The two-day UV India 2011 seminar-cum-expo, which got underway on October 13 at the Manekshaw Centre in New Delhi, provided the perfect venue for gaining insights into UAV-related activities and future force modernisation plans of India’s three armed services. Interestingly, this time around, the number of trade visitors hailing from the Central Armed Police Forces (CAPF) such as the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF), Border Security Force (BSF), National Security Guards, and the Indo-Tibetan Border Police (ITBP) far outnumbered those hailing from the three armed services, and the maximum number of procurement-related queries too came from such CAPFs. What follows below is a run-down of the highlights of the seminar and expo.
· The DRDO is promising to deliver to the Indian Army an all-singing-and-dancing version of the Rustom-1 MALE-UAV—equipped with a belly-mounted optronic payload--by 2014. Also to be delivered by then will be a version of the Nishant tactical UAV equipped with a belly-mounted optronic payload and a wheeled undercarriage. The DRDO is focussing all its UAV-related R & D efforts on the Rustom-1, and those for the Rustom-2 MALE-UAV are not being accorded any importance at this stage.
· The NTRO is steadily expanding its inventory of UAVs, with several Searcher Mk2 MALE-UAVs (equipped with optronic payloads) already operational as of now. Future plans call for the procurement of several Hermes-90 tactical UAVs.
· A customised version of the hand-launched Skylark-1LE—jointly developed by HAL and ELBIT Systems—has now been certified for operating at an altitude of 18,600 feet ASL, and first deliveries will be made to both the Indian Army and the ITBP. CAPFs like the CRPF and BSF too are expected to place large orders for both the Skylark-1LE and Hermes-90 UAVs.
· The Indian Navy’s fleet of Heron-1 MALE-UAVs come equipped with three types of ELTA Systems-built mission payloads: the EL/M-2022U maritime search radar and MSOP optronic turret, plus a communications system capable of acting as a repeater station for relaying imagery-related data over-the-horizon to another Heron-1 UAV which, in turn, relays such data to a principal surface combatant deployed in the high seas. The Heron-1s of the Indian Army and Indian Air Force, on the other hand, come equipped with the MSOP optronic turret and the EL/M-2055D SAR/GMTI sensor. Israel Aerospace Industries’ (IAI) two subsidiaries--ELTA Systems and MALAT Division—have now developed the EL/M-2054 SAR/GMTI payload for all-weather, air-to-surface Intelligence, Surveillance, Target Acquisition and Reconnaissance (ISTAR) applications. It features modular, open architecture and can be easily configured into smaller tactical UAVs like the Nishant’s wheeled variant.
· The Indian Navy has officially rejected the shipborne NRUAV project, which was first proposed in 2005 by HAL and IAI. Instead, the operational requirement has now been elevated to that for a shipborne UCAV, following which attention is being paid to the Northrop Grumman-built Fire Scout vertical takeoff and landing system.
· Even though there are several private-sector SMEs that have developed mini-UAVs for use by central- and state-level law enforcement agencies, such solutions cannot be inducted into service since the Union Home Ministry, the MoD and the Ministry of Civil Aviation (all non-armed forces UAV users are mandatorily required to secure operating airspace clearances from this ministry) have yet to sit down together to evolve a clear-cut policy regarding their procurement and usage. Needless to say, the above-mentioned ministries are always hell-bent on being biased in favour of only those solutions that are put forth by the DPSUs (like HAL and BEL). This in turn has pissed off several CAPFs since they require such tactical UAVs in not only far larger numbers than those for the armed forces, but also as soon as possible from any available source.—Prasun K. Sengupta
Prasun,
ReplyDeletewould love to hear your comments on
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Bofors-reloaded-Defence-ministry-stung-again/articleshow/10360084.cms
This is what Prasun was saying for almost 3 years. But nobody was listening back then.
ReplyDeleteTo Anon@7.44AM: Actually, it was not only the design data package for the FH-77Bs, but also for all the different rounds of 155mm ammunition, that was transferred to OFB by Bofors AB. I had documented all this in chronological order at: http://trishulgroup.blogspot.com/2009/10/ottavio-quattrocchis-lasting-gift-to.html
ReplyDeleteNow, here's where the ToI report gets mixed up, perhaps due to the ignorance of the concerned reporter: "OFB has now been asked to manufacture two guns of the 155/39mm caliber, the original make of the Bofors gun bought in the 80s. Two others would be of the same caliber but upgraded with new capabilities. The OFB has also been asked to make two guns of 155/45mm caliber."
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What this means in reality that the OFB has acquired design data packages for two types from two different OEMs: one is for the 155mm/39-cal FH-77B and the other from SOLTAM Systems for the 155mm/45-cal gun barrel associated with the upgraded M-46H. What the OFB has reportedly been tasked to do (in addition to building four FH-77Bs) is integrate the SOLTAM Systems-designed gun barrel with the FH-77B's design. This then brings us to the final issue, that of intellectual property rights, since neither Bofors AB (now BAE Systems) nor SOLTAM Systems had ever authorised such a hybridisation formula. Also, if the OFB were to begin producing the FH-77B at last, then BAE Systems would have to be roped in to educate and guide the OFB on various production-engineering processes related to 155mm towed field artillery howitzers, simply because such production engineering-related expertise does not presently exist within the OFB. A far better approach, on the other hand, would be to re-activate the licenced-production clause in the original FH-77B contract, but this time with BAE Systems and its Indian industrial partner Mahindra Defence Systems, and the three together could pool their respective resources to produce the 155mm/52-cal variant of the FH-77B. To me this would be the most realistic and achievable option, since the Army's GSQR dictates that 52-cal howitzers, and not 39-cal or 45-cal solutions, be acquired.
Prasun , what is the current status of 145 nos big guns from US ordered in FMS route.
ReplyDeleteIt is very good to see the increasing interest of our forces for various UAVs.
ReplyDeleteDear Prasun Ji
ReplyDeleteWhy NTRO is buying short range, short/ medium endurance Hermes 90 & searcher, while its task is to do strategic Recce & INT, for which Heron II (Eitan) & Hermes 900 are better suited. Am i missing something.
Dear Prasun,
ReplyDeleteYou are amazing ..I was at the Sheppard well organised UV conference and so swiftly after I learnt more about some items and Indian UAVs and induction from your blog because DRDO boasted some were their lone efforts and when CRPF asked beggingly when they get some mini UAVs for Anti Nazal Ops which ADE say are successes...The reply was ADE only make proto types.
UAVs are the future and all major IN ships need get them and make provisions in design and small ships can get the proven small Schibels which was demonstrated to IN and CG.
INS Taragiri and Vindhyagiri has control stations like US Navy but Alas Vindhyais no more.
Another item IAF is supposed to deliver on is how to integrate UAVs Ops in to the national airspace operations as presently they are not clear.
