It would indeed appear to be the case, if one is to believe the CEMILAC posters (shown above) highlighting the systems and weapons integration efforts now underway with the Su-30MKI. And equally unlikely is the prospect of an air-launched variant of a strategic, 1,000+km ground-launched cruise missile being developed, unless such an air-launched cruise missile is similar in size and performance parameters to PGMs like the Taurus KEPD-350 or SCALP/Storm Shadow. But even then, such a PGM would hardly qualify to be labelled as a ‘strategic’ weapon. Therefore, if indeed there is a ‘strategic’ (i.e. nuclear-armed) supersonic ALCM—powered by liquid-fuelled ramjets—being developed since late 2008 by the DRDO’s Advanced Systems Laboratory with RAFAEL’s assistance, and if it is meant to be launched by the Su-30MKI, then one could perhaps infer that ‘Nirbhay’ could after all be the ‘strategic, nuclear-armed, supersonic ALCM (instead of being a subsonic 1,000+km-range ground-launched cruise missile), which was first referred to as the nuclear-capable air-delivered munition (ADM) in the Draft Nuclear Doctrine prepared by India’s National Security Advisory Board in late 1998. And as the chart below of the DRDO indicates, this supersonic ALCM--due for service induction by 2015--could also be modified to serve as either a ground-launched tactical cruise missile, or even a long-range maritime strike PGM.
In conclusion, it could also be that the term ‘Nirbhay’ has been deliberately accorded to two separate R & D projects for obvious reasons, just as the there are two projects sharing the name ‘Arudhra’, these being the on-going procurement of ELTA Systems-built EL/M-2084 MMRs and the other relating to the DRDO’s efforts to develop a transportable medium-power radar of indigenous design—Prasun K. Sengupta
Is it Brahmos or Bramos...these guys are at it again, it is surprising that when they show their strength they cannot even spell their product correctly.
ReplyDeleteTo Anon@2.14AM: I know (sigh) it is a sad commentary. Shit happens.
ReplyDeleteprasun,
ReplyDeleteUS has offered s korea its Arrow 2 SAM(US/Israel)system , does india will go for it or will wait for another decade for AAM/PAD for anti-ballistic defense
@Prasun da
ReplyDeleteI think its time for you to debunk your own theory that 'Nirbhay' is a target drone. No offence!!!
By the way if indeed 'Nirbhay' name has been given to 2 projects for deliberate ambiguity then other than 600 km ALCM what the other project.
thanks
Joydeep Ghosh
prasunda
ReplyDeletethere is a lot of ambiguity regarding INDIA's LRCM and ALCM and nirbhay.
in some of the posts appearing in the mainstream media there have been references to how the nirbhay would be used by all the three services.
it was through you that i first got to know about the ADM now referred by you as ALCM and back then you had said there would be 2 variants, one for delivering nuclear warheads and the other,with a shorter range, for conventional strikes.
how do you see the picture now?? perhaps that could give us some air of clarity on the matter :)
http://idrw.org/?p=6674
ReplyDelete&
http://idrw.org/?p=6685
prasunda it seems that the DRDO has mooted the development of a full fledged AWACS, however im not quite sure if the IAF has approved of the AEW&CS as of yet. does the above decision imply any such approvals on the IAF's part??
about the second article is it a show of disappointment from the USA for having not got its aircrafts selected for the M-mrca??
To Joydeep Ghosh: The term ‘Nirbhay’ first came into the limelight around 2005 and by August 2005, the DRDO officials were in Moscow and during the MAKS 2005 expo signed an agreement ordering a small quantity of NPO Saturn-built 36MT turbofans. The Russians were then saying that these turbofans are meant for powering a new ground-launched ‘cruise missile simulating drone’ then being developed by the ADE, and that thus R & D project had been named ‘Nirbhay’. Once this news got publicised during MAKS 2005, only then everyone heard of the term ‘Nirbhay’. But how does this face off with the CEMILAC poster’s revelations? That’s what remains to be seen and that’s why I’m inferring that the term ‘Nirbhay’ applies to two distinct R & D projects of the DRDO.
ReplyDeleteTo ABS: Indeed if the Nirbhay is to be a system used by all three armed services, then the theory about the Nirbhay being a cruise missile simulating drone would be most applicable. On the other hand, if it is an ALCM capable of being launched by Su-30MKI (as the CEMILAC poster reveals), then the Nirbhay ceases to be a tri-services weapon and instead becomes an IAF-specific weapon. It could also be modified as a supersonic anti-ship cruise missile (both air-launched and ship-launched), but would not be suitable as a ground-launched cruise missile since it would not be a terrain-hugging missile. Furthermore, there’s no need for a ground-launched supersonic cruise missile since the BrahMos Blocks 2/3 are already available. Therefore, all indicators are that the Nirbhay, in its ALCM avatar, will be something similar to the French ASMP/ASLP missiles.
@prasunda
ReplyDeletei do agree that, especially with the brahmos' range being increased to 550km, a similar ranged (as borne out from the graphic) would be only an additional spending of hard to come by money, hence an LACM becomes unviable.
however if one sees the graphic it does represent the flight path of either a ground launched LACM or a ship launched LACM but not that of an ALCM (as can be seen when the missile is launched from the ground/ship after which it rises above). as u pointed out it might be modified for an ASCM role, which is good given it will have a greater range than that of brahmos.
hence i believe the graphic shown might belong to some other ground/ ship launched LACM/ASCM while the one that is shown in another graphic, to be carried with su-30mki, might be a seperate ALCM (LACM OR ASCM OR both). therefore chances are the LRCM and nirbhay/ALCM are distinct. with nirbhay being the ALCM and the graphic shown being the LRCM. and like u mentioned the nirbhay might also be a drone at the same time (there were news paper reports too as to how the nirbhay would be a drone initially). your views, pardon me if u find any fault in my views cuz my knowledges are at best rudimentary :)
ps: the graphic itself speaks of surface to surface, air to surface, surface to air(what does this mean?) and anti-ship role of the cruise missile.
