The day-at-sea organised by the Indian Navy’s (IN) Western Naval Command on November 14 provided some additional insights into the force modernisation activities of the IN. For instance, most of the frontline warships and fleet-support vessels are now being refrofitted with RAFAEL Advanced Defense Systems Ltd’s C-PEARL-M ESM system, which enables the automatic detection, data measurement and identification of threats. The C-PEARL-M system is known as SANKET. Other items being refrofitted include the RUKMINI SATCOMS-suite, which is imported directly from Israel’s ORBIT Communication Systems, Ltd through its Indian agent Bharat Electronics Ltd (BEL); and Consilium Selux X-band navigation radars and ECDIS (electronic navigation chart display) systems supplied by Consilium AB of Sweden. All this will also go on board the three Project 15A guided-missile destroyers (DDG), four Project 15B DDGs, and the seven projected Project 17A guided-missile frigates.
As far as AEW operations go, the present practice calls for one Ka-31 to be stationed 96km ahead of an aircraft carrier-based battle group, with all AEW-related data being relayed by a secure data-link (known as Link-S) to the aircraft carrier’s combat information centre (CIC), and not directly to the MiG-29Ks or Sea Harriers. In future, depending on availability of the GSAT-7 satellite (which will be the IN’s first dedicated fleet satellite communications satellite, expected to be launched next year), both the existing ship-to-ship Link-2 and Link-S data-links will be making use of SATCOMS channels for two-way relay of data and communications. The GSAT-7 (INSAT-4F) will be a multi-band satellite carrying payloads in UHF, S-band, C-band and Ku-band. The satellite will weigh 2,330kg with a payload power of 2,000W. The follow-on GSAT-7A will be an IAF-specific communications satellite.—Prasun K. Sengupta
140 comments:
Vikram Sood's article
Vijainder Thakur's article
I have following queries based on the above two articles
1) What role is the MMRCA going to fulfil? The fourth paragraph in Mr. Sood`s article weighs out the technical pros and cons of Rafale and Eurofighter among other things. What would be your preference.
2) Both the articles make a case for F-35 for a specific purpose for the same. What is your opinion regarding the same?
Hi Prasun,
As per a report in Indian Express the first flight of Indian AEW&CS will be on Dec 7. Have you any news on this?
Also is all system that are going to deployed on this AEW&CS indigenous??Specially the main surviallance rader,Friend Foe indicator,The self protection suite and mission system controlller?
Dear prasun ji
Given that INS want to buy gulfstream based aew&cs, would it be able to fit the role of ka 31 especialy when operating away from mainland.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=gSgjTUx0S1Y#!
I have no doubt that chini will attack Indian exploration ships in south china sea....
Also pak will increase attacks when Indians train Afghan security forces.
But we have no option but to go ahead with our plan...
Since the first one will satisfy our energy requirements and second our security requirements...
Can Indian vessels attack the fishing trawlers(if they are speeding towards the ship) in Vietnam claimed waters????????
What else can be done????
Are we also buying Gabriel 5 Missile along with the Barak8 for the ships?????
Do you think Gabriel 5 Missile is more advanced than the Klub versions??
And do Klubs and Harpoon have Active seekers??
Are any advanced variants of Klub ASM being developed???
http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/regions/middle-east/111116/iran-us-nuclear-sanctions-war
"WITH GREAT POWER COMES GREAT RESPONSIBILITY"
In American case
"WITH GREAT POWER YOU CAN BE GREAT BULLY"
And after a decade or more the chini will join them and actually be a bully rather than trying to be one....
In our case I doubt if we can assert similar power projection...
To Anon@5.28PM: My personal M-MRCA preference is firstly the Super Hornet, followed by the Rafale. Now, since it is only a two-cornered fight between the Rafale and EF-2000, I guess I’ll have to stay satisfied with the Rafale. Now, coming to the opinions voiced by Vikram Sood, here are the flaws in his assessment:
A) His premise of an air war between China and India being restricted to just manned aircraft is dead wrong. In fact, the Chinese literally gave away their India-centric war-plan a week ago when the ‘People’s Daily’ newspaper—commenting on India’s projected military build-up along the LAC—said: “In an era when precision-guided weapons are developing rapidly, everyone with common sense knows that concentrated troops could be eliminated easily.” Which means that in China’s military lexicon, there will never be an all-out war between the two countries, but only a localised conflict (as in 1962) with limited objectives during which maximum use will be made of rocket-based artillery assets such as NLOS-BSMs, tactical ballistic missiles and long-range cruise missiles. Therefore, for deterrence purposes, what India is reqd to do is undertake a corresponding build-up of capacities & capabilities like deploying BrahMos, Prahaar and Shaurya in large numbers against China all along the LAC’s three sectors—northern, central and eastern.
To Anon@5.28PM: The second premise is: “Any future threat scenario must factor in that the Chinese air force, with its 2,900 fighter aircrafts, is numerically far superior to the IAF. Aircraft like the JH7 with an 1,800 km radius could be deployed from bases in Tibet to strike deep into India. This is apart from the missile deployments in Tibet. The IAF, even after the acquisition of the MRCA, will not have the capability to strike deep into the Han homeland in retaliation to a major strike in our heartland. A retaliatory strike has to make news as well. For this, the IAF would need the Russian TU-22 or SU-34 bomber.”--------------Firstly, the PLAAF will not be able to allocate more than 200 combat aircraft against the IAF, simply due to the paucity of ground infrastructure and vagaries of the terrain along the LAC. Assets like the JH-7A & Su-30MKK will simply not be able to carry appreciable offensive payloads when operating from the five available high-altitude airports and one air base located in the Tibetan plateau. That’s why the PLAAF during annual air exercises since last year over TAR (out of Shigatse air base) have used only the J-10 equipped with only two LGBs, while the Sy-27SKs were armed with only unguided rockets (see: http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_44d3OT-xI3U/SSrukgqcEbI/AAAAAAAAAdA/yXUSB-oxxyg/s1600-h/Su-30MKI+Weapons-7.JPG) For the IAF the principal targets within TAR will be only road/rail transportation nodes and the airports/air bases—all of which can be accurately struck with land-attack missiles like BrahMos & Shaurya. The only sector where the JH-7As & Su-30MKKs could be employed is the Northeast, and that too when launched from air bases in the Yunnan & Sichuan provinces. The best way of neutralising this threat is for the IAF to deploy a dense, hierarchical air-defence network using MR-SAMs (the Barak-2), E-SHORADS (Akash Mk1) & SHORADS (SpyDer-SR). And this is exactly what the IAF is now doing.
“There is still some hesitation in New Delhi about such offers from the US. Pakistan is a US ally and China is America's main economic partner. It would be unwise to expect the US to ignore these interests in favour of India. The F-35 may not be faulted on technical qualifications but political considerations would be an important factor. Somewhere in the strategic minds in DC and New Delhi, the ghost of the Cold War and its suspicions still lurk. The US looks for allies in the region as it lowers its profile, India can only offer friendship.”----------------This again is dead-wrong. Had the US or even India had any such inhibitions, then the IAF would not have embraced the Tejas LCA Mk1 & Mk2 with such a high content of US-origin hardware, and would not have ordered hardware like the C-130J-30 Super Hercules & C-17A.
To Anon@5.28PM: Regarding the 2nd article, here are the factual errors: Firstly, the assertion that “Russia is dependent on Indian funding to develop the T-50 and projecting an ambitious timeline is way of ensuring the funding is not jeopardized” is simply not true. Since 2005, Russian funding for military R & D projects has come 100% from interbal funds, and not from funds earned through export orders. As for the 2nd assertion: “As things stand, India's best hope for deterring a repeat of Mumbai, or something worst, is a credible punitive strike option. A surgical strike, that humiliates Pak military leadership, just like the Abottabad raid to eliminate Bin Laden. By acquiring a 2-3 squadrons of F-35 Lightening – II the IAF would acquire a credible punitive strike capability. IAF F-35s could surgically strike targets in Pakistan without sustaining any losses, with devastating accuracy and no collateral damage. Such punitive strikes on terror infrastructure targets could be readily acknowledged as one time retaliation, giving Pakistan no reason to escalate.”---This again is factually untrue, since the HAROP UCAVs acquired by the IAF are more than capable of targetting terrorist masterminds (provided there’s actionable intelligence), thereby doing away with the need for manned combat aircraft for such punitive air-strikes. HAROPS launched from any air base in Punjab (for attacking targets in and around Lahore) or from a warship 100km away from Karachi’s coastline (for targetting anyone located in and around that city) will be make stealthy pinpoint strikes of the type that manned combat aircraft can’t. One needs to learn and analyse how & why has the CIA been using its Predators and Reapers for such anti-terrorist punitive air-strikes.
In conclusion, therefore, I once again reiterate that the F-35 is being proposed for consideration against the AMCA-related R & D effort, and is not being offered as an alternative to the M-MRCA.
Spanky's Blog: If that's what the "Pujari of Bhagwan & Vigyan" (Dr V K Saraswat) has said, then I'll take his word for it, & give him gull benefit of the doubt. To me, the maiden flight is og no consequence. What matters most is when will the system attain full operational capability, in the same way as I prefer to reserve judgement on the DRDO's periodic announcements about the Agni family of ballistic missiles always having 'textbook' launches (which I too accept in toto), but no such announcements about the missiles' CEPs (one wonders why should the DRDO maintain ambiguity about this, since such ambiguity only serves to subvert the very notion of strategic deterrence). As for what's local and what's imported on the AEW & CS, kindly go to: http://trishul-trident.blogspot.com/2011/05/full-spectrum-hawk-eyes.html
The panoramic AMLCDs are coming from Belgium's BARCO, the SATCOMS suite from ORBIT Technologies, & the self-protection suite from the DARE/Cassidian/BEL JV. I also have my doubts about the S-band T/R modules being of indigenous origin, and these may well come from Israel. This is because setting up industrial-scale fabrication facilities for a small number of T/R modules for just a few AEW & CS platforms is totally uneconomical, unless there is a production-sharing screwdriver-ToT agreement with IAI/ELTA under which such S-band T/R modules are also being used for the EL/M-2248 MF-STAR AESA-based naval radar, 15 of which are being acquired by the Indian Navy.
US removes maps showing PoK as part of Pakistan from website:
WASHINGTON: The US State Department has removed "inaccurate" maps of India and Pakistan from its website which did not reflect the correct boundary and geographical locations.
"We have taken the map (of India) off the website. It did contain some inaccuracies which were associated with the boundaries of some geographic features," State Department spokesperson Victoria Nuland told reporters at a news conference on Monday.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/US-removes-maps-showing-PoK-as-part-of-Pakistan-from-website/articleshow/10825586.cms
Hmmm that is great and when the correct maps are really posted, then India should be ready to take sides with USA at the places from pacific to Afghanistan, whether in war or in peace.