Thanks RR
@Prasun Da,
ReplyDeleteI remember that as per ARDE chief,they developed a 185mm prototype artillery gun of 55 calibre.Do you know about that??Why did the IA not show any interest in that gun??Atleast by specs this gun seems to be better than any 155mm gun.Had they inducted the gun,IA could have achieved a commandable lead over both PA and PLA in the tube artillery sector and would not have suffered so much like it's now.What's your views on that??Why do we even need a 155mm gun??Is it not logical to revive the 185mm gun instead of trying to reinvent the wheel by developing an inferior 155mm gun????Please share your thoughts.
Thanks in advance.
Hi Prasun,
ReplyDeleteUr views on Chinese leadership succession 2012-2013
So how many uavs are planned for induction in HALE, MALE, MAVs segment in IA, IN, IAF, CRPF, ITBP, BSF, CISF etc. ?
ReplyDeleteHow many Fire Scout is IN looking to purchase ? Will it be able to fire weapons ?
Why NTRO is looking for Searcher Mk2 and Hermes-90, when they can get much better and longer endurance and range UAVs ? Why not Hermes-900 ? Will they be purchasing HALE UAVs or they already have ?
Is RAW and IB also placing orders ? If yes then for what ?
Any country offering armed drones like predator to us ? I am not talking about HARPY.
How is to going to work in IA ? I mean when they will induct MAVs, MALE, HALE UAVs who will be operating what and how its gonna work ? (I know they haven't cleared the airspace usage yet)
When Pinaka 2 and Akash 2 going to be tested ?
Who is providing new lightweight BP jacket and helmet for FINSAS ? Is drdo making it or is it going to be purchased from abroad ? Have IA placed an order for them if not when they will place the order ? (And please these things have nothing to do with delays in TCS or BMS project.)
Thanx in advance
To Mr.RA 13: The interest has always been there, but this has not been matched by the DRDO’s ability to develop UAVs as and when required. Taking about 15 years each to develop the Nishant and Rustom-1 UAVs is far too long. In addition, private-sector SMEs should be allowed by the Govt of India to liaise directly with the state-level law enforcement agencies and the CAPFs and develop customised solutions. Presently, by not doing this and instead according priority only to DPSUs like BEL and HAL when it comes to UAV procurements, especially those for mini- and micro-UAVs, is downright damaging and ill-conceived. At the same time, the Govt of India should come down heavily against wasteful expenditure like the NAL-initiated project to develop a 70-seat twin turbofan-powered regional jetliner (which will have no takers, either domestically or internationally), as we all know what’s been happening to the Saras project for more than a decade. If, on the other hand, had NAL and ADE instead co-developed since the late 1990s a HALE-UAV powered by the GTRE-developed Kaveri K-9 turbofan (which is now certified for high-altitude flights), such money would have been extremely well-spent, since all three armed services have a huge requirement for such UAVs (and their UCAV variants).
ReplyDeleteTo Pawan: It’s called the ‘crawl, walk, run & sprint’ approach. Any new agency must gradually build up its capabilities. Strategic recce using airborne platforms is still the responsibility of RAW’s ARC, and not NTRO’s.
To Anurag: Firstly, no 185mm howitzer will ever give the Indian Army a commanding lead over its Pakistani counterpart, since Pakistan also has 203mm tracked SPHs. Secondly, worldwide, ground forces are standardising on 155mm howitzers, and the navies are now following too. For the future, the 155mm howitzer will reign supreme, thanks to the availability of GPS-/laser-guided rocket-assisted projectiles which can go out to 61km. It is the DRDO that is trying to re-invent the wheel by proposing to develop a 45-cal 155mm towed howitzer, at a time when the OFB already has all the design blueprints of the 39-cal FH-77B. What the OFB should now do is to team up with the industrial alliance of BAE Systems and Mahindra Defence and begin modifying these designs (especially those dealing with the barrel, breech mechanism, gun cradle) to suit the 52-cal FH-77BO5L52, since this howitzer and the FH-77B have almost 70% commonality. Following this, the OFB should equip the FH-77BO5L52 with the SIGMA-30 ring laser gyro-based inertial navigation system (the same as that on the Pinaka MBRLs). Finally, the OFB and the industrial alliance of BAE Systems and Mahindra Defence should conclude a production-sharing arrangement under which OFB becomes the prime contractor and handles the howitzer’s final assembly, while Mahindra Defence becomes the principal sub-contractor. This entire programme should include both production of brand-new FH-77BO5L52s, as well as the conversion of existing FH-77Bs into the FH-77BO5L52 configuration. At the same time, the OFB should seize the opportunity by co-developing with the BAE Systems/Mahindra Defence combine, a motorised (truck-mounted) version of the 39-cal LW-155 ultralightweight howitzer for use in mountainous areas. BAE Systems has already developed a turret-mounted version of the LW-155, which can easily be mounted on the hull of a T-72CIA MBT with the DRDO’s help. So ultimately, what you get is a 155mm/52-cal towed howitzer directly from the OFB, while development of the motorised and tracked versions of the 39-cal LW-155 howitzer can come under the direct industrial offsets package, and the DRDO too gets to play a practical role, instead of just developing another technology demonstrator. If this formula is implemented, all field artillery-related woes of the Indian Army can finally come to an end within the next five years, provided swift decisions are taken. Looking to the future, the DRDO, OFB and the BAE Systems/Mahindra Defence combine could also co-develop a navalised turret-mounted variant of the FH-77BO5L52 for the Indian Navy. This is the best way of and leveraging smart industrial partnerships.
ReplyDeletePrasun, what you are talking is logical but the problem is teaming up with any partner in a non competitive manner may not be digestable to MoD. That is especially so since arty guns in general and BAE (successor to AB)in particular will get media limelight and political backlash. Parties will opt to lose a war than to lose votes (sad but true).
ReplyDeleteeven the Pipavav-Mazagon JV was put off because the JV as MoD felt was not competitively selected. In that scenario hiring Mahindra-BAE for JV is impossible. May be as consultants, still doubtful. GoI fears artillery and ironically of our country's!
i guess making lower caliber guns (if at all useful)as a stop gap measure is what at best we can hope for provided the OFB guys come up with an assembly in 3-5 years. it is better to surrender for reality than to be optimistic of futuristic things which will stay on paper and god forbid one day we hear that army has 10 guns partially working to defend 5000KM of border.