^^ or it might be the same LRCM with the ALCM version of LRCM shown onboard the su-30 and the LACM/ASCM version shown in the other graphic.
ReplyDeleteso nirbhay might be the definitive LRCM afterall with a parallel program of the same name to develop a cruise missile simulating drone.
prasunda
ReplyDeletewith reference to your write up 'seperating wheat from chaff', you had dwelled upon how the super hornet would have been a far more formidable and better air craft than any of those fielded by the PLAAF, establishing air-dominance in a future air conflict scenario with China. however now that the rafale has been chosen, can you reassure us if the rafale would be able to practice such superiority over their PLAAF counterparts barring the J-20 may be in the future scenario???
and please try and respond to my above query on the DRDO's plans to work on a full fledged AWACS.
thanks :)
Hi Prasun, u are a great analyst and observer. Can u pls tell by how much is the radar aperture area of the CAPTOR E AESA greater than that of RBE2 in area. Also don't u think the aperture area of the aesa radar on the F-16IN is greater than that of the RBE2 and hence provides greater detection and tracking range ? Pls tell. Also there is peak power per TR module above which the power can't be increased . The maximum detection range depends on the peak power. Is the peak power per TR module of RBE2 greater than CAPTOR E aesa and F-16 IN aesa radar. The very first block of Rafales for the IAF will feature the 20000 lbf or the normal 17000 lbf M88 engine. If the greater thrust engine is fitted bigger air intakes will be required. So Airframe mod needs to be done which will require significant RD. At the same time if the IAF modifies the nose section to accommodate a larger radar it will built an ac with formidible air to air capabilities. Also many websites are saying due to greater aperture the Original Captor is having the same range as the RBE2 AESA. Pls clr about this. Why did the French go for such a small nose? Also how do the EW systems of the two fighters compare. The EF2000 is having a RF towed decoy whereas the Rafale doesn't . Pls tell.
ReplyDeleteI recently read an article about IN's modernization program with a plan for building 11 DDGs. I only know about 3 Kolkatta class and 4 P15a DDG and may be 2 P15b DDG where are the rest of DDG coming from ?
ReplyDeleteAlso i read one of your comment in the previous article, you talked about Kaveri K-15 engine. Which is this engine ? I searched everywhere, only K-9 engine which was tested on Il-76 and K-10 which is planned for LCA is planned by drdo.
When are you posting that FINSAS article ? All of us are waiting...
Hi, the deal for the Rafale has not yet been signed . If the Brits come up with an innovative solution to reduce the life cycle costs of Typhoon and make it L1 then willing IAF go for it? Also does the canards of Rafale help in pitch control and do the Rafale possess variable intakes like the Typhoon?
ReplyDeletehttp://idrw.org/?p=6689
ReplyDeleteA rare and very well written article .. one on par with your posts...
AMCA no doubt will be very very ambitious....and as you stated as being involved in R&D roadmap for the MMRCA offset .. your(and our Aviation Industry) success will be truly measured if we absorb the TOT and convert them into revolutionary DOT. (Mentioned in idrw article)...
our Public and Private players will have a lot on their plates to be exited about ...its time MOD get its act together and evolve a foolproof strategy..
so that we can pray to be self-sufficient comprehensively to proudly declare that WE ASPIRE TO BE A SUPERPOWER in the multipolar world that will ensure in next decade...
Well Good luck to our MOD & DPSUs cause they neeeeed it .. a lot.....and hope they will use both BRAINS and BALLS to strategise our defense planning..
Adios..Over and Out
To ABS: Against the PLAAF, any Western fourth-generation M-MRCA will dominate the air campaign. Even when it comes to the J-20, there are still certain technological deficiencies evident. For instance, the J-20 has yet to sport an IRST sensor. Secondly, its powerplant is an interim solution, and the definitive WS-15 turbofans haven’t yet surfaced. Thirdly, China has not yet developed any AESA-MMR. Therefore, the J-20 is highly unlikely to be inducted into service before 2024.
ReplyDeleteAs for what the DRDO’s CABS wants to do in future, well, again the ‘desi’ mass-media agencies have got it all wrong. Firstly, AWACS is the USAF designation of the E-3A/D platforms in service with the US, France, the UK & NATO. No one else uses the term AWACS, not Australia, not Chile, not Greece, not Japan, not India, not Israel, not China, not Brazil, not Singapore, not Taiwan, not Turkey, not Sweden & not South Korea. The generic term used by all these countries is AEW & CS or AEW & C platform. Secondly, in terms of priorities, the CABS has been mandated to first deliver the three AEW & CS platforms using the EMB-145 airframe & S-band LSTAR AESA radar. If all goes well by 2016, then production-series deliveries of this AEW & CS will get underway, for which there’s a reqmt for 14 platforms (to add to the three A-50I PHALCONS already delivered and two more on order). What CABS has proposed to the MoD is to expand the scope of R & D so that instead of ordering 14 EMB-145-based AEW & CS platforms, it is asking for funds for developing an expanded mission management system with up to 14 mission consoles (instead of the present six) that can be accommodated within a bigger-size aircraft like the Bombardier Global Express, which is a widebodied aircraft (compared to the narrow-body EMB-145). That question that arises next is: why does one need an expanded mission management system? It is the answer to this question which the ‘desi’ mass-media agencies haven’t been able to figure out. But the answer is quite simple and elementary. For the IAF, such bigger AEW & C platforms will be required to do two distinct missions, albeit air defence-related: airborne battle management in support of offensive air campaigns; and airspace surveillance & target tracking of hostile ballistic missiles (NLOS-BSMs or TBMs or even IRBMs). Onviously, performing these two missions simultaneously will require additional manpower on board as well as additional workstations. Hence, CABS has proposed that bigger, wide-bodied aircraft be procured to meet the IAF’s operational reqmt for 14 AEW & CS platforms.
