging capabilities. One must be objective and understand why China has been historically hostile: while in the 1950s Nehru & his coterie were championing the cause of non-alignment, this group was also building up anti-China covert war-waging capacities inside Indian soil by allowing the CIA to build an air base in Charbatia (now owned by RAW’s ARC) and training Tibetan rebels for waging insurgencies inside TAR. Even today, while India on one hand adheres to a ‘One China’ policy, she contradicts herself by hosting the Tibetan Govt-in-Exile on her soil. What I’m trying to explain here is, just look at the problem through China’s eyes for a second, and then try reaching various conclusions in terms of threat mitigation and confidence-building measures without compromising on self-esteem.

Ravi said...

hey can you put down the combat suit of P-15 Alpha in numbers... my sources are saying...

6 inch gun
16 Bhramos
32 Barak-2
4 Ak-630
2 twin 533mm/ 21 inch torpedo launchers
2 RBU-6000 and various ECM/ESM

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Anon@11.30AM & Anon@4.26PM: Without getting personal, this is what happens when one is trying to defend the indefensible, while hiding the truth (about Lockheed Martin’s real objectives behind the on-going HSF marketing campaign in India).

To Mr.RA 13: There’s simply no need to procure the JSF at the cost of the M-MRCA. Yes, the flyaway costs show a lower figure based on the aircraft-type’s production run, but what about other forms of non-recurring expenditure, such as air base upgradation and expansion, installation of new ATC/ATM systems, and the creation of new base repair depots and intermediate-level workshops, all of which have to be undertaken every time a new aircraft-type is introduced into service? It is the nett cumulative figure—therefore—that the IAF is looking at for the M-MRCA programme and therefore it always keeps talking about life-cycle costs. Flyaway costs, therefore, don’t mean much in the final calculus.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To SBM: The overall thrust of the INDIA TODAY reportage is correct in terms of the lack of transportation infrastructure on the Indian side. However, the reportage on the Chinese military build-up across the LAC throughout the Chengdu & Lanzhou MRs is inaccurate. Based on some recent interactions with Senior Colonel-level PLA officers, the main thrust of PLA force modernisation along the LAC remains the left and right flanks of the LAC around Nepal and eastern Ladakh. This is because, seen through the PLA’s eyes, since late 1999 (ever since the Karmapa fled TAR via the Tibet-Nepal border) and two years prior to the Beijing Olympics, Beijing had been extremely nervous about this sector of its border, given the ever-increasing levels of Tibetans using this route to travel to and fro TAR. Consequently, the PLA has for the past three years been going all-out to secure this area by improving border-surveillance and border domination-related infrastructure by, among other things, 1) acquiring the very same ORTEK Ltd-built LORROS which the Indian Army has deployed throughout the LAC (that’s why the PLA’s CGS Gen Chen Bingde visited Israel last August to review China-Israel bilateral cooperation in this area), and 2) donating US$20 million to Nepal’s Ministry of the Interior to raise a 10,000-strong force called the Armed Police Force (APF), whose sole job will be to plug the infiltration gaps along the Sino-Nepal border. Related to this is the on-going modernisation and expansion of the Shigatse air base, which is now being equipped with a layered air-defence system (using HQ-12/KS-1A MR-SAMs and FB
-6A motorised VSHORADS) as well as an underground hangar complex (all clearly visible in GoogleEarth imagery that was updated by Google last August). All the other airfields that are mentioned in reportage by either HEADLINES TODAY or NDTV or TIMES NOW are just civilian airports as of now, and don’t have dedicated all-weather air base infrastructure. The overall PLA ground forces modernisation efforts in the Chengdu & Lanzhou MRs are still ‘work in progress’, especially those pertaining to conversion of existing eight infantry Divisions into Highland Motorised or Highland Mechanised Divisions. Seen from the Indian side, the appreciation therefore is that while a PLA military offensive is unlikely in the eastern sector, the on-going PLA modernisation efforts along the LAC’s central and western sectors needs to be noted and acted upon.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Anurag: Read my above-reply, for it is all explained there.