To Anon@4.26AM: The issue of a competitive bidding process for selecting the military-industrial partners simply does not arise, purely due to legal reasons. Firstly, there’s the issue of modifying and upgrading an already in-service howitzer, and related to that is the licenced-production of an upgraded variant of this howitzer. In both cases, there’s only one (sole) OEM and that is BAE Systems, which has internally selected Mahindra Defence as its local strategic industrial partner, a development no one can legally challenge. If there were to be more than one OEM producing the FH-77B then of course a competitive bidding process would be justified to get the best deal. But since that is not the case, and since there is only one OEM (the BAE Systems-Mahindra Defence combine), and since the DRDO would also get to play a role with regard to the direct industrial offsets I’ve proposed above, no one’s feathers will be ruffled. The MDL-PSL JV was an entirely different kettle of fish as it was an all-embracing strategic industrial partnership, whereas the proposed JV of OFB, BAE Systems/Mahindra Defence/DRDO is product-specific and OEM-centric. It is like placing follow-on orders for Su-30MKIs, for which one does not have to repetitively invite competitive bids from KNAAPO or IRKUT Corp or NAPA. Lastly, companies like BAE Systems already come under the purview of the OECD Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions—a fact that helps in totally ruling out any kind of financial impropriety being committed by the OEM.
ReplyDeletebut can such a system run in parallel to a competitive bidding for 52 calibre guns the army proposed. BAE has opted out earlier itself. BAE being the direct successor to AB the congress party will for sure stay a mile away even though the process is transparent.
ReplyDeleteuninformed public will obviously question the upgradation, where in already available production design for lower calibre inservice guns exist.
logically your reasoning is most viable, but practically, seeing the political scenario i will bet the other way.
The competitive bidding process for towed 155mm/52-cal guns will in no way affect what I've proposed above since, for the past four competitive trials, it was the 52-cal FH-77BO5L52 which came out tops. The other competitive bidding processes involving motorised and tracked self-propelled howitzers can be easily superceded by legal means by way of according greater priority to the industrial offsets components. But doing all this requires both visionary strategising and audacity from the ruling political class.
ReplyDeleteposting again :
ReplyDeleteSo how many uavs are planned for induction in HALE, MALE, MAVs segment in IA, IN, IAF, CRPF, ITBP, BSF, CISF etc. ?
How many Fire Scout is IN looking to purchase ? Will it be able to fire weapons ?
Why NTRO is looking for Searcher Mk2 and Hermes-90, when they can get much better and longer endurance and range UAVs ? Why not Hermes-900 ? Will they be purchasing HALE UAVs or they already have ?
Is RAW and IB also placing orders ? If yes then for what ?
Any country offering armed drones like predator to us ? I am not talking about HARPY.
How is to going to work in IA ? I mean when they will induct MAVs, MALE, HALE UAVs who will be operating what and how its gonna work ? (I know they haven't cleared the airspace usage yet)
When Pinaka 2 and Akash 2 going to be tested ?
Who is providing new lightweight BP jacket and helmet for FINSAS ? Is drdo making it or is it going to be purchased from abroad ? Have IA placed an order for them if not when they will place the order ? (And please these things have nothing to do with delays in TCS or BMS project.)
Thanx in advance
Hope, something good is decided at earliest.
ReplyDeleteWhat is your opinion on this.
ReplyDeletehttp://idrw.org/?p=4649
hello sir,
ReplyDeletewhat about global hawks for india?? is the indian drones consisting of IAI searcher and IAI heron are junk? is there are any problems in those drones?why india wont opt for UCAV from USA for anti naxal operation and military operations?
thanks
what up with your head amardeep? hasn't prasun covered that a million times before? self help before asking for help bro.
ReplyDeleteWhat do you think about this :
ReplyDeletehttp://expressbuzz.com/thesundaystandard/iaf%E2%80%99s-sukhois-winging-it-on-safety/323780.html
What's wrong with YOU Ra13? Prasun's comment at 8:52AM already answers your question doesn't it? Plus that article appeared in Times of India 2 days back. Gotta seriously check if you have any grey matter!
ReplyDeleteHi Prasun,
ReplyDelete1) What info have you got who is going to be downselected Typhoon or Rafale.
2) If rafale is selected will the indian navy be buying some of them.
3) No matter who gets selected is it right to assume that brimstone will be integrated with both of them.
Thanx to PKS and I am sorry for asking a second hand question. However it is surprising how the OFB and that way the others were sitting like ducks on those precious howitzer drgs for so many years. What were they waiting for.
ReplyDeleteTo Anon@12.29PM: The CAPFs and state-level law enforcement agencies require several thousands of tactical UAVs (like the Hermes 90) and a few hundred MAVs, plus MALE-UAVs like the Rustom-1. The domestic market is huge, to say the least, and cost-competitive SMEs can become major players in this area, either through in-house R & D or by striking strategic industrial partnerships with the world’s established UAV developers. As for Fire Scouts, the requirement is for at least 40 units, as vessels like FFGs and DDGs can easily accommodate two such UCAVs. Have already answered the NTRO reqmts above. RAW and IB don’t require UAVs, as the NTRO’s assets can be put to use by these agencies. As for UCAVs, BAE Systems is willing to provide the Mantis, but I reckon that given adequate political backing and support, the Rustom-2 too can be developed as a UCAV, provided it is powered by a Kaveri K-9 turbofan. Such a configured UCAV or even a UAV will be most sought after by both the Indian Navy and Indian Coast Guard. About 120 vehicles of this type are required. All three services have their respective reqmts for UAVs of the MALE- and HALE-types, plus MAVs (these being for special operations forces). About Pinaka Mk2 and Aklash Mk2, your guess is as good as mine. All lightweight BP jackets and their Level-4 ceramic-/Kevlar-based armour pads for the CAPFs, state-level law enforcement agencies and the armed forces have and are being imported, with US-based Honeywell providing the armour pads.
ReplyDeleteTo Amardeep: Presently, it is only the Indian Navy that has expressed interest ion acquiring UAVs like the Global Hawk, and that too for broad-area maritime surveillance. Such UAVs have no use in counter-insurgency operations. For such operations, MALE-UAVs and tactical UAVs like the Searcher Mk2/Rustom-1 and Skylark-1LE are required in larger numbers, going into the thousands. When operating against insurgents like the Maoists, the technologies most desired are those that can detect and locate the ‘rabbit holes’ from/into which the insurgents appear and disappear. Therefore, to forestall their activities, what is reqd is 24/7 surveillance and an excellent communications system, both of which are critical for the first responders as well as for those engaged in setting up pre-emptive ambushes. Therefore, in addition to UAVs, what one requires in large numbers are lightweight body-armour, night vision devices and personalised communications devices.
To Black Hawk: The story is totally erroneous and fallacious. The redundant Su-30MKI’s FBW flight control system can only fail if there’s no power supply (something which is caused in the cockpit only by an unintended act of human error), a fact which I had explained (see: http://trishulgroup.blogspot.com/2009/05/stop-abuse.html) way before the IAF too came to the same conclusion. As for the cockpit canopy shearing off in mid-flight, that again is a ground maintenance-related error and the aircraft’s design cannot be faulted. Regarding the lightning strike, that is an act of God against which any product developed by human beings is vulnerable. That’[s precisely the reason why it has been decided to base those Su-30MKIs originally destined for Chabua and Tezpur, in Kalaikunda, instead, and send those Su-30MKIs to Chabua and Tezpur only for periodic deployments not lasting more than 2 weeks and that too when weather conditions permit this to take place. That’s why that report in the SUNDAY STANDARD is highly regrettable and condemnable. What what else can one expect from such ‘desi’ reporters? Afterall, it has been 96 hours since the UV Asia 2011 expo/seminar got underway and has any of you as yet come across any story/report filed about that event in any national newspaper or broadcast media channel? Even though some reporters were present at the event, presumably to collect freebie momentos and grab free luncheons?