To Anon@10.47PM: There’s three P-15 DDGs in service, three P-15A DDGs on order, and four P-15B DDGs to be ordered very soon. K-15 is the designation of the Kaveri’s variant destined for the Tejas Mk3. The K-15 will be jointly developed by GTRE & Snecma Moteurs.
ReplyDeleteTo Anon@10.51PM: That won’t be possible. It is not for the UK to come up with any innovative financial offer. Only Eurofighter GmbH can do that and for that to happen it will have to consult all four member-nations of the consortium. And even if drastic price-reduction offers are made, it will infuriate existing export customers like the Saudis, as they will feel that they’re being forced to buy over-priced products. Therefore, no one from the Eurofighter consortium will even contemplate setting such a precedent.
To Shree: Again, the quoted article has factual errors. For instance, the older Jaguar IS, MiG-21 Bison & MiG-27UPGs will be replaced by the Rafales & Tejas Mk2. It is the upgraded Mirage 2000s & MiG-29UPGs that will be replaced by the FGFA. The AMCA right now is not even on the drawing boards. In fact, unless there’s a quantum or phenomenal increase in allocated R & D funds for ADA, there’s no way the AMCA can evolve into reality. Even though ADA’s designers may succeed in designing and fabricating an airframe like that of the F-35 JSF, their efforts are unlikely to be matched by the likes of GTRE, LRDE, DARE, IRDE, etc. In other words, in areas like mission sensors, fly-by-light flight controls, turbofans and guided PGMs, the AMCA will have to rely on imported solutions, because I just don’t see the kind of experienced R & D human resource pool and a matching military-industrial infrastructure emerging between now and 2020 if the present levels of military R & D spending continue.
To Anon@10.44PM: The radar apertures and peak transmitted power of both the Captor-E and RBE-2 are more or less the same. When it comes to AESA-MMRs, it is not necessary to increase radar apertures in order to obtain greater range. The IAF’s Rafales will be the F-3 Tranche variant with the RBE-2, a new SAM missile launch detector, a new generation Front Sector Optronics (OSF IRST) with improved target detection and identification performance, and Snecma Moteurs’ M88-2E4 turbofan, rated at 22,500lb (100kN) of dry thrust and 34,000lb in full afterburner. This new version also offers improved fuel consumption (2 to 4% lower than the M88-2E1). The RBE-2, which has an antenna array equipped with 1,001 transmit/receive modules, has a detection range of 180km, and performs track-while-scan (TWS) of up to 40 airborne targets, which is more than enough for a single pilot to handle. It will also feature a ground moving target indication-cum-tracking (GMTI/T) mode simultaneously interlaced with the airspace TWS mode, and a weather radar mode. In addition, a synthetic aperture radar mapping mode will be available, all by next year. Therefore, when the IAF’s Rafales are delivered, ALL these enhancements will be available from Day 1.
ReplyDeleteAs for bigger air intakes required for turbofans that will only be available by 2020, this is a minor matter for Dassault Aviation, since the entire aircraft has been designed with CATIA software, any such modifications can be done easily without an extensive flight-test programme. In terms of internal EW suites, both the SPECTRA and IDASS are evenly matched (they’re in fact far better than those on the F-16IN, Super Hornet and the JAS-39 Gripen NG). Towed-decoys can always be launched from bays that are conformally attached to external fuel tanks or external self-protection jammers.
Prasun,
ReplyDeleteCouple of questions-
A. If LRCM(in the pic) is indeed a adaptation of ADM, then what happened to the missile(pics u posted long before) which was externally similar to Barak 8LR SAM being codeveloped with Rafael. Visually i cant find any similaties between what you have posted before with this one.
B. What happened to its submarine launched variant? It was supposed to be ready for flight testing in 2012.
C. Interestingly you have posted VLS design diagrams to be fitted in ATV. In the diagrams two distinct type of VLS design was shown, one for submarine launched Bramhos & another for 8500km range cruise missile(for which till now DRDO have not initiated any program) althogh no VLS design was shown for the sub launched LRCM(which is being developed from way back since 2008). Does it mean that LRCM can be fitted in the existing Bramhos VLS compartment or it is never gonna be fitted in ATV for test firing?
D. If indeed it is ready then from which platform it will be test fired considering India is long behind from having an operational SSGN.
E. Regarding ATV, is it still having USHUS low frequency sonar or it is being replaced with any newer ultra low frequency sonar & when it will finally start its sea trail. As the Nerpa has been already inducted it should dtart its sea trial any time soon. What about the logistics hubs, bases of Nerpa & ATV. Is the infrastructure needed for them already in place(except DSRV)?
Thanks un advance. :)
How do they dare to talk like this:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article2851489.ece
What they thought when BAE Hawk was selected over Alpha Jet.
To Shaurya: Initially, RAFAEL had indeed proposed to the DRDO that a nuclear-armed ALCM derived from the Barak-8 be co-developed. However, subsequently, it was realised that such a missile would not be multi-role, i.e. the missile’s small warhead made it unviable for being used for maritime strikes when fired from warships or submarines. That is why it was decided by both the DRDO & RAFAEL to proceed along the lines adopted by Aerospatiale way back in the mid-1980s when the ASMP with a tactical nuclear warhead was developed concurrently with the ASLP, and the ANS anti-ship variant. The submarine-launched variant of this supersonic missile is not being developed, that option has long been dropped. Instead what is now being developed is a vertically-launched SAM variant of the Python-5, which will go on board the Arihant-class SSBNs. On the Arihant (S-2) and its two follow-on vessels (S-3 & S-4) the VLS will be for only the B-05/K-15/Shaurya ballistic missile and BrahMos. On the S-5 SSBN, only the longer-range K-4 SLBMs are due to go on board. The S-2/3/4 SSBNs will all have the Ushus sonar suite (bow-mounted cylindrical + twin flank arrays). No one within the DRDO is even working on ultra low-frequency sonars. Harbour trials of the S-2 began last month and sea trials will get underway by next month. The shore-based support infrastructure for both the K-152 Nerpa/Chakra and the Arihant is existing in Vizag. Project Varsha is now being undertaken to cater to the future projected fleet of SSBNs and SSNs.