To Pawan: The IN's reqmt for shore-based AEW & CS is primarily meant for according AEW & C coverage over the A & C Islands and India's eastern seaboard. The Ka-31s are meant to be shipborne assets since they are used not only for AEW for a carrier-based battle group, but also for providing over-the-horizon targetting for long-range anti-ship strike missiles like the BrahMos, Club-M/S and Kh-35 Uran-E.
To Shree: I don’t think the GoI has any plans to attack any Chinese fishing trawlers in the South China Sea, since ONGC-owned or chartered vessels will be unarmed, and won’t be accompanied by any Indian navy vessels, since the waters in the exploration areas are claimed by Vietnam to be within its EEZ and therefore Vietnam will be responsible for ensuring the safety and security of any vessel operating in that area. No Gabriel-5s are being sought. The BrahMos, Harpoons and Club-S/Ms all have active terminal seekers. The supersonic Klub-S/M anti-ship strike missiles are far more advanced than the subsonic Harpoons, Exocets, C-802As & C-602s. Regarding the US vs China war of words, the Chinese stress that the West’s policy has traditionally been to make rich nations poor (which is factually correct), while China’s policy has always been to make poor nations rich (according to what some Chinese think-tanks said at an IDSA-organised seminar last week in New Delhi). But the reality is that Beijing has, since the mid-1990s, almost destroyed the industrial manufacturing sectors of the ASEAN member-states (with the exception of Vietnam) and has reduced them to mere vassal states supplying only primary commodities, hydrocarbons and minerals. All the newly industrialised ‘Tiger’ economies of East Asia are now a thing of the past. If this is what is meant by reaping the rewards by becoming a subservient country that can only boast of having an agrarian-cum-tourism-oriented economy, then that’s something fundamentally wrong with the leaders of such countries. Just look at the sheer numbers of empty containers heading out from Malaysia’s ports in Klang & Tanjung Pelepas in Johor, and you will see the merits/perils of courting China’s goodwill.
"...one Ka-31 to be stationed 96km ahead of an aircraft carrier-based battle group..." Just one? Is that not too few?
To Mr.RA 13: Actually, yesterday I had conveyed your sheer displeasure at this unwarranted for act of the US State Departnment through a trusted interlocutor (not Mansoor Ijaz, rest assured) to the relevant authorities at the Foggy Bottom, and am glad that they have swift note of your annoyance and have since rectified the situation. That explains why I was busy last night and was unable to answer the mounting pile of queries in this blog. Shit happens, but all's well that ends well, as the saying goes. (Lolz!!!!)
To Chintan: One Ka-31 airborne at a time, not just one available Ka-31 for the entire mission. Each aircraft carrier (the Vikramaditya, Viraat and the Vikrant IAC) will have at least five Ka-31s on board to ensure non-stop AEW coverage during an expeditionary warfare mission, which will typically last for 6 to 8 hours.
Respected PKS: And I was thinking it to be a shear coincidence. Lol...
Anyhow I am (and the whole nation thereof shall be) highly thankful to you and to the "relevant authorities at the Foggy Bottom" for this sacred cause. May Bharatmata and the highest authority divine or mundane you believe shall have their choicest blessings upon you.
To Mr.RA 13: I'm truly humbled now. VMT.
Hi Prasun,
Cant the Indians work with the Russians on iltrotor aircraft like the Mil Mi 30 which could be xported and aso make it easier to compete with other enternched players?or use their leverage thid potential
To Anon@2.45AM: Instead of developing expensive tilt-rotor solutions, the focus should instead be on developing light armed aerosocuts and armed medium-lift utility helicopters featuring twin co-axial counter-rotating main rotors & a pusher-propeller or dual-ducted pusher-fans at the rear, such as Sikorsky's
S-97 Raider and Kamov's Ka-92. When using such lift-cum-propulsion systems along with fly-by-light flight control systems, such helicopters will be able to achieve cruise speeds in excess of 200 Knots and also have excellent hot-and-high performance. The IMRH & LUH ought to make use of such technologies in cooperation with companies like Kamov & US-based AVX Aircraft Company. The LUH in particular can easily incorporate such technologies with minimal risk and minimal airframe redesigning. At the same time, the existing SA.315B Lama/Cheetahs can easily be upgraded and re-engined into the Cheetal configuration to serve as LUHs for at least another decade. But given HAL's decrepit corporate mentality, it will be next to impossible for such DPSUs to embrace cutting-edge but proven technologies.
Sir between these two which one will you select.
http://www.military-today.com/artillery/t5_52.htm
http://www.military-today.com/artillery/caesar.htm
In previous thread u favored the French Caesar due to its lighter weight. The Denal T5-52 has a better gun althoug heavy. Which one of them will offer more TOT if either one of them is selected.
Thanks in advance.
Between the eurofighter and the Rafale which has an upper hand and why?Which should the IAF purhase if cost was not a factor. The EF 2000 has a larger radome and a greater radar aperture than the RBE 2 aesa. When the Captor 2 aesa radar is fitted on board the EF 2000 Tranche 3 from 2013 onwards then EF will have a great advantage over the Rafale. The captor radar will have greater range and more air-ground modes than the rafale. Regarding the internal EW suite which has the upper hand the Spectra or the DASS? Which can jam more threats simultaneously? Now, the Rafale and the EF both have similar platforms and constuction materials then why is the payload of Rafale is 9.5 t and that of EF is 7.5 t? Why aren't both these aircrafts fitted with any sort of IF countermeasure other than flares such as DIRCM when modern IF guided missiles can't be jade effectively without it. Pls reply PRASUN .
This is anon @November 22, 2011 5:28 PM.
Appreciating you for your detailed response.
What role is the MMRCA fighter going to fulfil?
Prasun,
What do you think of HAL Dhruv Helicopter ?
Is it one of the rare successful project by HAL??
How does it compare to other competition??
And importantly are our armed forces happy with it?
And I heard that Army is considering to buy 30 Kamov Ka-60 fitted with Apache engine.
Is it true????
I heard US Sikorsky's
S-97 Raider for Coast Guard's RFP. But why for ICG and not IN ?
How many companies including drdo building 155 mm artillery in India ?
Please do all your fans a favor and find out some more about FINSAS propgram...
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/asd/2011/11/23/01.xml&headline=Boeing%20Offers%20New%20Capabilities%20For%20F/A-18s
Was this version offered in MMRCA?
Wonder why IAF rejected it...
Is this type of layout possible in European Fighters????
hi Prasun,
Why did the US take confrontational approach on china now when in 2009 it was ready to accomodate the chinese as the regional satrap?
what sin has china committed(economic? trade?)that suddenly us wants to set up this league of democracies?
why does india want to toe the us line when all regional countries are willing to cooperate on regional issue like Afghanistan? or Iran
Hi Prasun, Great write ups. I open this up everyday and read everything that I can, esp your replies for comments. Great Job, thanks for your almost unbiased views and for not lobbying like many others.
I saw you reply to someone saying that FGFA will have a different engine compared to PAKFA and that it will have 2d or 3d TVC. There was a news (http://www.lenta.ru/news/2011/09/23/fgfa/) which said that IAF has chosen Lyulka Al-41F-1S (of Su35) for FGFA. Interestingly, the newly released figures of FGFA powerplant on HAL website matches exactly with Al-41F-1S. Su35 has a ±15º two dimentional TVC on one of its variant. So I think the ±15º TVC mentioned in HAL website corresponds exactly to this. How will you weigh in on this?
Again, thanks for your articles , cleans up most of the confusion caused by ibnlive and TOI :P Actually when you wrote to someone explaining a hypothetical war campaign scenario for understanding twin seat FGFA's capabilities, I was able to imagine it like a movie. This writing ability of yours is really a gift!
November 24, 2011 2:08 AM
To Anon@9.54AM: Undoubtedly the Ceasar. Since it is the only motorised SPH capable of being airlifted by transport aircraft like even the C-130J-30 Super Hercules, an advantagr that no other motorised SPH currently enjoys. Also, of all other existing motorised SPHs, the Caesar is the only one in mass production and has received export orders in appreciable quantities. As for ToT, several packages/options are available for NEXTER Systems to be proposed.
To Anon@5.37PM: Firstly, range of any radar is determined by not just the antrenna diameter, but also the transmitted power. Secondly, the RBE-2 has a lead over the Captor-E in terms of product maturity and therefore introduction of additional modes of operation will first take place on the RBE-2, and not the Captor-E. The same goes for the Spectre. If India’s MoD goes strictly by pricing levels, then the Rafale is already the winner as of November 4, 2011. The direct/indirect offsets commitment could well go up to beyond 50% if one considers what I will be explaining below. In addition, since the guided-missiles and PGMs for both the Rafale & upgraded Mirage 2000H/THs will be more or less the same, this will translate into fewer holdings of such munitions, and commonality of storage/maintenance/servicing reqmts, thereby resulting in a lesser financial burden when it comes to creation of new-build ground-based product support infrastructure. On top of that, if SNECMA Moteurs really throws in a generous lifeline for the 98kN Kaveri turbofan’s R & D effort (as it had done in helping GTRE develop a weight-budgeted version of the Kaveri K-9), and if THALES Avionics chips in by offering to co-develop with India’s financial help a lightweight version of the RBE-2 AESA-MMR (like Raytheon’s RACR and Northrop Grumman’s SABR) tailor-made for the Tejas Mk2 LCA and LCA (Navy) Mk2, then I reckon the French are destined for a historic win. Add to that SNECMA Moteurs’ proposal for supplying turboshaft engines at mouth-watering process for the HAL-designed 3-tonne LUH, Dassault Aviation’s desire to help the DRDO develop the AURA UCAV (thanks to Dassault’s involvement in the NEURON UCAV project) , and France’s offer (like that to Brazil, which is already under implementation) to help India design and build nuclear-powered attack submarines (companies like DCNS are already working with Kirloskar & Walchandnagar Industries for the Scorpene SSKs), and lo and behold (!), the French cake that’s being baked suddenly gets bigger and much more appetizing! Bon appétit, mon ami!
To KSK: From a design standpoint, the Dgruv ALH is a sound machine, all singing and dancing. However, it terms of continuous product development of an evolutionary nature, HAL has stagnated to a terrible extent. For instance, withgin a decade of the Drhuv making its maiden flight, it should have been equipped with a fly-by-wire of fly-by-light flight control system as well as with ATGMs. Secondly, the 3-tonne single-engined LUH derivative should have begun its flight-tests by 2005. But as HAL is a MoD-owned DPSU, it has to join the queue along with other MoD-owned DPSUs for seeking additional R & D funds from the MoD—a process that has caused extensive delays to the R & D schedules of both follow-on Dhruv derivatives, as well as to those of the LUH and LCH.