To Anon@5.02PM: Not any kind of exclusive info about the final decision, if that’s what you’re referring to. But between the two parties, the Eurofighter GmbH consortium is better-placed financially to offer more enticing industrial offset packages. Irregardless of which offer is selected, the Indian Navy is not interested since it has already decided to go for a carrier-based variant of the FGFA, and not the fourth-generation M-MRCA. The Navy already operates fourth-generation M-MRCAs like the MiG-29K and it therefore has no use for inducting another type of M-MRCA. Better therefore to go for the navalised FGFA.
ReplyDeleteTo Mr.RA 13: The OFB was waiting for closure of the Bofors case before the Supreme Court, which took place only by 2006. One has to realise that even after obtaining the design blueprints of a product, one still has to seek assistance and mentoring from the foreign OEM for designing and developing the product-specific jigs and tools, and setting up the production/final assembly lines, all of which were meant to be set up on a turnkey basis by the OEM as per the original terms of the contract with Bofors AB. Take out the OEM from the equation and one might as well as bid goodbye to all dreams of setting up a local production facility. That’s precisely the reason why the OFB took more than a decade to begin producing 155mm rounds and their modular charges after companies like US-based Day & Zimmerman, South Africa’s DENEL and Usrael’s IMI were contracted to create on a turnkey basis the industrial facilities reqd for series-producing the 155mm rounds.
ReplyDeleteHi Prasun,
ReplyDeleteYour personal opinion on the evils that are eating into the Russian economy.How can it beccome more competiive?Though the Russian govt does make sound strategic decisions on tech transferlike in some instances the Russian railway.You mentioned sometime back tat Russia is not a eurasian power as it is not connected.That is bcoz of unrelenting cold weather.Could take another 2 decades to vconstruct a road to far east
To Anon@1.14AM: There are two fundamental problems that have plagued Russia since its post-USSR existence: firstly, the issue about its unique identity in terms of what is its status vis-Ã -vis fellow Slavic states like Belarus and Ukraine. Secondly, Russia’s failure to give its national constitution the reqd recognition and deferrence, and this has consequently led to the failure to impose the rule of law. For instance, Russian law peculiarly states that if the house that you’ve built on your own freehold land is destroyed by fire, then you also stand to lose all legal claim to that piece of land and its ownership will revert back to the state. Therefore, for as long as Russia is unable to fully address these two principal and fundamental shortcomings, it will continue to exist as a sick state, much like was it was under the Tsar and subsequently, under Communist rule.
ReplyDeleteRussians know that they have come out of Communism. But they also think that the rest of the world is still under the hidden Communism. Lol...
ReplyDeleteTo Mr.RA 13: What do you make of this: http://jimmyprophet.wordpress.com/2011/02/12/vimana-ufo-found-in-cave-in-afghanistan/
ReplyDeleteNames have been spelled correctly. A curious but imaginary mixture of the mythologies of the past with the reality. Some factual errors that Mithraism or the place Mithraeum may not be exactly same as Zoroastrianism. Timing of Zoroaster or Mithraism in Europe may not match with Mahabharat. Zoroaster may be father of all religions but is not directly related with Dharma.
ReplyDeleteIf an ancient Vimana from Mahabharat has been found then, only one President of US is enough to see it and so many other presidents are not required to be around.
Even any President may not be allowed to be present in the vicinity as anything could happen regarding safety.
In nutshell it is a comedy.
To Mr.RA: If Zoroastrianism is claimed to be the father of all religions, then it presumably is with relation to what the West traditionally refers to as theocratic religions, such as Judaism, Christianity & Islam. I would reckon that Dharma precedes Zoroastrianism. Regarding the Vimana in Afghanistan, the US President or even the German Chancellor (see: http://www.gravitywarpdrive.com/Element_115.htm) would have sufficed, the rest are pretty much useless concerning this issue.
ReplyDeleteDear Prasun ji
ReplyDeletethere is article today in Indian Express regarding india inducting 89000 new soldiers. Though nothing mentioned whether it will will part of new Strike corps or just defensive division, i would love have your view on it. Thanks
Web-link to article: http://www.indianexpress.com/news/china-flexing-muscles-govt-clears-brahmos-for-arunachal/860799/
Prasun,
ReplyDeleteThe navies that are standardising to 127mm or will be getting 155mm are those that see a requirement for the naval gun support role. These are also the navies that in any future conflict will be operating under a strong air umbrella with AEW/ISR platforms networked, and thus are unlikely to be faced with an air threat. For smaller navies, 57mm and 76mm will continue to be the main choice as these calibres are much more useful for the anti-air role, having a higher rate of fire. Another problem with going for a 155mm gun for naval use, is the requirement for at least a ship over 2,500 tonnes.
Whats your take on this..
ReplyDeletehttp://ibnlive.in.com/news/european-firm-offers-missiles-for-iafs-su30/193897-3.html
Will Russia allow integration of European missiles like METEOR and TAURUS on Su-30..?
Will they allow License production of missile in India if selected as the no. will be very high ..?
What about their offer to co-develop anti-ship and Transport aircraft launched variant ..?
To PAWAN: The figure of 89,000 soldiers and officers is indeed for the four new light mechanised mountain warfare divisions, plus a new artillery division, that will be created along with the new Corps HQ to be located at Panagarh, West Bengal. The four new light mechanised mountain warfare divisions will be bolstered by an independent armoured brigade using assets of tracked light tanks and wheeled tank destroyers, plus the 155mm/39-cal LW-155 ultralightweight howitzers. The only missing element will be the LCH, which could have been a critical asset for these divisions, but which is being denied to the Army Aviation Corps by the MoD. The new artillery division will also have Smerch-M MBLs, in addition to the BrahMos Block-3. Therefore, in total, five new divisions will be raised—four infantry and one artillery, of which two have already been raised under the 11th Defence Plan, and the rest will follow in the 12th Defence Plan. That’s the plan, but the reality can be something totally different. This is because the news that the Indian PM has cleared the 12th five-year (2013-2017) plan doesn’t mean much on the ground, since the 11th Defence Plan (2007-2012) itself has not yet received formal govt approval, despite the fact that the MoD had finalised its 11th Defence Plan and sent it to the Union Finance Ministry in July 2006. It was expected that once the two ministries mutually agreed to the plan’s size, it would be brought before the Cabinet Committee on National Security (CCNS). If this is how the Govt of India functions in reality, then long-term force modernization plans will never be translated into reality.