Pawan said...

Dear Prasun ji

Thanks for reply !
what you said about China is quite true and it imply that while doing everything possible to modernise our defence, we need to be engage china so that we can avoid creating un necessary distrust which only benefits third parties.
Regards

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Ravi: Which CAD illustration is telling you that only 32 Barak-2s are installed on the P-15A DDG? I can clearly count 48 VL-launch cells, 24 (in dual packs of 12) behind the VL-silo for 16 BrahMos, and another 24 (in dual packs of 12) before and above the aft helicopter hangar.

Mr. Ra 13 said...

Thanx for kind clarification!

As F-35 is unable to fight against T-50/FGFA, so it is preparing a futuristic long march against AMCA.

And it has been thought that F-35 has arrived on the scene to shoot down the Rafale and EFT. Lol...

Perhaps that is why I said earlier in different words that F-35 will be the most happy with the rapid development of J-20.

Anurag said...

@Prasun da,
Thanks for your reply.Do you have any info regarding how many Pinaka Mk1 MBRLs are currently in the inventory of IA??
Thanks..

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To MrRA 13: You hit the nail bang on its head! Anyway, this is what the hoo-haa was really about: http://news.outlookindia.com/items.aspx?artid=740177

To Anurag: Close to 60 MBRLs by now.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Mr.RA 13: And here's the original report: http://www.defense.gov/pubs/pdfs/20111101_NDAA_Report_on_US_India_Security_Cooperation.pdf
The JSF stuff is on page 8. And presumably the release of this report on November 2 and the concurrent commencement of editorial lobbying activities in favour of the JSF in India was synchronised by Lockheed Martin with BROADSWORD & BUSINESS STANDARD. I guess this now bares the plot wide open, as all the dots now seem to have been connected.

Mr. Ra 13 said...

Thanx for the kind words Mr. Holmes!

http://news.outlookindia.com/items.aspx?artid=740177

So the cat has jumped out of the bag. Obviously F-35 is to compete against AMCA or if possible to cooperate with it in other words.

Anonymous said...

Mauritius is expensive compared to thailand. in thailand you can make do with $60. and it's legal in thailand, not mauritius. maybe they recorded ajai and are now threatening to release the video (anwar ibrahim style) if he doesn't post / support JSF.. LOL!!

Ravi said...

Hey check out in the below cad pic it looks like 8+8 MRSAM missiles in front and 8+8 above hangar...

http://imageshack.us/f/15/
project15akolkataclass0.jpg/

What you have misunderstood is like 3*4... but middle line is for hot launch and not missiles... to verify check below link the BARAK 2 naval launch system in DEFENCE EXPO....

http://sitelife.aviationweek.
com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/
15/13/4f4a5d41-2c6d-424a-ad37-a2ea63b56986.Large.jpg

jjs said...

1. Even today, while India on one hand adheres to a ‘One China’ policy, she contradicts herself by hosting the Tibetan Govt-in-Exile on her soil.

I think you means "Tibet is an integral part of China" policy since hosting Dalai Lama & Co has nothing to do with "1 China" policy. If China overuns Taiwan, then maybe India should host Kuomintang in exile? Lol.

2. Fine about Indian paranoia, but how about China's constant pin pricking in well delinated sectors such as Uttranchal & Sikkim? And how about China's alliance with Pakistan in PoK? Do you think India should just relax and stay happy with these developments and tagging them all as "paranoia"? India is engaging in a PR was to increase public awareness about the threat China presents to India.

Anonymous said...

1. what is the current proses going in Pinaka 120 km range.

2. can we expect india will place orders for 145 nos Howitzers from US before dec 2011.

Anonymous said...

prasun,
Wikipedia confirms - Javelin and spike has been ordered by india , its confusing please shed the light in details.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 360   Newer› Newest»