ReplyDeleteThanks a ton Prasun for the reply.
ReplyDeleteSo no longer lange cruise missile for SSGN other than Bramhos. Thats a bad news. And what happened to the SSGN design(I mean s5 will be SSGN or a follow on class Arihant class SSBN)? When it will be finalised? It will still use russian-design or french help will be sought for something like Barracuda.
If finalised what will be its weapon component(other than torpedo).
To Mr.RA 13: Are yaar, the Brits, lacking in 'Tahzeeb', need to be reminded that it was India’s lush farmlands along the Indo-Gangetic Plain that ensured the British East India Co’s pre-eminence as the world’s first and foremost drugs traffickers when conducting ‘maritime trade’ with Mainland China, and at the same time systematically reducing India’s share of the global trade over a 150-year period from 98% to a mere 2% by 1947. By the same token, India could well now claim that all the noble houses/Taipans of Hongkong SAR—the Jardine & Mathesons, the Swire Group, the Hutchinson & Whampoas—owe trillions of pounds to India as damages sustained due to the East India Company’s trading activities within Mainland China. The fact remains that A) the IAF was never interested in the ‘Typhoon’ variant of the EF-2000, and B) Germany-based Eurofighter GmbH should be held accountable for pursuing a flawed marketing strategy. And lastly, these British MPs need to be told that if they don’t shut up, then the entire Jaguar/Land Rover assembly lines would be totally dismantled and ferried back to India for good.
ReplyDeleteAlso Python 5 being adapted for a submarine is interesting, considering its limited range what role it will play. Regarding K-4, any recent news on that. Any technical specification or development schedule. If indeed a VLS design for 8500 km range missile is available, then why we are pushing for K-4 with far lesser range.
ReplyDeleteTo Shaurya: What the Indian Navy wants as nuclear-powered vessels are SSBNs and SSNs, since—unlike the governments of the US and UK--the Govt of India has no intention of firing salvoes of land-attack cruise missiles half-way across the world. Therefore, the Navy ideally wants SSBNs armed with only SLBMs preferably with a range of 8,000km, and SSGNs capable firing torpedoes as well as supersonic anti-ship cruise missiles like the Novator 3M54E (which can be fired from torpedo tubes). It makes no sense for the SSGN to have an extra compartment just for accommodating the BrahMos. It is widely believed that the SSGN will be designed along the lines of the Barracuda-class SSN. It has not yet been determined whether this time the Naval Design Bureau will be in the driver’s seat, or whether the DRDO and DAE will take the lead once again, just as is the case with the ATV. The S-5 will be a dedicated SSBN carrying up to eight SLBMs, plus torpedoes. Its design already exists and it will be a scaled-down version of Russia’s Project 667BDR (Delta-3) SSBN.
ReplyDeleteThanx for your encouraging reply and I hope that the British MPs/PM read your comments and return back all the payments accrued so far for using the various deemed patents on mathematical "Zero" to Indian cow Bull.
ReplyDeleteThanks a lot man. Hope this time GoI will give greater priority on what the navy really wants over what DRDO wants to build.
ReplyDeleteTo Shaurya: The VL Python-5 will be used for point defence, allowing the submarine to fire it against loitering MP/ASW aircraft or ASW helicopters while remaining submerged. The K-4’s development began in 2008 its maiden test-firing was due last year. It will have a range of 3,500km, weigh 20 tonnes, have a 1-tonne warhead section, and a length of 10 metres. A total of six test-firings are planned. The K-4 will go on the S-2/3/4 vessels. The S-5 SSBN will have SLBMs that are 12 metres in length and have 5,000km-range---3,000km shorter than what’s really required.
ReplyDeleteOne thing has to be reminded, the British didnt come for charity nor did they come by invitation. So what they plundered can never be accounted. The basics of defence applies here that if you cannot fend yourselves, some one else will at a cost that he decides not what you want. After all if you (our great ancestors) are source of 98% of world trade what was there in Head, dahi wada?, when you could not raise a decent defence and couldnot distinguish the skin colour to fight.
ReplyDeleteThe reaction of British MPs need not be taken too seriously since after all who on earth wont be greedy when it is a matter of $20 billion or more and grapes will go sour.
Sure it is a disgrace on our face that at one hand the UK give money in aid as Charity and on the other hand expects favours in return. My personal take is such aid shouldnt be termed charity rather some carrots. and the fact that we cannot stand up to the disgrace is written in history before 1947 of course our own mistake.
Now a reminder of tit for tat (like JLR assembly) is not what is needed but a stoic silence, that we made informed decision and not the cocks decision (as you say).
one thing i didnt understand regarding the CABS AEW&C is are we going to shelve the proposed 14 mini 'AWACS'. Is it not a terrible waste just to develop 3 demos and not develop it to Production variant. After all the entire concept is more than 2 decades old and atleast nominal out put is expected. Are we going to be the eternal developers who dream big, Act small and give nothing after overruns.
ReplyDeleteAny way as i understand the deal of mini AEW&C of CABS is for 3 EMB-145 planes with Embraer and the platform for the follow on 14 (or is it 11) is to be selected on competitive bidding (read another 10 years). If the CABS AEW&C is atleast marginally successful can we opt for 14 more planes of the same platform through FMS type with Brazil govt.