ReplyDeleteTo Faris: 155mm main guns will go on board principal surface combatants like DFGs and FFGs, while corvettes and FAC-Ms will continue to make use of 76/62 SRGMs. Despite the availability of shipborne attack helicopters or carrier-based MRCAs during expeditionary naval campaigns, the main naval gun has a vital role to play, especially after the advent of PGMs like ERGM projectiles, for which target acquisition and target designation can be achieved by naval special operations forces.
To Saurav Jha: Firstly, let’s get the facts right. For the IAF’s RFI for CALCMs, there have been four respondents, namely the TAURUS Systems GmbH-built Taurus KEPD-350, MBDA-built Storm Shadow/Scalp-EG, Raytheon’s AGM-154 JSOW-ER and IMI’s Delilah. The ranges of ALL these missiles will be capped at 300km due to MTCR restrictions. The Storm Shadow/Scalp-EG is powered by a Turbomeca/Microturbo TRI 60-30 turbojet producing 5.4kN thrust, while the 500km+ range Taurus KEPD-350 is powered by a Williams International P8300-15 turbofan kerosene-based fuel. The IAF, after acquiring such CALCMs, will use them to arm the to-be-upgraded Darin-3 standard Jaguar IS, the to-be-selected M-MRCA, as well as the Su-30MKI. Weapons integration with the Su-30MKI will not pose any problems since the aircraft has an open-architecture plug-and-play avionics suite. At the most, about 300 CALCMs will be procured and given this low figure, in-country licenced-production will be highly uneconomical. Having said this, it will be more sensible and economical to develop a conventional warhead-carrying variant of the 600km-range supersonic nuclear warhead-armed ALCM that is being co-developed by the DRDO and Israel’s RAFAEL, and which could be produced in large numbers in-country by BDL and be used to equip the Su-30MKIs.
ReplyDeleteI think IMI’s Delilah CALCM are to be the lightest and cheapest among them.
ReplyDeleteTo Mr.RA 13: That may well be, but the main issue in favour of the Taurus--its turbofan-based propulsion system--which gives it superior range compared to the turbojet-powered CALCMs like Storm Shadow, SCALP, Delilah, Ra'ad and the Turkish SOM, will be of no use in India's case since the Taurus KEPD-350's range will be capped at 290km.
ReplyDeleteTo Mr.RA 13: Costwise, I reckon the Boeing-built AGM-84H SLAM-ER will be the cheapest.
ReplyDeleteThanx! The Turbofan issue may not be of any extra use for India but apart from other superior attributes, Taurus is also the heaviest and loaded with 500 Kg warhead. So here the power per unit supersedes over the quantity, because the quantity is already limited.
ReplyDeleteHope the prices of Taurus are also commensurate in line with its capabilities.
Purchasers may have their own priorities. the AGM-84H SLAM-ER has range of 280 Km with warhead size of 250 Kg. Perhaps it has been upgraded recently.
ReplyDeleteThe usage of a turbofan will increase the per-unit cost of the CALCM. In addition, a 500kg warhead to attack a hardened target like HAS or underground command centre could become an overkill. A SLAM-ER, on the other hand, much like the Popeye, could ensure a pintpoint hit, thanks to the two-way data-link transmitting video imagery of the target during final approach. GPS-guided CALCMs are of use only when mil-std Py-codes for highly precision navigation are available and in India's case this is now available through GLONASS-K only for missiles like the BrahMos and other DRDO-made strategic missiles. The operational flexibility will emerge only after India succeeds in deploying its own constellation of IRNSS GPS navigation satellites.
ReplyDeleteThanx for the detailed information.
ReplyDeleteYou're most welcome.
ReplyDeleteDear Prasun Ji
ReplyDeleteThanks detailed information on IA plan for chinese front
THANKS FOR UR DETAILS DESCRIPTION
ReplyDeleteit's always pleasure to read ur report.
sir what's the status of 600km-range supersonic ALCM that is being co-developed by the DRDO and Israel’s RAFAEL sir is it going to air launch version.....if it is so it will be a good addition to India's strength of deep penetration and ground attack........
I am waiting for ur valued comment
THANKS & REGARDS
@prasun da
ReplyDeletewith regards to NTRO buying UAVs, has case of 450 crore 'ghotala' been solved that they are being allowed to buy more UAVs. If not then this is recipe for more 'ghotala'.
By the Way with MMRCA bids opening any day now, Gripen is still carrying out marketing pitch. From what i feel they think they were treated unfairly by IAF. I saw image of Gripen (possibly the D) carrying 2 Taurus KEPD 350s. Something i dont know any curent generation single engine jet can do. Sure they deserved a better chance.
Your view please
Joydeep Ghosh
First of all thanx for answers...
ReplyDelete#You said : Having said this, it will be more sensible and economical to develop a conventional warhead-carrying variant of the 600km-range supersonic nuclear warhead-armed ALCM that is being co-developed by the DRDO and Israel’s RAFAEL, and which could be produced in large numbers in-country by BDL and be used to equip the Su-30MKIs.#
Which missile you are talking about ?
Will it be smaller and lighter like scalp or tauras or it will heavier like Brahmos ? If it will be lighter like scalp then it can be used on MMRCA, mirage, Jaguars, Mig29 etc.
Will their be land based and naval version of this missile also ?
I hear IA is evaluating Mahindra's MPVI, are they going to purchase it and if yes then in what number ?
Is IA looking at other MPVs also like Tata, Ashok Leyland etc. ?
Is IA happy with MPV developed by OFB ?
Whats happening with Coast Guards chopper tenders ? How many chopper and dronier CG is inducting ?
Is Nirbhay light enough to be used on MMRCA ?
ReplyDeleteAny news from IQPC's Soldier Modernization India 2011 ? It was on 4-5 oct.
ReplyDelete@Prasu Da,
ReplyDeleteI remember that during the Indian intervention in SL,Indian army had an air assault division(most probably 54th infantry division?).I want to know that is it still operational as an air assault division??
Thanks.
@Prasun da,
ReplyDeleteI remember during the intervention of Srilanka,IA operated an Air Assault Division(most probably 54th air borne?).Is it still operational as an Air assault division??
During the disastrous Jafna Helidrop,all but one troop of Sikh LI got massacard but most of the Paras survived.Can you please throw some light about what went wrong with those Sikh LI troopers on that fateful night??
Thanks in advance.
Sir,
ReplyDeleteisn't the figure of 400 officers to man 5 divisions too less..
as far as i know..there are currently 10 officers in a batallion(which is 12 less than the sanctioned strength)..going by even this figure 400 is too less a no.
@Prasun Da,
ReplyDeleteI remeber that during the Indian intervention of Sri Lanka,IA operated a Air assault division(most probably 54th air borne?).Is it still operational as a Air assault division??