To Shree: I had written about this variant of the Super Hornet at: http://trishul-trident.blogspot.com/2011/04/separating-wheat-from-chaff.html
This variant was first shown at Aero India 2011 last February. What was shown inside it is way betonf what all others were proposing at that time. To me it remains to date the best M-MRCA offer that has been proposed.
To Devanand: Very many thanks. Both the FGFA and PAK-FA will have the same definitive turbofan, the Al-41F, but the Su-35s are still powered by derivatives of the 117S turbofan (which is also now powering the PAK-FA prototypes), since the AL-41F is still under development. All that is now known is that the AL-41F will have at least 20% more thrust-rating than what is available from the Su-30MKI’s AL-31FPs, and that engine reliability figures like those of TTSL and TBO will be substantially higher. Definitive persormance data on the AL-41F will be available only by 2016. The figures coming out now are all tentative and projected, and not definitive.
Prasun,
http://idrw.org/?p=5427
Now I think you can also post pics of Arjun MkII which didnt earlier. What say??? we are waiting.
Prasun have u seen the pic of arjun mk2 posted by Mr. Ajay Shukla ? You said the turret has been changed and is modular somewhat like
Leopard 2 but if you look at the picture there's no change made to the turret except era tiles addition.
Is the pic posted by ajay shukla fake ? Or you were wrong about IMI making changes to arjun mk2 turret ?
To Anon@11.34AM: Nope, still cannot, since what has come out is only the artist's conception of the Arjun Mk2, and not the real thing, which is still being kept under wraps.
To Anon@12.41PM: The up-armouring enhancements to the Arjun Mk1's turret are modular add-on kits that are fitted on-site. The photos you've quoted do not show the add-on armour kits for obvious reasons. Overall, the article is highly disappointing since it does not speak at all about the brand-new 1,500hp powerpack and enhancements to the gun-control system and fire-control system, plus the remotely operated weapons station gousing the .50-cal HMG which is what the Arjun Mk2 is all about.
To Anon@12.41PM: Also, kindly note that the ERA tiles, modified transmission and re-engineered hydropneumatic suspensions (originally designed and developed by US-based Textron Systems) are meant for those Arjun Mk1 MBTs that are already on order and these enhancements will be done on-site or at EME workshops for those Arjun Mk1's already in service or on order. The other 'test tank' that BROADSWORD refers to, but to which photographic access was obviously denied, is in fact the distinctive Arjun Mk2, which sports the Cummins India-based 1,500hp powerpack and ELBIT Systems-supplied all-electric turret traverse/stabilisation system, as opposed to the Mk1's existing electro-hydraulic system of German origin.
Where do things stand in so far as air-to-air refullers acquisition is concerned?
Previously Airbus refullers were selected and subsequently the selection was cancelled.
With the combined effects of increased weights and inclusion of more powerful 1500 HP engine, the max speed of Arjun-Mk2 can be up to 65 Km/Hr.
Although Army must be happy, but is this speed really sufficient and if yes then why Chinese tanks are designed for much higher speeds as if for running in the European playgrounds.
So in short no changes to turret body like in leopard 2 except addition of era tiles like Russian t90. Why did CVRDE consulted Islrealis for turret then ?
How the speed of arjun mk2 can be increased, i mean if we want to in the future ?
How did mk2 performed against Leopard 2 during summer trials ?
What is happening with minesweepers ? I thought we were going to purchase them from korea under buy and make category...
Can you tell us about IN's plan to purchase midget submarine ?
Sirkosky is offering us S-97 Raider for ICG RFP. Has IN also received such an offer ?
To Mr.RA 13 & Anon@8.29PM: Let’s first separate the wheat from the chaff. The PLA Army’s MBTs like the Type 96G and Type 99 are medium battle tanks like the T-90S, not main battle tanks. The principal Chinese MBT is the ZTZ-99A2, which weighs about 66 tonnes and is powered by a 1,500hp engine. Even the new Russian MBT to replace the T-90S will have a 1,500hp engine, meaning that even the Russians now have classified the T-90S as a medium battle tank. Now turning to the Arjun, the following points must be noted, which BROADSWORD has failed to explain or highlight:
1) The Arjun Mk1 with the mine-plough weighs 63 tonnes and when ERA tiles on the frontal glacis and hull sides, plus sloped ERA tiles are fitted on the turret-sides, the weight goes up to 64.5 tonnes, since the ERA panels (identical to those found on the T-90S) account for only 1.5 tonnes. All in all, there are 19 major modifications (not deep structural re-engineering) on the Arjun Mk1, including the recalibrated transmission, blow-out panels for the hull-based ammo storage compartment (which will also house six LAHAT laser-guided ATGMs and this will result in lesser numbers of HESH rounds being carried), uncooled thermal imager for the driver, a SAGEM-supplied thermal imager operating in the 3-5 micron bandwidth for the gunner’s sight, the commander’s panoramic sight housing the THALES-built Catherine-FC thermal imager operating in the 8-12 micron bandwidth, a modified ballistics computer plus a modified gunner’s weapons control display panel (for enabling the Lahat ATGM to be fired), new hydropneumatic suspensions (reverse-engineered by the CVRDE and built by Kirloskar, but originally imported from US-based Textron Systems), and fitment of an ELBIT Systems-supplied laser warning receiver that will automatically activate the countermeasures dispensers. When all these are on board, the MBT would still be called the Arjun Mk1 and all earlier Arjun Mk1s will in future be brought to this fitment standard. It is this upgraded Arjun Mk1 variant that costs Rs37 crores per unit.
(continued below)
2) The Arjun Mk2, which is still out-of-bounds for any news reporter/journalist, will be a structurally re-engineered MBT incorporating 93 major enhancements (including the 19 mentioned above). This MBT’s all-up weight will reach 66 tonnes due to additional integral ceramic-based armour enhancements + fitment of the IMI-built Iron Fist active protection system (APS). For maintaining the 70kph speed-level, a new powerpack (including the Cummins India-built 1,500hp engine & RENK/SESM-built transmission) has been installed. For this to happen, the engine compartment has been totally redesigned. The hull’s interior has also been redesigned in order to accommodate up to six Lahat ATGMs in a way that will enable the MBT to carry its originally planned stock of APFSDS/HESH rounds. In addition, the existing OFB-built 12.7mm machine gun has been replaced by a remote-controlled weapons station with its integral FLIR sight and a .50-cal machine gun. The existing CVRDE-designed turret-mounted smoke dispensers have been replaced by twin smaller and more compact smoke/IR countermeasures dispensers supplied by RAFAEL Advanced defense Systems Ltd. Lastly, the existing electro-hydraulic turret stabilisation/traverse system will be replaced by an all-electric system supplied by ELBIT Systems. As of now the Indian Army is desirous of totally doing away with the bolt-on ERA tiles on the Arjun Mk2 since both the additional ceramic-based integral armour-plating & APS on paper gives higher & assured levels of protection. This, however, needs to be demonstrated by the CVRDE & IMI. The Arjun Mk2 is estimated to cost Rs42 crores per unit.
3) The projected Arjun Mk3 will retain all the enhancements of the Mk2, but will have an integrated but distributed vectronics suite using the MIL-STD-1553B digital databus.
Prasun Sir @ 5.45,
If you allow me to get a bit mischievous, I think you are more or less predicting a Rafale win in the MMRCA (nothing wrong in that).
I for one have always looked at analysis of the offsets package (which Eurofighter would most likely have more variety) with a level of emotional detachment. All the contenders would have had to submit equivalent proposals (relative to contract value), so in essence, it would be difficult to qualify competing offsets on similarly priced products (like the two Euro-canards). IOW, a more "extensive" offsets package from Eurofighter may not be as attractive as it sounds.
Hey Mr Sengupta,I have got few questions regarding Arjun MkII:
1.Is there any plan to remove the gunner's main sight to the turret roof from fron turret??Don't you think,in current MkI,the gunner's main sight is too much vulnerable to frontal hits??
2.Will the MkII get a bigger ammunition box in the turret bustle to hold all the ammo unlike present MkI which stores some of the ammo in the hull??
Please try to reply.
Thnx. :-)
sir recently read that"The UK government has agreed a $180 million deal to sell 72 retired Harrier aircraft to the U.S. Marine Corps for use as spare parts for " ........... can not India consider to get at least 10-15 retired Harrier aircraft to revive our career fleet till 2020.
.... your opinion is solicited
Thanks & Regards
Buddha
Thanx for the reply Prasun,
Will these new upgraded arjun mk1 features be implemented on all arjun mk1 ?
What is the progress on this new turret of arjun mk2 ? When can we expect the testing of arjun mk2, i mean new turret with APS etc. ?
Can drdo develop arjun mk2 by 2014 ?
Whats the progress on installing APS on arjun mk1 ?
To SOUVIK: The gunner's sight is exactly where it ought to be, since most if not all ATGMs (shoulder-launched or helicopter-launched or aircraft-launched) are top-attack munitions. Regarding the ammo bustle in the hull, there are no plans to shift it on to the turret because if tjhe turret size is increased, this will prevent the turret from being rotated on account of the two fuel tanks positioned at the rear.
To Buddha: Whay should there be requirement for using the Sea Harriers till 2020 when the Navy by then will have two aircraft carriers capable of housing some 30 MiG-29Ks?
To Anon@4.16AM: All the 19 cmodifications mentioned by BROADSWORD are for the Arjun Mk1 MBT only. Once carried out, it will result in the Arjun Mk1A variant of the MBT. As for the Arjun Mk2, structural engineering-design work has already been completed and prototype fabrication is now in progress. With the new 1,500hp powerpack (see: http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/uncategorized/drdo-to-make-indigenous-arjun-tank-hi-tech_100159572.html), the Arjun Mk2 can be expected to begin its mobility-cum-firepower trials by next year, with these ending by 2014. There won't be any APS on Arjun Mk1 for now, and that's why ERA tiles are due for bolt-on installation on them.
Prasun,
And I heard that Army is considering to buy 30 Kamov Ka-60 fitted with Apache engine.
Is it true????
Kabaab Me Haddi
*As of now since Rupee is at all time low (1$ = Rs52.47)..
how will it effect the pricing of MMRCA?
*I see you seem to be favoring the Rafale but i think in terms of offset .... the diversified resources of Typhoon makers will be more useful for speedy development of our defense companies....
What do you think???
*Importantly what will be the role of Private companies , when offset will be implemented??
How many deals for Naval Multi-Role Helis going on ?
Who are participating in 75 Naval Multi-Role Helis competition ?
In this deal how many choppers will IN end up purchasing ?
I also read a recent article in which Mr. SAraswat said they are building radars with range upto 3000 km. Is it right ?
Any knowledge about projects on Protection of our space assets ?
Are we monitoring our coastline and sea lanes with Satellites ? Are there plans for any such satellite ?