Also is CABS asking more funds for just the Avionics or is the entire package (including radars, subsystems and avionics). Looking at the funding asked for it doesnt look very great to accommodate a full expansion of the CABS AEW
With the funding of average 2-3 Billion USD for new fleet acquisitions isnt the navy terribly constrained to go for planned SSN/SSBNs along with the projected surface fleet even by 2024. Will the Navy be given a priority it deserves in future budgets. As i see the decision makers see Navy as a child brother but better in shape having a very limited role though they always say big words like balancing china, force projection, maritime security etc. Though we do not have an imminent threat to our maritime security of the WWII type, we do have long term interst in high seas and considering that Naval assets take a lot more time to build up than that of Air/Army ones
ReplyDeleteI guess with many of the imported acquisions nearing fruition the beareaucracy will feel enough delivered (though long pending) and will cut down on public R&D spending except for a few catchy ones. It is going to hurt us that the defence scientists will see it an easy way to do the paint job on imported assembly than to take up risky R&D especially since the research is an ungrateful profession just as intelligence. Unless and untill we declub the stop-gap/fill gap measures and conceiving futurist systems through ingenious R&D we are going to see a turn of the wheel.
ReplyDeleteTo Anon@3.43AM: The ‘aid’ is termed by the media is in fact ‘grant-in aid’, as the UK calls it, or ‘Overseas Development Assistance’ (ODA) as Japan calls it. In both cases there’s a clear quid pro quo under which although the donor country parts with the money, it is mandatory for the recipient country to use the ‘donated’ money for buying products/services ONLY from the donor country. For instance, in the mid-1980s when the UK gave grants-in aid to India, that money was utilised for placing orders for AgustaWestland WG-30 helicopters for Pawan Hans. And I agree that there’s no further need for any cockfights with the Brits.
ReplyDeleteTo Anon@3.55AM: The three EMB-145 AEW & CS developed by CABS will be inducted into service PROVIDED they comply with the IAF’s ASQRs. Consequently, this will not be a wasted affair. All that the CABS is proposing now is to expand the scope of the project so as to include additional capabilities. There won’t be any competitive bidding for meeting the reqmts for the remaining 11 AEW & Cs, since this won’t be an off-the-shelf procurement of readymade solutions. Instead, bigger airframes are being asked for, so that CABS may be able to accommodate a larger mission management suite to cater to the extra workload associated with the conduct of its two principal missions. The mission sensor suite will stay the same. However, their operating modes will be increased through software enhancements.
but is not the EMB145 AEW&C a collaborative project with Embraer. Since AEW&C platform customisation itself took 4-5 years and since it will be standardised if IAF selects, will it not be easier to go for series production. Selecting a new platform like from Bombardier and customising it will again take 4-5 years since the platform is enlarged. I too agree that a larger and more capable AEW&C is ideal. But since we need the 14 AEW&C by the end of this decade is it not better to stick to the original development platform and then develop a bigger platform (or even concurrently if resources are available). Anyway what CABS asked is INR 850 Crore, which is hardly sufficient for a big development, i suspect this is our regular job of skipping one platform to another on never ending development.
ReplyDeleteEven with grant in Aid (primarily for poverity alleviation and primary education in case of UK) the source country can and should expect that the programme is implimented as expected and the good will (and possibly the blessings, if it exists, of the people you uplifted ) of the destined country. Expecting that the recipient country buy everything from bath soap, to toungue cleaners to fighter planes as a favor in return is nothing but colonial mindset.
ReplyDeleteBut i can understand the frustration of UK MPs especially when you are left with is a tight belt around empty stomach and biscuits are hanging. I never expected the 'gentle men British' to come down to this low level not even when you are destitute. After all for us, the colonial cousins of the east, you were iconic plunderers.
To Anon@4.34AM: Embraer is only customising the airframe to accommodate the CABS-designed mission sensor suite and mission management system. Airframe customisation took time because the design parameters of the mission sensor suite & mission management system took more time to finalise. This, however, will not be repeated in case of a new airframe being chosen. Bombardier Aerospace has already done in-house developmental work on customising the Global express into an AEW & C platform. In any such project, the airframe’s structural modifications are not the main challenge, but the systems integration challenges are enormous. That’s why even IAI/ELTA Systems took longer than originally envisaged to install the PHALCON suite on the A-50I airframe. The figure of Rs850 crores is just about the right sum reqd for developing the architecture for an expanded mission sensor-mission management suite for two new AEW & CS prototypes.
ReplyDeletethanks a lot prasunda for your insights :)
ReplyDeletehowever based on what you said, does that imply the EMB-145 based AEW&CS performs only a single role of battle space management as compared to the one being proposed by DRDO with expanded mission management suite??
sir you are saying that the snecma m88-2e4 will have 22k lbf of dry and 34k lbf of wet thrust !!??
ReplyDeleteis this even possible !!?? or even wanted !!??
i mean isn't 34k lbf thrust too much to ask for such a small engine !!!!!!!???
it might be close to f414epe's 27k lbf but 34k lbf is way too high !!!???
@prasunda
ReplyDeletecan you tell us if there are any plans for having an A/C customised for EW like the EA-18G of the USA??? if not then why??
thanks
What is Tejas Mk3? Never heard of it..Is it an intermediate to AMCA or just another LCA with Kaveri? And what are the ratings of Kaveri K-15?
ReplyDeleteHi prasun, the EF2000 is having a bigger aperture than the Rafale. As the peak power per TR module of the Captor E and the RBE 2 is the same so the Typhoon radar range is greater. And the per engine thrust of the M88 4 is 17000 lbs dry thrust and 22500 wet thrust. And this will require bigger engine intakes as the engine airflow will have to increase. And as u said airframe desiging will not be a problem so IAF must go for a bigger radome. Also pls compare the APG-80 with RBE2. Does the Apg-80 on the F-16 IN has greater TR module count and greater rada aperture area.