During the disastrous Jafna Helidrop,the entire SIkh LI platoon except one got perished but most of the Paras survived.Can you please throw some light about that fatefull night and what possible went wrong with those Sikh LI troopers??
Thanks in advance.
@Prasun Da,
ReplyDeleteExtremely sorry for the triple post.Actually,everytime I tried to post,I got a 'server crashed' and I thought it was not posted and I continued till I noticed.
SORRY Again.
@Prasun
ReplyDeleteWont the next version of Brahmos be a CALCM? Why does the IAF want something else/
@Indranil
ReplyDelete1. At more than 2 tons, BrahMos can't be carried by all aircrafts.
2. Cost is also a factor.
3. While enjoying the benefits of supersonic missile @ Mach 3, addition of stealthy subsonic missile very well compliments IAF mission.
To Pawan: Most welcome.
ReplyDeleteTo Buddha: Many thanks. The 600km-range ALCOM should be ready for flight-tests by 2013. Conceptually as well as externally, it will bear resemblance to the French ASMP missile. It is being developed primarily as an air-launched nuclear warhead-carrying tactical cruise missile, but it also has the potential for being used as a conventional warhead-carrying cruise missile for pinpoint strikes against hardened static targets. In a way, it will replace the existing Popeye PGMs in service with both India and Israel. It is also possible to expect an anti-ship variant of this missile, similar to the Aerospatiale ANS, which was proposed in the mid-1980s as a future replacement for the Exocet.
To Joydeep Ghosh: Contrary to what has come out in the broadcast media about any kind of ‘ghotala’ involving the NTRO, the fact remains that the NTRO went in for proven solutions like the Searcher Mk2, for which there now exists enough domestically trained skilled manpower for both operating and servicing this type of MALE-UAV. I personally have no reason to believe that there was any kind of impropriety involved in procuring these UAVs.
Regarding the M-MRCA competition, it is the MoD that adopted the wrong approach from the very outset. I have been saying since 2005 that since the Tejas itself will become the IAF’s single-engined MRCA mainstay in the years to come, it made no sense to invite bidders producing single-engined fourth-generation MRCAs like Lockheed Martin with its F-16 Block 60 and Saab Aircraft AB with its JAS-39 Gripen IN. And if you were to follow the developments between early 2005 and mid-2006, what began to be known as the MRCA competition eventually morphed into the M-MRCA competition, meaning what the IAF really wanted was a heavier, twin-engined combat aircraft that would be able to do much more than what the Tejas Mk1/Mk2 would. Yet, despite this glaring inevitability, the MoD decided to invite even single-engined MRCA manufacturers for the M-MRCA competition. I therefore personally believe that it was the MoD of India which utterly failed to explain to various potential bidders what the M-MRCA competition was all about. Consequently, from that point of view, I reckon both Lockheed Martin and Saab Aircraft received unfair treatment. Carriage of twin Taurus-type CALCMs is not a problem for single-engined MRCAs, even the Tejas Mk2 will be able to carry them.
To Anon@11.37AM: I’m talking about the 600km-range supersonic nuclear warhead-armed ALCM that is being co-developed by the DRDO and Israel’s RAFAEL, and whose flight-tests are due to get underway by 2013. Conceptually as well as externally, it will bear resemblance to the French ASMP missile. It will definitely be lighter than the BrahMos, since the BrahMos was originally developed as a submarine-launched anti-ship cruise missile and later on was modified into a land-launched anti-ship strike missile and a land-launched/land-attack missile. Regarding MPVIs, the solution developed by Mahindra Defence along with BAE Systems has been selected and no other MPVIs are being evaluated. Details on the ICGS’ expansion plans were already given in an earlier thread.
To Anon@12.51PM: No.
ReplyDeleteTo Anon@3.08PM: Nothing of significance came out of that expo.
To Anurag: The 54th Division from Secunderabad was an air-assault division only in name, and had no integral air-assault assets, and the same situation prevails till this day. It was in 1986 after the sanctioning of the Army Aviation Corps that both Rajiv Gandhi and Arun Singh had accorded permission in writing that the Army would in future be equipped with its own fleet of attack helicopters as well as armed medium-lift utility helicopters like the Mi-17. Consequently, Army HQ had selected the 54th Division to be the first combat formation to be equipped with such integrated rotary-winged assets. But for mysterious reasons, this commitment has still not been made into reality.
Regarding the incident of 13 SLI on the night of October 12, 1987, the principal problem was that of field communications. By the time this operation got underway there were not enough support elements in the zone of combat, due to which there were insufficient assets like secure field communications and battlefield surveillance sensors available for deployment. Consequently, the inevitable happened, when ill-equipped infantry formations and insufficient pre-battle preparations combined to produce a battlefield disaster.
To Anon@6.11PM: Yes, it is far too less.
To Indranil: The BrahMos, derived from the Onyx/Yakhont, was originally developed as a submarine-launched anti-ship cruise missile and later on was modified into a land-launched anti-ship strike missile and a land-launched/land-attack missile. And now efforts are in progress to develop an air-launched variant that will be carried by only the Su-30MKI. This consequently does not offer operational flexibility and therefore the 600km-range supersonic CALCM variant will offer much more flexibility since it could be carried by Mirage 2000s, Jaguars IS, Tejas Mk2 as well as the M-MRCAs. In addition, this type of CALCM can also be carried internally by the likes of the FGFA.
@Prasun Da,
ReplyDeleteThanks for replying buddy.So can we say that the Paras were better than the 13 Sikh LI. . . . . . . . at least on that particular night??
By the way,what's wrong with these buffoons??A 1.3 million strong army doesn't even have a singld Air assault division!!And now the future naval ships are going to face more delay.What's next??
Prasun,
ReplyDeleteThe point I was trying to make was the reason major NATO navies have gone for 127mm as their main main gun and are looking at 155mm is because they see have a major requirement for the naval gunfire support role in their respective doctrines. Using their main gun for the anti-air role is not seen as important because almost every frontline vessel operated by major NATO navies have hard kill and soft kill options, unlike in smaller navies where their main guns often constitute their only means of targetting aircraft and missiles. 127mm and 155mm guns are perfort for the anti-surface role and naval gunfire support but due to their rate of fire are not useful for the anti-air role. Don't you find it interesting that the RSN still decided on 76mm for its Formidable class frigates that are large enough to take a 127mm gun? Even the Bundesmarine which has ships large enough to take a 127mm gun still sticks to 76mm which is purely due to doctrinal reasons.
Thanx Prasun for all the answers. I just wanna ask you one thing.
ReplyDeleteI searched about Indo-Israel 600km-range ALCOM missile but was unable to find anything. Can you give us a source where we can read more about this great missile ?
This ALCOM missile is supersonic like MBDA Perseus or Subsonic like Taurus and Scalp ?