What are the new development on the electronic warfare front ?
I heard tata won two develop 2 types of vehicle mounted EW systems. How many such systems will be acquired ?
Amur 1650 Submarines
As per the above article, submarine of type Amur 1650 with Russian navy may serve only as a prototype, and Project 677 program maybe suspended.
The same was offered Project 75-I. What impact would it have on Project 75-I?
Request you to share your opinion regarding the same.
Thanx for your kind elaborations on Arjun MBT.
HEY Prasun WHAT IS this config Studies ? How important it is ?
http://livefist.blogspot.com/2011/11/config-studies-of-indias-5th-gen-amca.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
Have we actually started the work on AMCA prototype ?
Have we started the work on various 5th gen tech for AMCA ?
Except Serpentine air intake what are the plans to reduce RCS ?
What happened to Indo-Israel Mayawi EW system ? Should we go for Rafale's whole system as it is the best right now ?
Have we started the work on new gen avionics for AMCA ?
Are we going to put plasma coating on amca ?
All those people who are making big noises about chinese aircraft carriers kindly make s point to read this article
www.navaltoday.com/2011/11/25/construction-of-first-chinese-aircraft-carrier-faces-new-unanticipated-problems/
sir u said drdo is developing a precision guided munition for 155mm artillery guns...SIR CAN U PLZZ PROVIDE MORE INFO ON THIS....
any updates on our procurement of howitzers and sph's.....
what about the trials of atmos2000 , caesar and archer ??
Anonymous @ 7.57 Am
How many deals for Naval Multi-Role Helis going on ?
http://defenseblog-njs.blogspot.com/2011/11/multi-role-helicopters-for-indian-navy.html
To KSK: I’m not aware of any plans by any Indian entity to procure Kamov Ka-60s. Regarding industrial offsets, the number of sub-vendors for the Rafale is more or less the same as those for the EF-2000. Therefore, when it comes to direct or indirect industrial offsets, the quantum of any package put forth by any principal industrial consortium will be the same. In fact, when procuring everything from multiple entities located in a single country (like Dassault, SNECMA Moteurs, THALES, Intertechnique, SAGEM, MBDA) the cross-country ToT framework becomes far more manageable, both logictically and financially. As opposed to this, when dealing with the Eurofighter consortium spread across four countries, despite the EU monetary union, there have been several cases of industry-level mismatches (as revealed by the UK audit report earlier this year), which in turn have led to spiraling costs and delayed production schedules. There will be several private Indian companies that will benefit from the direct industrial offsets, just as companies like Alpha technologies Pvt Ltd have benefitted from the Su-30MKI licenced-production programme.
To Anon@7.57AM: There are two separate helicopter procurement programmes for the Navy. One is for 10-tonne machines for deployment on board DDGs, FFGs and the IAC, for which the S-70B2 from Sikorsky & Eurocopter’s NH-90 have been shortlisted. These will eventually replace the older Kamov Ka-25s and Sea King Mk42As and up to 16 will be initially procured. A follow-on batch of 24 will be procured later for replacing the older Ka-28PLs, Sea King Mk42Cs and Sea King Mk42Bs. The second helicopter reqmt is for the four LPHs, for which the CH-53K, HH-92 Superhawk and AW-101 are the main contenders. At least 24 such helicopters will be procured. On top of all this, at least 9 more Ka-31s will be procured for the IAC and INS Vikramaditya.
To Anon@2.41PM: The main reason why the Amur 1650 was proposed by Russia was because its design bureau and manufacturing consortium have, since the late 1990s, been intimately been involved with L & T, Walchandnagar Industries & Jindal Steel with regard to the project for building the three SSBNs. The Russian side correctly contends that since the industrial partnership infrastructure is already in place for making submarines—be it nuclear-powered or diesel-electric SSKs—it would make the task of buikding the Amur 1650 with a very high level of local Indian content immensely easier and cost-effective as well. Therefore, irregardless of whether or not the Russian Navy procures the Amur 1650 SSK, for India the procurement of such submarines remains an extremely viable option—both financially and industrial capability-wise.
To MrRA 13. VMT. A final piece of assessment from me, if you permit me to. As the latest revelations by BROADSWORD reveal, the problem has always been that of long-term commitment of financial resources. On one hand, the Army cannot wait for the country’s military-industrial capabilities to become mature enough to produce the kind of quality stuff that’s been promised by the DRDO, and therefore, has to resort to imports of alternatives like the T-90S MBT. And on the other hand, after the Arjun Mk1 MBT finally emerged as a mature and reliable product post-2005, the Army’s financial allocations were deeply committed to the T-90S licenced-production programme. This in turn led to the Army committing to the Arjun Mk1’s production programme in a piecemeal manner, i.e. ordering in batches of 124, instead of placing orders for up to 600 in one go. Had the Army been assured of continued availability of funds from, say a non-lapsable defence modernisation fund of the kind created by the NDA-2 govt in February 2004, then the Army would have been empowered to place orders for the Arjun Mk1 MBT in far larger numbers, which in turn would led to cheaper flyaway per unit costs and a staggered financial amortisation period for the procurement exercise. But alas, this has not been allowed to happen.
To Anon@7.18PM: CFD studies for the AMCA aimed at airframe design optimisation have already begun and after these have been concluded, wind-tunnel scale-models will be built as well, plus larger scale-models for stealth-optimisation. Several radar-absorbing techniques are now available, such as specially treated composite materials, plus radar-absorbing paints, all of which are already being applied to the Tejas Mk2 & LCA (Navy) Mk2 projects. There was never an India-Israel ‘Mayawi’ EW suit programme. The ‘Mayawi’ suite has been designed by DARE and the prime foreign industrial partners will be Cassidian of Germany & Elettronica of Italy. In fact, a variant of the ‘Mayawi’ is already being flight-tested now as part of the MiG-29UPG upgrade package and will also find is way on-board the Super Su-30MKI. What do you mean by new-gen avionics for the AMCA? Like those on board the F-35 JSF? Such avionics were offered by Boeing on the Super Hornet International Capability Roadmap last February. New-gen avionics for the AMCA will be network-centric and make use of SATCOMS channels in a big way. Further R & D work on this will be possible only after the IAF has at its disposal the GSAT-7A telecommunications satellite before 2014.
To Abhijit: As I had stated earlier, the so-called overbearing Chinese military threat is often overstated, especially by several Delhi-based think-tanks whose job it is to blow things out of proportion, often at the behest of interested parties like those that are now peddling the Lockheed Martin-built F-35 JSF. This so-called seminar-circuit as it now exists often acts as an unofficial lobbying group and comprises retired three- or four-star military officials of Indian and foreign origin, which are invited by think-tanks like CLAWS, CAPS & IDSA (to enhance the image profiles of such institutes) and where free luncheons and breakfast are provided. All these are essentially social networking gatherings for retired officials who want financial security post-retirement by appearing in TV talk-shows and wildly speculating about the PLA’s intentions and capabilities. It is a vicious, self-sustaining circle.
To Anon@8.08PM: The ARDE is working on both laser-guided 120mm mortar rounds, as well as GPS-guided 155mm rounds and GPS-guided glide-bombs. The ARDE has already developed sensor-fuzed munitions for the 214mm rockets of the Pinaka Mk1 MBRL, which could also be used by the ‘smart’ 155mm rounds.
Prasun da, indeed i agree with you that there is an out of proportion blowing up of threat is there. But considering the weak points of democracy, that is the slow decision making process such blow up will really act as catalyst to increase the seriousness and speed of the decision making process. It will not be easy for Indian public to forget the Kargil and tardiness in op parakram. And lest we not. It is better safe than sorry. Ofcourse playing into the hands of vested interests need to be avoided, but in a multifaceted democracy it is assured not to happen in a big way. Else we wouldhave been only importing stuff from US and nothing from Russia.
Prasun da, why many navies of world are still considering a carrier navy, while there is also a school of thought that carriers are sitting ducks in modern battles?
Hey Prasun you said there are two such naval helicopter competition but there is one more going competition for 75 NMRH (Naval multi role choppers) and 5 companies have responded. Its all over the internet and i would really appreciate if you throw some light on this...
As far as those LPH choppers are concerned, is boeing not offering us Chinook for that ? Are we also looking for V22 Osprey ? Isn't CH-53K way too expensive also there are reports that it will be ready by 2018.
Are we going to only use heavy helicopters on our LPH ?
Is there a drdo program for protection of our space assets ?
Also do we have plans for radar with range upto 3000 km ?
Because this is what Dr.Saraswat is saying in media...
To Anon@11.56PM: The slow decision-making process does not mean that this is a weak point of democracy. The weaknesses lie in the type of administrative set-up that now exists, absence of decisive and purposeful higher decision processes, and lack of long-term financial perspective planning. In the Indian parliamentary system, patriotism has only a five-year shelf-life, and it is not an enduring trait. That’s the core problem. As for OP Vijay in 1999 and OP Parakram in 2002, the Indian public at large have long forgotten them as have their representatives in parliament, their MPs. Hell, they don’t even remember what transpired in Mumbai on 26-11-2008 and that’s the reason why Mumbai isn’t any more safe than it was on that day three years ago. Only the residential area housing the Maharashtra Governor’s official residence is a lot more safer today. For the rest of the folks residing in and around Mumbai, nothing has changed & they’re all damned as they were three years ago or even way back in 1993.
To Anon@11.59PM: Thus far, there’s been no demonstrated example to prove that aircraft carriers are sitting ducks.
To Anon@12AM: That story from the ToI is totally wrong. The NMRH is all about winning the contract for the first 16 units, followed by another 24 units. In the long run, their numbers may well go up to 75 as the upgraded Sea King Mk42Bs and Ka-28PLs too will need replacement after another 15 years. The one reqmt I forgot to mention earlier is that for naval LUHs that will replace the existing SA.316B Alouette IIIs for both the Navy and Coast Guard. Here too the reqmt is for about 60 units in all, including those reqd for flight training. For the LPHs, the CH-47Fs are not navalised, while the V-22 Osprey and CH-53K are too expensive. In all likelihood, the AW-101 would be selected. Heavylift helicopters will be used only along with LPHs.
To Anon@12.01AM: No, what Dr Saraswat is talking about concerns deterrence against hostile attacks on India’s space-based assets by developing surface-launched ASAT weapons. The 3,000km radar he’s talking about is the over-the-horizon backscatter radar (OTH-B) technology demonstrator.
Between the Arjun Mk1 and Mk2, an optimum production and modification friendly model as Arjun Mk1A (as envisaged by you earlier) should be invented and ordered for full 500 numbers to reduce the cost and improve the production line.
It should be such that it can be later modified easily to Mk2 standards in workshops or in batches at earliest, OR if this is not possible then Mk2 can be ordered later separately when they come out tested and approved. Can this approach be justified.