ReplyDeletePrasun, let me ask something here - what are the holdings of UAVs (excluding target towing drones) by service ?
ReplyDeleteI mean we have Herons and Searchers in all three services so who has what and how many ?
Thanks
To all: Will upload the latest details on IAF-specific Rafale tonight, and will also answer all queries as well.
ReplyDeleteHi Prasun,
ReplyDeleteGud catch !!!!lol
What I think is your are correct. DRDO is having two programs under same name.What I think is that DRDO is developing the ALCM with Israel's help. While on the land based and sea based variants it is going alone as it has lot of experience on them.So when both the program matures DRDO will claim that it has developed all 3 variants of a single Nirbhay missile.
What do you think?
Thnks
UAE plans to buy Rafale to replace Mirage 2000-9 ... but we are hoping to get upgraded Mirage 2000 by/from 2022....what the hell?
ReplyDeleteWhy not use them for the time being and buy newer aircraft..and I dont buy the argument that they still have some juice left in them as their old airframe and engines will not upgraded.
Instead that money should have been poured into LCA or Kaveri.
PRasun do you think Mirage deal makes sense since by 2020 we will be operating a good number of Rafales and Super Su 30s investment in speedy development of Tejas Mk3 would have been optimal?
Hi PRASUN your blog is great and awesome. The 126 MMRCA are meant to replace the aging 125 MiG-21 Bison. And according to old plans the 1st MMRCA was to be inducted in 2013 and the last by 2017. What are the additional MMRCA for? Are they going to replace some ac or they are going to complement the existing IAF fleet. Also the squadron strength of the IAF is depleting fast. So will not the IAF fasttrack the production and induction of Rafale if it is finally selected ?
ReplyDeleteHey Prasun,
ReplyDeleteCould you give the status of IFV development and did u write an article on it(If S,Give the link) ?
Did we replace Bofors 40 mm,with what?
Could the number of missiles on SPYDER increased from 4 to 8,how many will be on next batch of which RFI was issued?
Prasun ! how is the NAG missile is faring ... I hope its not going the trishul way?
ReplyDeleteTo ABS: That’s right, the EMB-145 AEW & CS’ mission sensor/mission management suites are presently optimisied purely for airborne battle management. That was also the case with the three A-50I PHALCONs, but the operating software packages of these platforms are now being upgraded fdor BMD early warning as well. As for dedicated EW aircraft, there’s no need for such aircraft, since both the Su-30MKI and the Rafale can be easily configured for SEAD/DEWAD missions, thanks to their open-architecture avionics suites. The same will hold true for the MiG-29UPG and upgraded Mirage 2000H/THs, both of which will not only have active phased-array internal jammers like the ELT-568 (from Italy’s Elettronica) and Spectra, but will also be able to carry escort jammers like ELTA’s ELL-8251 pod.
ReplyDeleteTo Anon@11.23AM: Is it too much? Not quite, for when one is operating out of air bases in Rajasthan where outside temperatures average above 45° Celsius in summertime, the greater the power availability, the better the M-88’s power reserve at takeoff with full combat load. This assures comfortable levels of thrust when the sortie commences. Such power ratings are also very useful for operations out of high-altitude air bases like the ones in J & K, and also when flying terrain-hugging profiles over the high-altitude Tibetan Plateau with appreciable external ordnance loads.
To I Am That I Am: Tejas Mk3 is meant to be powered by the Kaveri K-15 turbofan to be co-developed by GTRE & Snecma Moteurs. Tejas Mk2 will be powered by GE Aero Engines-built F414-GE-IN56 (99 on order).
To Anon@5.37PM: Who says that the EF-2000’s Captor-E WFoR AESA-MMR’s antenna has a bigger aperture than the Rafale’s RBE-2? I have 1:1 scale photos of both to prove that this is not the case. No of T/R modules on the Northrop Grumman APG-80 is lesser than those on the THALES RBE-2.
To SBM: The Indian Navy, IAF and the Army each have 18 Searcher Mk2s and 18 Heron-1s, while the IAF operates an additional 10 Searcher Mk1s. The Army also has 12 Nishant tactical UAVs.
To Spanky’s Blog: Developing canister-mounted vertical-launch shipborne or ground-launched derivatives of the ‘Nirbhay’ ALCM won’t pose any major challenges, apart from developing a dispensable rocket booster. But the question that arises next is: why develop such derivatives when the BrahMos is available and is already in mass-production?
To KSK: In my personal view, which I had already made known much earlier, the money being spent on the Mirage 2000H/TH upgrade is unnecessary. It should instead have been diverted to the M-MRCA programme in order to fast-track the procurement process. For as I will explain later tonight, even after the first 18 Rafales are delivered by mid-2015, they will; achieve FOC status only by 2019.
To Anon@11.20PM: The 125 MiG-21 Bisons, plus the 90-odd MiG-23BNs and 40 MiG-23MFs that have already been phased out.
When Fly Away cost is mentioned ,what systems(Sensors,weapons,EW Suite) are included along with the Rafale ,detail them?
ReplyDeleteAnd what systems will cost considerable amount?
What will be range of IRST on IAF Rafale ?
And will Distibuted targeting system will be used by Rafale like the one being developed for F-18?
What about the communication among Rafale with other fighters ,P-8I and AWACS of IAF?
Will weapons from other countries(Russia,Israel) be compatible?
Is Rafales M88 engine as advanced as EJ200 or GE FE414? And to what extent IAF wants it be upgraded?
ReplyDeleteWhat other promised sub-systems are in development other than Radar?
If UAE too buys Rafale is there chance that pak will get access and IAF be at disadvantage?
Love your Blog,Keep on commenting.
http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Security-Industry/2012/01/30/Israeli-UAV-seen-as-export-star-crashes/UPI-55301327952207/
ReplyDeleteWas India interested in this UAV?