ReplyDeleteHow long this missile can loiter in the air before strike and can it change its target after its launched ?
How many Mahindra MPV-i IA is going to purchase and Why Mahindra MPV-i, is OFB MPV is not good ?
To AnonS@7.43AM & 7.51AM: For the ALCM, try this: http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_o_no4M2xEPY/TINGv0Xs0qI/AAAAAAAALMk/Lw0ODttFnl8/s1600/Guess_Livefist_SLIDE.jpg
ReplyDeleteCan you throw more light on the alcm ?
ReplyDeleteSorry for the incomplete post above. Meant to ask can you give some external pointers so we can read more about this alcm
ReplyDeleteDoes the project / missile have a name ?
Prasun Sir,
ReplyDeleteI would like to ask you a very hedonistic question!! Which contender do you think will take the cake for the MMRCA once the commercial bids are open? And do you anticipate any complications from the other bidder(s) as the IAF chief had hinted months ago.
Dear Prasun Ji
ReplyDeleteIf DRDO & Rafael developing 600 Km range ALCOM for delivery of Tactical nuke then what will happen to Air Delivered Munition (ADM) missile based on Barak II as you mentioned in one of your old article, or is this same the missile.
Hey guys this ALCM missile is also famous LRCM first posted on Livefist. Here's the link :
ReplyDeletehttp://livefist.blogspot.com/2011/02/aero-india-crucial-indian-cruise.html
http://livefist.blogspot.com/2010/09/first-look-indias-long-range-cruise.html
Prasun what conformed the existence of this missile ? Because i asked you about this missile a couple of time but you said no such missile existed but thats what many people said as no-one is confirming the existence of this missile.
LRCM and CALCM both can have most of the basics and technologies common between them. So development of one can lead to the development of the other. This method is likely to be cheaper and proven better.
ReplyDeleteLRCM is the CALCM that Prasun is talking about. Am i right Prasun ? Or both missile are different ?
ReplyDeleteTo Pawan: The ADM, LRCM and CALCM are one and the same. The term ADM was first used in the draft nuclear doctrine unveilled by India in late 1998. LRCM is the term used by the DRDO for describing this missile. A derivative of this LRCM will be the CALCM. The Barak-2-based derivative approach was dropped by both RAFAEL & DRDO when it became obvious that such a missile will not be accommodated on board most existing tactical comabt aircraft platforms. At times, people have referred to the Nirbhay as being a LRCM, but to date, the DRDO has not produced any illustration to substantiate this claim.
ReplyDeleteHi Prasun,
ReplyDeleteDo the chinese have an equivalent of BMS/ Future infantry sys like the land warrior?
If reqd they can easily assimilate civilian tech for this r8?
what makes u take notice of the Chinese military(all 3 forms)?
Actually the unfortunate Dhruv and Mig-29 crashes at separate places on the same day have shocked the defense thinking community. Albeit I do not believe in any conspiracy theories, but both were near to the activity zones of the Red Dragon. I hope I am wrong this time.
ReplyDeleteMr. Ra 13 -
ReplyDeleteActually, I share your paranoia about any accidents that happen on our eastern borders. I know this could be unfounded, but having some experience of their workings, I just cant help being paranoid.
To Anon@11.14PM: Of course, there is. The PLA has already deployed its versions of the BMS and F-INSAS, starting with its special operations forces, since 2005. One must not forget that the PLA has invested enormous sums of money into both fundamental R & D as well as in technoloy buy-overs by begging, borrowing or stealing since the early 1990s. In all such endeavours, China is ahead of India by more than 15 years! I first noticed way back in the late 1980s whenever I used to visit European OEMs like Rolls-Royce, and at the same time Chinese technical delegations too visited such facilities, I often came across some members of such delegations wearing unusually thick-soled shoes, which were used for only one purpose: whenever this individual came across a stray nugget of metal alloy lying on the floor, he would stamp his feet heavily on the floor over this nugget, so that the nugget would get stuck underneath the shoe and would later be available for subsequent analysis and possible reverse-engineering.
ReplyDeleteTo Mr.RA 13 & Heberian: The unfortunate crashes took place not due to any kind of wrongdoing by any outsider, but ONLY because of the wrongdoings of their Indian operators. Do you know that there isn’t even a single flight simulator inside India for any member of the MiG family of combat aircraft in service with the IAF since the 1960s? Why haven’t such simulators been acquired for the MiGs since the early 1960s??? Why hasn’t any flight simulator been acquired for the upgraded MiG-21 Bison, MiG-29 and MiG-27UPG for the past two decades? Why did the IAF decide to equip its Russia-origin combat aircraft like the MiG-27M and transport aircraft like the An-32B with countermeasures dispensers only after OP Vijay in 1999? Why were the MiG-21FLs, MiG-21Ms, MiG-21bis, MiG-23BNs, MiG-23MFs and MiG-27Ms not equipped with such self-protection systems from the time they were inducted into service? Why hasn’t Pawan Hans acquired its own low-cost Dhruv ALH and Mi-171 flight simulator? Why haven’t the existing Dhruv ALHs of the Army and IAF not yet been equipped with countermeasures dispensers and radar warning receivers? Why hasn’t the IAF and Army not yet placed any orders for low-cost flight simulators for their respective fleets of Dhruv ALHs? To me there’s only one answer: criminal negligence and culpability of the owners and operators of such aircraft!
To Mr.RA 13 & Heberian: I will in the near future post a detailed analysis in which all the questions I've raised above will be answered. The truth, afterall, it not often what we perceive it to be. And, most regretably, the country's so-called investigative reporters and their media/broadcast channels will never even bother to ask such basic and elementary questions.
ReplyDeleteTo Anon@11.14PM: Are you aware that the PLA Navy has already developed laser-based anti-ship cruise missile defence (directed-energy weapons) for its future aircraft carriers? In Europe MBDA has only done laboratory tests of such weapons thus far, but the PLA Navy actually has a fully defined and funded industrial roadmap aimed at inducting such systems into service in the near future, while India still awaits the arrival of the Barak-2/8 MR-/LR-SAMs.
Does India have a US MULE Unmanned Ground Vehicle type program ?
ReplyDeleteAny progress on various tenders for LCA mk2 ?
Last i know TCS project was given to BEL, is it still with them ? Who is helping them on this project Israelis or French ?
Also WTF, does anybody has any interest in IMRH program or not ?
Any progress on BMS ? Will this project be also be given to local companies or we will go global ?