To Mr.RA 13: The greatest mystery is why on earth are these 19 modifications being carried out NOW when the MBT is already in the terminal stages of series-production? Each of these modifications should have been undertaken when the MBT's pre-production prototypes were undergoing mobility/firepower trials since more than a decade ago!!! If such deficiencies were not identified during those trials, why conduct such trials at all??? This is something that Army HQ (and not the DRDO/CVRDE) needs to answer but alas, such questions will NEVER be asked by any sitting MP. Now that such modifications have been mandated for the follow-on batch of 124 Arjun Mk1As, it must be ensured that at least 400 such units vare acquired, along with the provision that the first 124 units be brought up to the same standard when their mid-life upgrades are due in the 2014-2018 period (since at that time it will be possible to tear open the hull and turret to make the desired structural changes and rewiring). Concurrently, the Army HQ needs to give a firm commitment in writing for acquiring at least 600 Arjun Mk2s. The APS can be installed any time since it is a bolt-on system (like the ERA tiles), but fitment of APS will do away with the need for ERA tiles. Also, fitment of the Cummins India-built 1,500hp engine is a must along with the ELBIT Systems-built all-electric turret stabilisation/traverse system (to replace the bulkier Bosch-built electro-hydraulic system). After all, one cannot argue that fine-tuning the transmission for a 1,400hp powerpack will produce the desired mobility results for a 65.5-tonne Arjun Mk1A when on the other hand the very same DRDO has been saying that even the much lighter 50-tonne FMBT ought to have a 1,500hp powerpack. The DRDO/CVRDE & BROADSWORD therefore nall need to agree upon a single unified narrative, instead of claiming that a fine-tuned/recalibrated 1,400hp powerpack will suffice for the Arjun Mk1/Mk1A or even Mk2 MBT variants.
I am not sure why despite such a great need for helicopters, HAL did not take the offer of Helicopters of Russia/Kamov and build at least 65% of the requirement in India? It is simply stupid to keep buying without making any effort to either expand HAL or diversify and allow private companies to collaborate with foreign companies and even create a potential export market.NH-90 gets built in Australia as MRH-90 by Australian Ae - which is part of Eurocopter. They also make the ARH Tiger which is the Eurocopter Tiger.Imagine companies like that in India building the various weaponry as a private vendor and opening up export markets as well!
To Pierre Zorin: What is utterly ridiculous is to procure two types of LUHs/LOHs: one imported and HAL-developed. Equally ridiculous is the plan to develop an LCH capable of first shooting down UAVs/UCAVs and then trying to engage armoured vehicles with ATGMs!!! Why can’t a single-engined LOH shoot down such UAVs/UCAVs? After all the single-engined AS.550C3 when as far up as Mt Everest to demonstrate its hot-and-high-flying capabilities. The LCH should have been designed from Day 1 as an anti-armour helicopter. Instead, one is now witnessing the needless charade of converting a medium-twin helicopter like the Dhruv Mk4 into a helicopter gunship! Why? Because the IAF claims all ownership to the LCH and doesn’t want the Army nosing around. And as I’ve stated above, instead of developing expensive tilt-rotor solutions, the focus should instead be on developing light armed aerosocuts and armed medium-lift utility helicopters featuring twin co-axial counter-rotating main rotors & a pusher-propeller or dual-ducted pusher-fans at the rear, such as Sikorsky's S-97 Raider LUH/LOH and Kamov’s Ka-92 medium-lift utility helicopter. When using such lift-cum-propulsion systems along with fly-by-light flight control systems, such helicopters will be able to achieve cruise speeds in excess of 200 Knots and also have excellent hot-and-high performance. The HAL-developed IMRH & LUH ought to make use of such technologies in cooperation with companies like Kamov & US-based AVX Aircraft Company. The LUH in particular can easily incorporate such technologies with minimal risk and minimal airframe redesigning. At the same time, the existing SA.315B Lama/Cheetahs can easily be upgraded and re-engined into the Cheetal configuration to serve as LUHs for at least another decade. But given HAL's decrepit corporate mentality, and a comatose MoD that is totally averse to taking calculated leaps of faith, it will be next to impossible for such DPSUs to embrace cutting-edge but proven technologies.
To Pierre Zorin & Mr.RA 13: Aerospace R & D entities like US-based AVX Aircraft Company are always on the lookout for new-design helicopters capable of absorbing the innovations that this company has come up with. Only when there is a meeting of minds and corporate objectives between a helicopter manufacturer and a product innovator, can there be a resultant product that will be globally competitive, both from a poerformance standpoint as well as costwise.
Prasun @ 11.22pm on 26 November,
So would it be fair to say that you are expecting a Rafale win in the MMRCA?
I guess Indian bureaucrats equate defence with fashion decorum! I mean whilst an underwear can't be worn in public, a swimwear could be more revealing and still be flaunted in public!Bureaucrats think by buying twenty different items to do the same job they are merely trying to emulate this so called public sense of morality. LoL
@Prasun da,
So does that mean the Kuminis engine has been canceled??
The latest order for 124 tanks-is that for Arjun MkIA or MkII??
And lastly,is the news true that PLA can now mobilise .5 million troops in TAR in just matter of weaks??!!
Thanks in advance.
Hey Mr PKS,can you please provide some more info w.r.t the 3000 km range over the horrizon Backscatter OTH B tech demonstrator?
What's the status of the LRDE's proposed 1500 km range Sword Fish MkII?Is it ready or still under development?And more importantly,I was wondering whether the DRDO AWACS or Sword Fish can be used for directional barrage jamming as both are AESAs?
And lastly,it was reported that CL 20 based shaped charge HEAT ammunitions were found to have shown much increased armor penetration that present rounds.Is that true and is there any CL 20 based HEAT ammo under development for Arjun and T 90 tanks?
Hope to see your reply.
Thnx. :)
This is Anon @November 26, 2011 2:41 PM
You gave an opinion of India going ahead with Amur class submarines.
The article mentions problems plaguing this class of submarines, making Russia go along with proven class of submarines.
I infer from your opinion that the problems are resolvable and would be worth the effort and resources. Is my inference correct?
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htairw/articles/20111123.aspx
PAF is getting a lot of experience in war against taliban....how important will that experience be in case of war with India??
Hi Prasun ,
What is the status of Rustam UAV??
What are its capabilities...
Like can it take off and land automatically??????
What is its endurance and payload?
Are Indian armed forces happy with it..how many could be bought??
Like Prasun I think we should choose Dassault Rafale in MMRCA.
Prasun may have technical and offset reasons but I have one simple reason ..we have a long history of operating French Fighters
Dassault Ouragan
Dassault Mystère IV
Dassault Mirage
and every aircraft was a capable platform.
A grand father of my friend worked in Ground duty and handled Dassault Ouragan and he said their team could make Ouragan fly after a full sortie in 90 minutes but Mig-21(Brand new ones) counter parts needed 4 hours to do the same thing ..
And he was also full praise for french professionalism.He said and I quote "paise tho bahut lete the magar kaam bhi vaise hi karte the"
He later headed a maintenance for Dassault Mystère fighter and retired.
http://idrw.org/?p=5443
Are they in dream world......
And HAL cant even perfect screw driver tech to meet deadline of Su30 delivery.....
First they should develop a reliable A2A (Astra,such a good name) in active and IR forms then develop Star War weapons.
Dear @anurag where did u read that report?? 5 million means 50 lacks.. Just scratch ur head and think if it is possible. And maybe china does not have a standing army of 5 million.
Even to move army to of 50,000 soldiers from der perminant base to such a high altitude area is a very big deal.
http://idrw.org/?p=5371
Now,what does this mean?
They forgot to take what WE have paid for.
They have been duped by a company and they decided to sit with thumb up their asses..
What else can I say about those incompetent fools..
mera bharat mahan…. now what should we say about the capabilities of OFB’s…. they are liability on government and tax payers money. simple way, privatise them, sell them to private companies. they have been sitting on documents for so long and today they realize they cannot make guns….the guys now say we have paid for TOT but did not get details, this is how they review the final vendor packages…..Jai Ho…
with such capable guys, even the best countries will fail finally
It has got nothing to do with metallurgy or some genetic science for the turret alloy. The chemistry can be obtained by simple Spectro analysis. And for further processing after casting, its only you have to peep in your own arm pits. OFB successfully produced small calibre guns so they have the procedure to manufacture the cast alloy; the only thing lacks is newer tech, which can be obtained from Second largest manufacturer of the world [An india Firm].
To Anurag: Who has ever said that the project to develop a new 1,500hp powerpack using the new Cummins India-supplied engine has been cancelled? All that has come out so far and about which I had written much earlier this year is that the gunner’s sight is indeed is of foreign origin (from SAGEM of France, which uses the Matis-STD thermal imager, the same as that on the Al Khalid MBT), that the electro-hydraulic turret traverse/stabilisation system is imported (from Germany’s Bosch), and that the rubberised tracks are also imported (these being Diehl Remscheid’s DST 570V tracks). What has not yet been corroborated by ‘others’ is that the commander’s panoramic sight too is of imported origin (using the THALES-built Catherine-FC thermal imager), and that the hydropneumatic suspensions were originally supplied by US-based Textron Systems back in the late 1980s and by 1993 the DRDO had come up with very badly-made reverse-engineered clones, which then took another decade to be made functional once Kirloskar got involved. As far back as June 1993 Textron Systems had formally revealed all this to me in a Letter to the Editor, which I had then published in the ASIAN MILITARY REVIEW magazine in my capacity as its Executive Editor. There are several more examples like this (the French-origin meteorological sensor and the headlights, for instance), all of which will be revealed in due course, which ‘others’ will never even bother to discover or report.
As for the matter about PLA mobilisation capabilities, the matter is so ridiculously flawed that it is not even worth commenting upon.
To SOUVIK: It is a known fact that in order to protect the SSBN/SSGN base coming up in India’s eastern seaboard, two types of sensors are being developed for future deployment: a network of seabed-mounted sonar transducers, and the OTH-B radar. The 1,600km-range radar for Phase 2 of the BMD technology demonstration is not a LRDE product. More info on this can be found at: http://trishul-trident.blogspot.com/2011/08/home-grown-anti-missile-shield-for-new.html
As of now, there’s no known CL-20 based HEAT ammo under development for Arjun and T-90S MBTs.
To Anon@4.49PM: Of course the problems are resolvable, one must never doubt the Russian shipbuilding industry’s ability to rectify any such shortcomings. Even the fuel cell-based AIP module developed in Russia has been tested and certified for usage.
To Shree: The Pakistan Army’s ongoing counter-insurgency campaigns against the Taliban largely involve the usage of offensive airpower for neutralising disorganised bands of guerrilla fighters that do not engage in positional warfare of the type other conventional ground forces do. You can therefore rest assured that the kind of military hostilities that will take place in future in the subcontinent between the armed forces of the two countries will be of a totally different order of magnitude and tempo.