How does Rustom compares to this one?
Hey Prasun,
ReplyDeleteCould you give the status of IFV development and did u write an article on it(If S,Give the link) ?
Did we replace Bofors 40 mm,with what?
Could the number of missiles on SPYDER increased from 4 to 8,how many will be on next batch of which RFI was issued?
Which of the present IAF aircraft has ground moving target tracking capability?
ReplyDeleteCan the Phalcon do it , upto what range?
Regarding AMCA,
ReplyDeleteIts fucking disappointing...we still can only dream of a all indigenous aircraft?
Why cant we leverage the MMRCA offset or use FGFA development program or form a JV ?
And how many billions do you think is required for R&D in AMCA program?
Is CATIA used in development of Tejas?
ReplyDeleteTo An-32: Flyaway cost concerns only the aircraft taken off-the-shelf. Everything else, ranging from weapons, their ejector racks, chaff/flare packets, simulators, ground-power units, comes as ++. Normally the weapons and training packages cost the most. I’ve already stated earlier that Litening-3 & EL/L-8222 EW pods will go on the Rafale. Rest of your queries will be answered in the following thread.
ReplyDeleteTo Anon@12.23AM: The M88 is on par with the best there is today. Do wait for the next thread for more updates on Rafale’s future development. Let’s wait and see first whether or not the Rafale gets procured by the UAE. In any case, the UAE’s Rafales, like its F-16E/F Block 60 Desert Falcons, will all be out of bounds for Pakistan due to the fail-safe firewalls erected by the French OEMs. The PAF can see the Rafales, touch them, but will not be able to ‘feel’ or get to know the aircraft.
To Anon@12.24AM: The turboprop-powered Heron-TP had evinced great interest from the Indian Navy. None of the Rustoms (1 or 2) come even near to the Heron-TP.
To Anon@1AM: Any aircraft equipped with Litening-2/3 or any other LDP has GMTI capability. If you’re talking about radar-based GMTI, none of the IAF’s combat aircraft have this capability. Only whern the MiG-29UPG arrives with the Zhuk-M2E radar will the IAF acquire such a radar-based GMTI capability.
To Shree: It is not about JVs, but devising the optimum ‘sponge’ to absorb the technologies being sought. And for that to happen, more important than anything else is the mentoring and nurturing of skilled human resources on a mass-scale, which is scarce within India. Hell, there aren’t even enough skilled technicians or engineers required for manning all the nuclear power generation reactors planned for procurement from France & Russia!
To Anon@1.11AM: Yes, CATIA for the Tejas, HJT-36 LCH and LUH, and TRIBON for the P-17 FFGs, P-28 corvettes & P-15A/B DDGs.
Are Indian companies going to be part of the research for mid life upgrade program for Rafale on which french companies have recently start their work ?
ReplyDeletethanks a lot prasunda. must say no one else takes such precious time out of ones busy schedule to reply to our queries jerokom tumi koro. :)
ReplyDeleteand as usual i have my following queries
1. both the TYPE-041 and TYPE-041A and the qing class of SSKs of the PLAN have much greater displacement that the scorpenes under construction for the IN. you have said that scorpenes are not ocean going subs and therefore i ask you are any of the above SSKs of PLAN including the kilo subs ocean going submarines??
2.earlier in some of your comments you had mentioned of a 1000 KM ranged subsonic cruise missile under development by the DRDO. could this be the 'nirbhay'?? what is this missiles present status and the likely date of operationalisation??
3.you had also earlier commented as to how an anti armour missile based on the pinaka was under development by the DRDO,however, whose R&D had since been slowed down due to the decison to not upgrade the MIG-27Ms by the IAF. what is its current status now and when can it be fielded?? cant it be put on board the tejas MK2 given its role of air interdiction in support of ground forces?
4. Is there any other cruise missile under development or that have been planned for apart from the ADM/ALCM, brahmos-2, LRCM,the above subsonic missile???
5. can you share with us what are the likely end results of the HSTDV by which i mean what kind of missiles are going to emerge at the end of it and if there are any other applications??
6.currently there is a lot of confusion surrounding INDIA's DEWS. there were reports of INDIA being close to developing a 5-7 KM ranged DEWS capable of bringing down helicopters, UAVs and low flying A/Cs, as also the development of a DEWS capable of knocking down missiles in their terminal stages. recently there were rumours in a forum as to how a ground based 'green' laser had been subjected to simulations with promising results and aslo of some project aditya. could you tell us what DEWS related R&D is going on to clear the air???
7.several years back i had read of a very hush-hush project of DRDO on development of a laser based propulsion system by some 'sayan majumder'. do you know anything about it??
8.and although i know and fully agree about your aversion to platform centric comparisons but just out of sheer curiosity could tell us as to how the definitive tejas MK2 would fare vis-a-vis the j-10
thanks a lot prasunda, hope you reply to all my questions, extensive as they are :)
prasunda couldnt help but ask, the chinese have ongoing programmes to develop not only the j-20 but also the j-14,j-16,j-18 and what not as shown in several pics that have surfaced on the internet and its ditto with UAVs and UCAVs, but it really baffles me as to how having so many platforms is of any help especially with modern technology enabling a single platform to cover all the jobs that could have been done earlier with different roled platforms. a case in point is the USA which has only two fifth generation fighters. can you explain the rationale behind such bizarre thinking on china's part??? i believe this approach is far more capital intensive.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article2860886.ece
ReplyDeleteYou have been optimistic about Naval LCA
Looks..decks are now being cleared for buying..JSF!
There is a buzz about another tender of 80 combat aircraft(40 JSF 35 B or C for NAVY + 40 Surgical Air Strike F-35 A for IAF ) to be floated...i.e. Govt may opt for Gov-Gov deal with US for JSF..like it has done for C-130 , P-8I,WLR,Jalsawa..soon.