To Anon@6.47AM: The DRDO along with Larsen & Toubro is doing some R & D on converting a BMP-2 ICV into an unmanned mine obstacle clearance vehicle. No further progress on the tendering for outsourced sub-systems for the Tejas Mk2. Nothing surprising there, since the GE-built F414 itself was selected after a two-year delay! For the TCS, BSS and BMS, it is ELBIT Systems that is the primary strategic industrial partner of BEL. Why are you so bothered about the IMRH programme, when HAL itself isn’t? In terms of budgetary allocations and R & D priorities, HAL is first supposed to develop a Dhruv ALH equipped with a fly-by-light flight control system, and this project itself is four years behind schedule!!! So, my humble advice to you is, just lay off from the IMRH for the next three years at least. The BMS question is already answered above.
ReplyDeleteYeah i know about BMP-2 ICV unmanned version it has already been field tested at-least ones. I am sorry for using MULE as example, what i meant was armed UGV. Any such vehicle planned for armed combat?
ReplyDeleteHow many LUH planned for induction by our armed forces ? 197 from abroad and how many LUH by HAL ? 187 or 384 ?
Thanx for other answers...
Whats left in Indian Ballistic Missile Defense Program after Agni 5 ?
ReplyDeleteIs there a agni 4 and agni 6 also ?
Dear Prasun -
ReplyDeleteI am fully and painfully aware of the shortage of flight simulators and other basic training aids in the IAF. And I agree that answerig your questions will be near impossible for the powers that be.
I was only expressing my irrational paranoia, which has to do with the level of technical leadership the Chinese have achieved and that you wrote about with the example of the thick soled shoes... and with the amount of confidence they display now in international affairs.
I have seen some examples of "signs" sent by them to tell us to lay off, and we did. So, at times, I tend to be extra paranoid about their ways of doing things.
So, please excuse the irrationality of my comment.
Thank you!
And I look forward to reading the detailed analysis of the questions you wrote. In hindsight, George Fernandes was right when he publicly announced the change in our perceptions..
ReplyDeleteHai Prasun, your thoughts on IAF leaking IA forward bases?
ReplyDeleteI do think that simulators will help but they will not solve the prolem. Just look at how many IA soldiers that were killed in accidents during 2002/2003 Ind-Pak standoff? Compare that with PA. Its a question of quality. The quality works in call centres.
ReplyDeletePrasun,
ReplyDeleteHow does the proposed Tejas MK2 compare in terms of performance & capabilities with Saab Gripen NG ?
Although Gripen has lost in the MRCA to other heavys but it sure has some cost effective advantages. Why can't we change/replace the Tejas Mk2 program into a joint venture with Saab for Gripen. After all they share the same engine (agreed the air frames are different ) and India can apply the technologies developed for the LCA like composites etc...in the joint venture and insist on some more features to be incorporated into the Aircraft like reduced RCS etc. This way we have a better & more capable LCA . Is this feasible ? Whats ur view ?
To Anon@7.54AM: 187 from HAL. No UGV for armed combat, only for logistics support.
ReplyDeleteTo Heberian: Many thanks.
To Anon@1.27PM: The locations of the drop zones are a secret or are unknown only for those who have never ever visited J & K or Arunachal Pradesh. Locations of these DZs have been known to India’s neighbours for decades.
To Anon@5.48PM: At least 40% of the fatalities (due to human error) attributed to the MiG family of combat aircraft could have been avoided had such flight simulators existed. Also, one should ask why did the Indian Navy insist on first commissioning its MiG-29K flight simulator in DAB even before the arrival of the MiG-29Ks from Russia. Compare the differences in approach to flying training as defined by the IAF and Indian Navy and the obvious conclusions will be evident.
To SK: The Gripen NG like the Tejas Mk2 is a MRCA, and not the kind of heavier M-MRCA the IAF wants. In addition, the Tejas Mk2 programme is now at a far too advanced stage to be revisited for a change of design and performance parameters.
ReplyDeleteTo Heberian: Check this out: http://www.telegraphindia.com/1111021/jsp/frontpage/story_14650522.jsp
ReplyDeleteSo there's no hurry even on the MALE Rustom-H (forget of armed HALE and UCAVs) and they are just focusing on the Rustom-1, which can't even fly for 12 hrs with zero armament?
ReplyDeleteSir, could you please tell what's the progress - or is there one at all - on these fronts..
1. HAL LUH
2. HAL Medium lift/ battlefield support helicopter
3. Ballistic helmets, BPJs, Pads and Boots for regular infantrymen. What happened to the SATHI hand held computer that was developed few years back? Its been long time since we have heard of it..
4. Indigenous rifle/ carbine/ replacement of Insas, that was once displayed by ARDE guys(video can be found on YT)..
@ 8:00 PM :
ReplyDeleteSATHI is being deployed in JnK on trial basis along-with the current battlefield application software which are customized for infantry sub unit operations in counter insurgency (CI)/counter terrorism (CT) operations. The thing is working well and with only the changes to software portion the computer cab be deployed throughout the IA.
I think developing AMCA on our own is waste of time and money since we have much to learn still.
ReplyDeleteSo, it would be beneficial if we can rope in South Korea and Indonesia and merge the AMCA and KF-X and jointly develop one Twin engine Stealth Super cruising MRCA.
I know they are not exactly planning to develop a 5th GEN All Stealth aircraft but given India would Fund the lions share they would have no objection to give in to us...........
Will the two countries happily welcome us?????
Is the plan in anyway feasible..
Don't you think it is better way to go about?????
& is anyone in MOD even thinking about it ?????
Would IAF have any objections???
To Anon@8PM: The LUH nis behind schedule, as expected, since both the engine and cockpit avionics suite have not yet been selected. It was supposed to be done by last June. HAL’s medium-lift battlefield support helicopter is the Dhruv Mk4 armed with Mistral ATAM and a yet-to-be-selected ATGM. The SATHI is being used in a limited manner only for COIN using LAN intranet network. It will be used in a big way using a tactical internet architecture once the F-INSAS network becomes operational. As for indigenous small arms, one cannot expect miracles to happen when the MoD even refuses to approve the five-year defence plans, choosing instead to release funds only on a yearly basis! Everything boils down to money: when one approves long-term funding commitment without any constraint, then R & D becomes a planned affair. Right now all this being done in an unplanned and ad hoc manner. Looks like the Govt of India is making detailed planning and implementation efforts only on things like national rural employment guarantee schemes, while remaining comatose on national security affairs.
ReplyDeleteTo Shree: It is a foregone conclusion that India does not and will not have either the financial or industrial resources for developing the AMCA on her own. It has to be a multilateral effort, since the Planning Commission itself believes now that India’s upward growth trajectory will at best last for only another five years (in the continued absence of urgently required structural reforms) after which things will slow down and present levels of funding will no longer be available. South Korea and Indonesia are already a step ahead of India concerning the KF-X and knowing the South Korean mentality, it is highly unlikely that the South Koreans will share any of their high-tech R & D gains with India. In addition, countries like Vietnam will in all probability stick to the Russians for obtaining high-tech hardware like the T-50 PAK-FA. I therefore only see countries like Brazil, Singapore and South Africa as prospective investors in the AMCA programme.