To Anon@10.39PM: Kindly read all about the Rustom-1 at: http://trishul-trident.blogspot.com/2011/10/highlights-from-uv-asia-2011.html
To Shree: Anyone who has been exposed to French combat aircraft will find it very difficult to choose any other alternative. The Israelis chose to stick to the classic delta wing when developing the Nasher and Kfir-2/7. The Pakistan Air Force still swears by the Mirage 3/5. The Indian Air Force too, if it could have had its way since the early 1980s, would have gone for a combined Mirage 2000/Mirage 4000 fleet. But political interference which would later prove to be disastrous, led to the unwise decision to go for MiG-23MF, MiG-23BN, MiG-27M and MiG-29B-12—four different Soviet aircraft types all of whose missions could have been performed by a single Mirage 2000.
To Anon@1.11AM, 1.17AM & Sandeep: A couple of facts must be borne in mind when trying to dig for the truth. Firstly, the ToT agreement with Bofors AB was terminated prematurely by India. When this happened, while the design data packages for the FH-77Bs and their 155mm ammo rounds and charge bags were delivered, what was not delivered was the expertise for production-engineering. Although Bofors AB was contractually bound to deliver this, it was the Indian side that sanctimoniously refused to accept it. Consequently, for manufacturing the 155mm rounds, OFB had to award a turn-key contract to US-based Day & Zimmerman for designing and supplying the industrial facility required for producing such rounds. This is how the Bolangir-based OFB facility came about, but here again, the OFB’s human resources reqd mentoring, which finally came from Israel’s IMI. The same is now the case for the BMCS production facility in Nalanda. And the same procedure applies to the FH-77B’s series-production reqmt. What the OFB now requires is an industrial facility that can undertake series-production of all components of the FH-77B, and the kind of human resource mentoring reqd for QA purposes. And this can be done by only an established manufacturer of such howitzers. Consequently, if you look around you will come across very few of them worldwide, like BAE Systems or Nexter Systems of France, or Denel Munitions, or SOLTAM Systems. It is only these companies that can ‘teach’ the OFB to convert the FH-77B’s design drawings into tangible 3-D products. There is another way, the harder and more time-consuming way to locally produce the FH-77Bs. This will involve Indian vendors only like Bharat Forge etc etc trying to figure out how exactly to go about evolving a production process and a financially viable series-production schedule, following which prototype development will begin and last for a 36-month period (during which the DRDO will be required to build a fully instrumented firing range god knows where since the Odisha state govt is hell-bent upon getting back its existing landbank back from the DRDO), following which there will be another 24-month period of field trials, followed by another 18-month period of re-tooling for production rectifications, followed by another 24-month period of field trials. All in all--102 months will be required if the second option is exercised. Therefore, far better for the OFB to ask the BAE Systems-M & M JV to become a risk-sharing partner for series-producing the FH-77B in-country, rather than the OFB trying to be a smartarse by having the whole cake and eating it as well. But, as they say, shit happens, and in this case too I reckon the OFB and MoD will combine forces to become a ‘super navratna smartarse’ entity that will go nowhere and end up wasting public money.
Bofors deal was so unique that everybody therein shot himself in his own leg.
To Mr.RA 13: And so was the HDW deal, under which India acquired the know-how to build Type 1500/Class 209 submarines, but deliberately lost it only to learn how to reinvent the wheel by later going for the Scorpene SSKs.
Living in enjoy mode, they do not want to learn the lessons even from their own mistakes.
India must get this. Super deadly.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=K-SmfybCbsY
NH-90
The above article mentions about the existing two year delay as well as further delay in the NH-90 Project. There also is a mention of technical issues with the aircraft.
My queries are as follows
1) Do you have knowledge about what the technical issues are?
2) Since the aircraft has participated in one of the Indian tenders, would the delay or technical issues have any impact on its selection.
Earlier this month, IAF chief Air Chief Marshal NAK Browne said again that final operational clearance was delayed by a full year - moving down to 2014.
OMG! How much correct and prophetic was that very young HAL Engineer whom I met way back in year 1992 during a journey and congratulated him for then recent acceptance of LCA project and its expected completion within next 10 years.
He laughingly replied that- "Sir, My bosses tell me not to worry, this project is not going to come-up within my whole service life."
I was stunned and did not believe him and tried to convince him the other way round but unsuccessfully.
Now I know how much wrong I was. Now I understand that how F-35 is daring to replace the AMCA. Now I too know that why Gripen is still flying in the skies of the advertising markets of India in expectations of the real delays of Tejas-Mk2.
Now I know that Su-30MkI saved us and now I have to say: MMRCA where are you!
http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report_aircraft-deals-with-friend-russia-costing-dear_1424437
Why is the last batch of 42 Su30 MKIs costing 102 Million dollars each.???
Are they the Super Sukhois OR Brahmos armed???
And if they are does it justify the 102M$ price tag????
And which AESA Radar will be used
Phazotron Zhuk-AE fitted on the MiG-35D prototype OR
Tikhomirov’s NIIP AESA.
@ Shree
The amount includes the development cost of Super 30. It will have strengthened fuselage and the capacity to carry a Brahmos ALCM.
Also the total amount includes the money India owes to Russia for the earlier batch of 40 MKIs. They have recalculated their inflation rate a few years back. The unpaid amount of the previous deal is included in this order of 42.
To Anon@5.09PM: The problems relating to the Aussie MHR-90 are connected with the localised Australian licence-assembly of the airframes and related industrial QA issues, and have nothing to do with the helicopter’s performance parameters.
To Mr.RA 13: Actually, I wouldn’t share your pessimism on the Tejas Mk1 LCA. The comment from the HAL engineer must be seen in context to the HAL management’s hostility at that time to the ADA, since HAL as the country’s only aircraft manufacturer felt deeply deprived of its right to be the main contractor charged with developing the Tejas LCA. But on the other hand, HAL at that time was fully engaged in developing the Dhruv ALH and the HTT-35 basic turboprop trainer (which mysteriously never saw the light of day despite a full-scale mockup been built by the mid-1990s, and it is now trying to re-invent the wheel by developing the HTT-40 BTT) and couldn’t have possibly contributed in a big way to the Tejas’ R & D effort, except by becoming principal manufacturer of the aircraft. At the same time, from 1990 till 1996 there was a severe financial crunch and all DRDO projects suffered acutely in terms of missed schedules/timeframes. Finally, to make matters worse, the post-Shakti-2 sanctions kicked in after May 1998, which led to all mentoring provided to various ADA R & D modules by various US companies coming to an abrupt halt. Had all these hurdles not been in existence, then the Tejas Mk1 would have been inducted into service at least a decade ago. Therefore, objectively speaking, ADA cannot be held solely responsible for missing its deadlines. Even HAL failed miserably when it came to developing the multi-mode radar, without which full-scale weapon systems integration simply cannot takeoff. And now that the EL/M-2032 MMR is finally on board the LSP-7 (of all PVs and LSPs, this is the first and only production-standard version of the LCA), full-scale weapons integration trials/evaluations, and EMI/EMP-insulation tests of the entire navigation-and-attack system will finally be possible. Therefore, the 2014 FOC deadline is perfectly feasible and achievable, provided the LSP-7 does not suffer from any catastrophic disaster like an air crash. Had at least one more LSP like the final production-standard LSP-7 been available by 2009, then by now the Tejas Mk1 would have been fully operational with the IAF. But since only one such prototype is presently available, and since the EL/M-2032 is already a certified and well-proven MMR, the 2014 deadline is extremely realistic. Therefore, hang on and don’t lose all hope.
To Shree: The cost has gone up due to a 15% per annum escalation of all military hardware costs, and is therefore not limited to only the Su-30MKI. Secondly, the figure also includes expansion of HAL’s production capacities in Nashik (& not Bengaluru, as the report erroneously mentions) so that annual production can be hiked from 12 to 18 between now and 2018. Then there’s the non-recurring cost of upgrading the 42 airframes to the Super Su-30MKI standard. Lastly, there’s the cost of upgrading the IAF’s existing air base infrastructure, inclusive of the cost of setting up squadron-level and intermediate-level repair workshops, hangars, and flying training aids like cockpit procedures trainers and flight simulators. That’s why the MoD in its statement does not refer to the escalated costs of the 42 Su-30MKIs as being ‘flyaway costs’. All Su-30MKIs have and will have NIIP Tikhomirov-built MMRs, since the existing ‘Bars’ radar’s PESA antenna can be easily replaced by an AESA antenna, while all the back-end avionics of the radar stay the same. The Phazotron JSC-built Zhuk-AE is too small to go on board the Su-30MKI and has therefore never been flight-certified by Russia for the Su-30 family of combat aircraft. The Zhuk-AE was developed from the start for the MiG-29 family of aircraft, meaning it can also go on the MiG-29K and MiG-29UPG in future—say by 2020.
To Mr.RA 13: You can read all about the HTT-35 BTT project at: http://trishulgroup.blogspot.com/2009/10/bottoms-up-not-top-down.html
Another example of lost opportunities and trying to re-invent the wheel.
hello sir,
http://en.rian.ru/world/20111130/169159735.html
in this article it has been said that till now only 150 T 90S Has been produced in HVF avadi !!! sir can u plzz clarify how many T 90 tanks india have ? and how many T 90 tanks build so far in india.
thanks
The figure is correct. Total T-90S holdings so far are 310 + 347 + 150. The 310 + 347 have the 2A46M-2 cannon which can fire only Russia-supplied ammo, while the 150 built by HVF have the 2A46M cannon, which can fire the 125mm APFSDS rounds made by the OFB as well as the IMI-built CL-3254 (Mk1) & CL-3579 (Mk2) rounds. The first 310 T-90S MBTs are now due for a mid-life upgrade. An additional 503 T-90S MBTs are due for rollout from HVF Avadi and these too will have the 2A46M cannon. However, the original licence-production contract could well be modified to allow the off-the-shelf procurement from Uralvagonzavod JSC of about 300 T-90AMs (or T-90MS) equipped with 2A46M-5 cannons (and capable of firing only Russia-supplied ammo), in which case only another 203 (and not 503) T-90S would roll out of HVF. There is also an option to eventually upgrade the T-90S into the T-90AM/MS standard with the help of upgrade kits supplied directly from Russia.
To Amardeep: And claims elsewhere that Russia has betrayed India or has refused to transfer the T-90S-related manufacturing technologies that it had earlier promised to are equally false and downrught mischievous. These claims can only be made by folks who haven;t read the contractual documents. The fact remains that right from the start Russia NEVER agreed to share the production technologies of its K-5 ERA tiles & the 2A46M-2 cannon with India. ToT regarding these two items was NEVER put on the table by Russia, for starters. So how can Russia be blamed for something it did never committed to in the first place? The Russians have learnt a bitter lesson from the former eastern Bloc countries like Poland, Slovakia, Czech republic & Croatia (part of erstwhile Yugoslavia) that have blatantly sold T-72 clones post-1991 and therefore Moscow has been determined never to let history repeat itself. That's why it even refused to supply the 2A46M cannons for the Malaysian PT-91Ms of Polish origin, and the cannons were ultimately supplied by Kerametal of Slovakia. And Russia isn't the sole exception when it comes to practising such policies. For instance, how many countries using the Rheinmetal-developed 120mm smoothbore cannon have actually produced it under licence? Not the Japanese, not the South Koreans, not the Swedes, Singaporeans or Poles, not Israel, and not Turkey. So why should anyone expect Russia to make the exception for India? And what exactly is to be gained by making such cannons in-country? How does it translate into any operational advantage over one's enemies? And especially in India's case it is far more cost-effective to import the 2A46M-2 directly from Russia and use the money saved to further improve and enhance the performance of the Arjun MBT's indigenous 120mm rifled-bore cannon.
Thanx for your detailed and clearly clarified information on Tejas, T-90, SU-30MkI and others. I agree with all of them. I know all the previous longtime problems faced by Tejas, even then I had a feeling that the inordinate delay was getting larger out of proportions than anticipated. Now it should be OK.
BTW, has the AoA problem on Tejas Mk1 & Mk2 been resolved. The increase in engine power alone can resolve it or the additional change in geometrical configuration is also needed.
To Mr.RA 13: The AoA issue will be resolved only after the full production-standard Tejas Mk1 (i.e. LSP-7) takes to the skies, since the aircraft's weight characteristics in full loaded configuration (which again is only now possible with the full mission-equipped LSP-7) is a prerequisite for finalising the aircraft's fly-by-wire flight-control system and related flight-control logic and AoA envelopes in various configurations (i.e. when carrying air-to-air and air-to-ground ordnance, or only air combat missiles and at various altitude regimes. After all this has been done, it will be very easy to aply the same procedures and performance benchmarkings for the Tejas Mk2 and LCA (Navy) Mk2 as well. That's why it is very important in any combat aircraft R & D project to develop ASAP at least two production-standard LSPs with the full complement of mission avionics, which in turn allows one to flight-test both of them in fully armed configurations for both flight certification and weapons-launch validation purposes.
Why does IAF desire all-Indian Engine and Radar in AMCA when it knows that such impractical requirements would only result in glitches and delays as it has done in case of Tejas? Isn't it better to rope in Israel or Sweden or some other expert at this early stage and roll out a credible machine by 2025? Even with such a huge consortium of highly experienced industrial partners F-35 is suffering from repeated nags and cost and time overruns to an extent that people are speaking of killing off the project after coming so far.
How can one expect ADA and HAL (& few inexperienced Pvt industries) to do things all by themselves?
What is the weapons payload of Eurofighter Typhoon? Nowadays there has been a huge development in IR air-to-air missile guidance. The current generation of IR guided aa missile like AIM-9x ,Python-5,R-73 Archer have high ECCm capabilities and can't be decoyed with flares. Then why aren't IR hammers present on Typhoon, Rafale and Su-30mki? Also we are facing a great chose missile threat from Pakistan's Babur. Then why aren't we purchasing the Iron Dome and David ' s Sling for protection of vital western military installations and also cities?
Prasun, what is the current status of Indian nuclear detterence ? Heard we are concentrating on untested 125KT warheads. Is there any foreign help available in this matter ?
http://trishulgroup.blogspot.com/2009/10/bottoms-up-not-top-down.html
Thanx! Your above link pointedly explains about the problems faced by HAL. By the way is there really any future for HTT-40.
I hear the LCA (Mk1), has been delayed by another 3 years. Is this true? Surely it is a case of turning it into a TD and just buying the Grippen. Ratherthan wait another 3years for a mig-21++ why not just order more su30's or Grippen?
You said : " The 3,000km radar he’s talking about is the over-the-horizon backscatter radar (OTH-B) technology demonstrator. "
CAn you throw some more light on this radar ? Also will this radar enter into production ?
Are we using any LRTR for surveillance at the moment ?
Do we have plans to go beyond 3000 km range (Russia just launched a 6,000 km range radar) ?
How many countries have radars of this range ?
Who is providing LRTR for ou aircraft carrier and whats the range ?
Hi Prasun JI,
Have you seen this article
http://www.china-defense-mashup.com/3000-warheads-and-underground-tunnels-us-students-finds-the-truth-of-chinese-nuclear-arsenal.html
I was really excited to see how students and profs are joined together to analyze each and every part of China's nuclear arsenals. I wish in India we have such systems.
Coming to the topic, it is quite certain that China's Nuclear arsenals are not just for defense. It is very unlikely that US will attack China and vice versa. So why should China makes 3000+ miles of underground tunnels?
Even though China seemed to have solved many of the territorial disputes with its neighbors, it still bullies many small nations around the Asia-Pacific zones. Only country that can withstand China is India. No wonder more and more articles are appeared in Chinese papers related to India- one even says "India has inferiority complex of China's rise." I wish our "netas" have this. Actually our "Netas" show neither "inferior" nor "any complex" at all. So all these "barkings" by Chinese intellectuals show some kind of uneasiness. I guess Tibet and Dalai Lama issue is just a reason. It has some other plans.
I hope our Netas will really take a notice on these developments.
http://www.knaapo.ru/rus/gallery/events/combat/t-50/t-50-3.wbp
Hi Prasun, These are the photos of the 3rd tech demonstrator of PAKFA. I couldn't find any visible change in structure/shape/finish between this and previous ones. Are there any? Were/Are you expecting changes in design in this/future vehicles? (I am pretty sure the production model will be vastly different from this but wondering why they didn't opt to test a few changes in this one along with the radar which they did)
To Anon@4.47PM: The answer is simple. Too much money has been spent to date on both the Kaveri and MMR projects and so there’s no going back. Even with SNECMA Moteurs’ help, the definitive Kaveri will still have imported content simply because it is cost-prohibitive to produce just a few hundred Kaveris to power both the Tejas Mk2 and AMCA fleets combined. No one in their right mind will invest vast sums of money to produce only 400 engines. That is why I was advocating earlier that whatever good has been achieved with the Kaveri K-9 thus far be put to good use ASAP by using this engine to power HALE-UAVs and UCAVs, hundreds of which will be required by the Indian Army, Navy and IAF in the years to come. At the same time, had India selected the Super Hornet as the M-MRCA, engine commonality between the Super Hornet and the F414-GE-400-powered Tejas Mk2 and LCA (Navy) Mk2 would alone have made a very compelling financial argument for a company like GE to co-develop the Kaveri K-15 or even a F414EPE-derived turbofan for the AMCA. Just look at how the Swiss have logically proceeded ahead by choosing the Gripen NG (as the next-gen MRCA, and not the M-MRCA, since the Gripen is primarily being marketed as a replacement for existing F-5s and Mirage 3/5s worldwide, just as was the case in Thailand), thereby ensuring commonality of powerplant between this aircraft and the Swiss Air Force’s existing Hornet M-MRCA fleet which in future is likely to be replaced by the Super Hornet. And all those in India who were led to believe or were proposing the Gripen as a M-MRCA have at last been proven dead-wrong by the Swiss decision.
As for Iron Dome, it is meant for usage against MBRLs like the BM-21 Grad and its East European & Chinese clones. For neutralizing cruise missiles, a combination of the Barak-2 MR-SAM and SpyDer-SR is more than enough. And this is what the IAF is going fo.
To SSG: The boosted-fission warheads are tested and are highly reliable. The same cannot be said for thermonuclear warheads. So, essential deterrence is there and no foreign help is required. Foreign expertise is sought only in areas of terminal guidance and tools for strategic targetting such as overhead recce satellites.
To MPatel: We’ve already discussed the Tejas Mk1’s FOC issue above.
To Anon@3.17AM: The OTH-B radar is already in production. The EL/M-2080 LRTR is BMD-specific. In India’s case 6,000km-range radars won’t be of much use and therefore ISRO and DRDO are cooperating on developing a missile monitoring system that will use between four and six missile launch warning satellites. LRTR for the IAC aircraft carrier will be the EL/M-2248 MF-STAR in a distributed-array configuration.
To N Nair: The Chinese concept of surviving a nuclear first-strike is unique in that it relies on protection from both natural formations like mountain ranges, as well as man-made super-hardened SLBM launch sites like the SSBN bases in Qingdao and Hainan island. It is debatable whether the strategic assets deployed in this manner is indeed survivable, but China believes that the vastness of such deployments within mountain ranges affords a sufficient degree of survivable deterrence. That’s why one such hardened silo—which is India-specific—has been built at Xaidulla north of J & K within the Karakoram mountain range, most probably for storing the DF-21C MRBMs. India too has adopted a similar strategy by creating such storage silos within the mountains straddling the Arunachal Pradesh-Nagaland border (which explains why Chinese espionage activities have increased greatly over the past five years in northeastern India and why is the IAF very anxious to plug existing air-defence gaps in that region to deter the PLA from deploying heliborne special operations forces in search-and-destroy missions). Even after developing the cannisterised Agni-4/5, such missiles and their TELs will be stored inside these mountains by India, and will not be constantly moving cross-country as claimed by some armchair think-tanks in Delhi.
To Devaanandh: The changes/modifications to the prototype PAK-FAs are all internal in terms of the powerplant and integrated avionics suite. One therefore should not have expected any dramatic or visible changes to the airframe. As far as the airframe design goes, there won’t be any radical changes in shape, expect perhaps in the area of thrust-vectoring engine exhaust nozzles and this will be visible only after the definitive AL-41F turbofan becomes available by 2016.
To MrRA 13: The saga of rhe HTT-40 mirrors that of HAL's 3-tonne LUH. Why should one import BTTs and then develop and build a home-grown BTT? Why should one import LUHs, and then develop a home-grown LUH? Why should two types of platforms be acquired for fulfilling the same mission? Why not stick to just onme platform-type? In two differing types are procured who will foot the bill for the life-sycle costs associated with each differing platform? Like I has said before, no one in power will be able to provide basic explanations for this mammoth mess simply because for those in power, accountability, probity and patriotism has only a five-year shelf-life, unlike the life-cycle costs associated with a weapon system.
You said : " As far as the airframe design goes, there won’t be any radical changes in shape, expect perhaps in the area of thrust-vectoring engine exhaust nozzles and this will be visible only after the definitive AL-41F turbofan becomes available by 2016. "
Whats about those plasma coating ? Have they applied it yet ? Does it effect the looks, i mean whether we will be able to make out whether this coating is applied or not ?
Is EL/M-2248 MF-STAR a LRTR ? Whats the range ?
Sadly HAL and DRDO are too busy in their go-go gadget world and trying to materialise the "imgination launched copulatory missile technology"....I mean if mere imagination can lift a penis thus making it the lightest thing on earth, why not claim such technology next on the cards for India's missile programme and suck up further billions?LoL
What is the weapons payload of Eurofighter Typhoon? Nowadays there has been a huge development in IR air-to-air missile guidance. The current generation of IR guided aa missile like AIM-9x ,Python-5,R-73 Archer have high ECCm capabilities and can't be decoyed with flares. Then why aren't IR hammers present on Typhoon, Rafale and Su-30mki? You commented that a combination of Barak 2 and Spyder 2 were enough for protecting from Babur cruise missiles. But India doesnot posses enough Spyder systems. Also they aren't the MR version. Is there any possibility of ordering more no of Barak 2 SAMs . Will the Barak 2 replace the inventory of Pechoras in IAF? What options IAF has against protecting the Northeast from Chinese DH-1,DH-2 cruise missiles? If IAF would have purchased David's sling which is specifically built for anti missile applications then it would have better. Also the cost per intercept would also have been low. PLS PRASUN , PLS REPLY.
Sir , i have a ques on the indian army training front..
in the us army almost every career soldier seems to be a qualified paratrooper & a ranger atleast regardless of his arm or service..
on the other hand hardly any senior officer in the army seem to support these 2 qualifications..
y is that ?
what is the strength of the bombay sappers ?
Hy Mr PKS,it was reported that Indian Army was deploying Brahmos missiles along LAC in NE.Don't you think that its use will be extremely limited due to shorter range of Brahmos?Instead IA should deploy vast numbers(800-1000) of Shaurya missiles in the NE against PRC to effectively strike and eleminate PLA command centers,communication centers,ammo depots,bridges,roads,rails air bases etc-what do you think??
Is the Backscatter OTH B inducted and who developed it-DRDO or a foreign entity or a JV?
What's the status of PDV interceptor?
Any update on the FICV project?
And lastly,if DRDO can design and develop Backscatter OTH B,then what's stopping it to develop the S band 4d AESA Medium powered radar?
Please reply.
Thnx.
Thanks Prasun. But what would be the yield of the boosted-fission device ?
Also I dont understand why HAL is so hellbent on pursuing the prop trainer project instead of going full steam with the medium-lift chopper. There is no need for an Indian prop-trainer when we are acquiring the Pilatus one.
And also what will HAL contribute in the FGFA design phase ? ADA could have done a competent job. But HAL ?
HI Prasun,
Wat do u make of the middle east storm raging now?(Egypt, Iran,Turkey,syria).
News report of Russian warships in syria.
India does not seem to be reacting(Maybe bcoz Indians in the Gulf sending back money to their families)
What kind of diplomacy would you advocate?
BTW, the last comment of Mr. Ra 13 said...December 1, 2011 12:59 PM >> it does not belongs to me. Thanx.
To MrRA 13: Read these: http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article2678501.ece
&
http://wikileaks.org/the-spyfiles.html
Thanx! During the existing murky times, such surveillance is a necessary evil.
Prasun
When can we expect news of the MMRCA preferred bidder? Do you think the Swiss decision will affect the Rafale.
To Anon@9.21AM: The plasma aerosol generator is internally mounted and won’t be visible externally. The EL/M-2248 is a volume search radar that can also perform LRTR functions. That’s why for the Barak-2 LR-SAM, a version of this radar—EL/M-2258—has been developed.
To Purbayan: There is only one way to counter countermeasures-resistant air combat missiles, and that is through compact hard-kill systems like DIRCMs and pumped-lasers, all of which are already entering the market now for commercial airliners and which will also be available for installation on the FGFA and Super Su-30MKIs. Enough SpyDer-SRs will be ordered under follow-on batches and why should one require the SpyDer-MR when the Barak-2’s MR-SAM and LR-SAM variants are to be procured? The one to replace the IAF’s S-125 Pechoras will be the Akash’s Mk1 & Mk2 versions, not the Barak-2. Savid’s Sling is not off-the-shelf hardware, but a network of systems. For the IAF the IACCCS serves as such a network.
To Anon@5.38PM: Unlike the Indian Army, the US Army is reqd to primarily engage in expeditionary warfare away from the US homeland. Hence the vocational qualifications and expertise of US Army personnel are distinctly different from those of their Indian counterparts.
To Pritam: The Indian Army will NEVER permanently deploy BrahMos LACMs along the LAC, because if it does, those LACM batteries will be sitting ducks for counter-bombardment. What the Indian Army will do is create several ore-surveyed launch pads which will stay camouflaged during peacetime and from which the BrahMos LACMs will be launched only during wartime. In peacetime, the BrahMos LACM batteries will be deployed far down south I the plains, and not over mountainous terrain. A range of 290km will be enough to cover all tactical targets like transportation nodes, tactical HQs and artillery ammunition dumps. Their locations will not too deep inside TAR since the PLA will have its own problems to contend with due to the forbidding heights within the TAR. The only targets considered ‘deep’ inside TAR are some railway junctions and airports/air bases, all of which can be engaged with CALCMs launched from aircraft like the M-MRCA and Su-30MKI. The Shaurya too will be able to engage such targets, PROVIDED they’re equipped with SAR-equipped terminal seekers of the type the DRDO has sought from Russia. Development of OTH-B is not the same as developing AESA-based MMRs. Anyone who can develop a network of radio-telescopes can develop OTH-Bs.
To SSG: Will reply to your query later. Let’s see what the Indian Navy’s CNS has to say at 11am today on his annual customary news briefing on the eve of Navy day celebrations.
To Anon@9.35AM: As I had explained earlier on this thread, the Gripen NG is being developed primarily as a 21st century replacement for existing F-5E/Fs and Mirage 3/5s, and therefore does not qualify as a M-MRCA. It is a MRCA just like the Tejas Mk2. And that's why the air forces of both Switzerland and Thailand have ordered the Gripen to replace their existing F-5 fleets, while Brazil too will likely follow. The South Africans too have procured the Gripens to replace the Mirage-based Cheetahs. For the IAFD, the reqmt has always been for a twin-engined M-MRCA and therefore the Gripen IN & F-16IN were destined to lose in the competition from the outset. In fact, the IAF should have clearly communicated its M-MRCA reqmts to the contenders through its RFP by clearly stating that only twin-engined platforms would be considered. But alas, this did not happen, which in turn gave rise to all kinds of confusion and needless speculation. The only folks who benefitted from all this were the broadcast journos from NDTV & HEADLINES TODAY who, for instance, were entertained with fully-sponsored two-way junkets to Sweden and joyrides and who came back and aired needless fairy-tales about their inconsequential trips. And they forgot to ask the IAF even the most basic of questions: ought the M-MRCA to be a single-engined or twin-engined platform and will the majority of the chosen platform be single-seat or tandem-seaters. Shit happens!!!
sir, u said
"the vocational qualifications and expertise of US Army personnel are distinctly different from those of their Indian counterparts"..
can u plzz elaborate that a lil..
& AFAIK..most of the airborne troops in the US do not go under any probationary period like in india or like the p-company course in the british army..so can it be concluded that those paratroopers are regular infantry with airborne qualification.
Sir can you tell me in details about Indian Army reserve forces..There are over 1.5 million reserve force AFAIK, but what use is this of? US Army which has almost constantly been under deployment since WW2, presently has only a fraction of our reserves. So why do we need 1.5 million reserves? How much money is spend annually to maintain this figure and what role do they play?
The Army is seemingly procuring rifles from foreign vendors to equip its entire infantry, but what happened to the multi-calibre rifle(s) under development by DRDO/ARDE with collaboration with Israel (as per Wiki). Has those rifles been tested/rejected by army? How can we afford to standardize on an imported rifle for our entire armed forces?
Is there a single Pvt firm in India that can design/license produce/plans to design/produce small arms? Also Wiki says Govt invested 400 million $ to modernize OFB by 2007. Is that true?
ur comment on this:
http://translate.google.co.in/translate?hl=en&sl=ru&u=http://www.newsland.ru/news/detail/id/834766/&ei=t53YTuXWMcqzrAe_nsyADg&sa=X&oi=translate&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCsQ7gEwAA&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dhttp://www.newsland.ru/news/detail/id/834766/%26hl%3Den%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26hs%3DKhQ%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26prmd%3Dimvns
Hey Prasun,
Have a quick look at this video presentation made by the chief designer of J10, J20 and JF17 at the dubai airshow.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7tuiaeS_kc&feature=player_embedded
It seems that the jf payload(arsenal) is greater than 4000kg. Also interesting is it max climb rate at 249m/s. This greater than even su30's. Paks have always said that jf is very comparable to f-16, these figures seem to prove it. Do you think the IAF may need to start taking this aircraft seriously? or are the chinese simply lying in dubai?
Prasun ,
What is the main advantages between U 214 - Dolphin class nuclear based submarine .
Spike has failed in trails in anti tank role in india , due u believe Javelin will be inked.
http://www.blogger.com/profile/11371419338559231779
check it out
There was a news about the Javelin ATGMs:
http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2010-08-17/india/28273102_1_nag-missile-konkurs-atgms-anti-tank
http://www.asian-defence.net/2011/11/chinas-navy-building-strong-submarine.html
100 Subs and only 200 Million Dollars per Sub....WOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Please visit the website to know about our Indian culture and heritage
http://merijaan1111.blogspot.com/
RQ-170 Sentinel Drone Shot Down Over Iran or Lost Over Afghanistan?
Did Indian Army ever test this rifle/ were prototypes of it built?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ADvl2WJb8g
Will you pls clarify what is the weapons payload of Typhoon? Is it 7.5 ton or greater than that? When will the aesa variant of Captor E enter service? Is the DASS system on board the typhoon capable of providing info of hostile ground emitters for SEAD missions and for Sade navigation. Will India purchase any SPAAG for the counter PGM role such as the TOR M2 or the PANSTIR s2 systems as IAF donot posses any such systems at present for protection of airbases and vital installations against PGM . What about the QRSAM systems tender that the Army has issued. Recently the IAF issued an RFP for quick purchase of MR SAMs. What's the status of this project? When will the Barak - 2 enter service?
Good post and Smart Blog
Thanks for your good information and i hope to subscribe and visit my blog What is Gonorrhea and more Gonorrhea in Women thanks again admin
Warm Greetings!
Today, I visit your website and after reading your blog i realize that it is very informative. I'm highly impressed to see the comprehensive resources being offered by your site.
Thanks and Regards
Hydraulic Power Pack manufacturer in delhi
Thanks for sharing the nice information. gsat sûreté aéroportuaire.
Thanks a lot..
Post a Comment