With India selecting RAFALE will Brazil be more interested in Rafale too?
ReplyDelete6600 Crore for for just 490 Mica missiles seems too expensive...did it involve any other equipment and TOT?
ReplyDeletehttp://www.telegraphindia.com/1120202/jsp/frontpage/story_15082199.jsp
ReplyDeleteI hope French will keep up with their promises and provide India with Engine,Aircraft and SSGN TOT...just pray
http://www.esamskriti.com/essay-chapters/Rafale~-Why-it-is-the-last-plane-standing-1.aspx
ReplyDeleteNothing special with this article but its funny....
And using Libya as an publicity is sad but forgettable irony.
I saw Sarkozy hugging Gaddafi just months before the crackdown...and british idiots at an air show in Libya...
http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2012-02-03/news/31021124_1_defence-contracts-defence-procurement-procedure-defence-equipment
ReplyDeleteThis is a very valid argument.
We saw reports that Offsets are not really boosting our industry.
Will new set of policies be made for the MMRCA?
Who will decide and calculate that offset conditions are being met?
There are quite a few ex-PAF pilots flying the F-16's in UAE. This i know from first hand experience. Now the question is how much of their knowledge will they share with PAF. With regards to France, UAE has much bigger leverage and will not allow constraints. Buyer is king! especially now that eurofighter is also in the contest. If UAE does buy the Rafael, rest assured PAF will know it inside out pretty soon. Guess how many (PAF/ ex-PAF)are currently flying the M2000 in UAE? you will be surprised!
ReplyDeleteTo ABS: The Type 041, Improved Type 041 & Qing-class SSKs are NOT ocean-going. Only nuclear-powered submarines can rightfully be termed as ocean-going as their submerged endurance is much longer (up to 3 months) than SSKs (up to 42 days max). It’s the ‘desi’ media that has always claimed that a 1,000km-range subsonic GLCM was under development, NOT ME. What I had stated since 2006 is that a cruise missile simulating drone, called Nirbhay, us also under development and it will be powered by a 36MT turbofan sourced from Russia’s NPO Saturn. There were only conceptual studies done by the ARDE to develop a guided anti-armour derivative of the 214mm Pinaka’s rocket done up till 2008. Ultimately, it was decided not to proceed with this project and instead, priority was accorded to development of sensor-fuzed ‘smart’ sub-munitions for the Pinaka rockets. To date, there are only two known cruise missiles—both—supersonic—confirmed for services procurement: BrahMos & Nirbhay ALCM. There are two spinoffs from the HSTDV’s R & D efforts: first is for fielding a scramjet-powered reusable space shuttle for which Israel & Russia are ISRO’s R & D partners; the second is for co-developing with Russia the hypersonic BrahMos-3, which will be similar in concept and appearance to the Perseus from MBDA. The BrahMos-3 will appear only in the following decade. Am not aware of any laser-based propulsion system. Regarding the Tejas Mk2 & J-10B/FC-20, IF the Tejas Mk2 comes equipped with an AESA-MMR and an IRST, then it will prevail over the J-10B/FC-20 in air combat and precision ground-strike.
ReplyDeleteRegarding Mainland China (PRC), one has to note that Beijing’s aircraft manufacturing facilities like Chengdu Aircraft Corp & Shenyang Aircraft Corp began cooperating with their US, European, Israeli and South African counterparts since the 1980s for upgrading their J-7 & J-8 combat aircraft, and for developing indigenous solutions like the J-10 and FC-1/JF-17/Super-7/Super Sabre. At the same time, several Chinese OEMs sprang up since the early 1980s for becoming part of the global supply chain of OEMs like GE, Pratt & Whitney, Rolls-Royce & SNECMA Moteurs. France played a big role in teaching China how to develop guided-missiles, starting with the FM-80, PL-5E and FN-6 projects. In other words, China not only sought and obtained R & D solutions from abroad, but also accessed contemporary engineering-production solutions/processes over a 20-year period starting from the early 1980s. It took China 20 years to fully absorb all this and only after building up a large pool of indigenous skilled human resources over this period, was China ready to embark upon its own futuristic product development projects like the J-20 (for air dominance), L-15 (for lead-in fighter training), J-14 and FC-1 (tactical MRCAs) and the J-15 (all-weather stealth bomber). There’s nothing extraordinary or bizarre about this. Even in the US the F-15s and F-16s will be upgraded to stay in service for at least another 20 years and serve alongside the F/A-22 Raptor & F-35 Lightning. Remember, the JSF is still being classified as the F-35, and not as the F/A-35, meaning the JSF is still years away from being fielded as a MRCA.
To Anon@10.09PM: No one, especially the Indian Navy, has ever been pessimistic about the LCA (Navy) project. The delays in product development that both Admiral Nirmal Verma & ACM (ret’d) S Krishnaswamy are referring to are factual, but no one is saying that the Tejas Mk2 & LCA (Navy) Mk2 programmes be junked. All that both are saying is exactly what I’ve been saying since 2009: that the DRDO’s scientists, technocrats and bureaucrats should never have been told to focus BY THE MoD entirely on technology demonstrators. Instead, OEMs like HAL, TATA Advanced Materials & TATA Power SED should have been involved from Day 1 in a national-level R & D effort involving product designers/engineers and production-engineering specialists, all led by a serving IAF officer as the Project Director. The problem ALWAYS BEGINS at the MoD-level, where project conceptualisation takes place; if it is wrong, everything else goes wrong. Therefore what you gave today is this:
ReplyDelete1) The end-users (IAF and Indian Navy) were brought in as project managers at the fag-end of the developmental cycles of the Tejas & LCA (Navy), amounting to putting the cart before the horse, since a laboratory-level technology demonstrator now has to be converted to a functional engineered solution.
2) Due to the absence of a user-driven industrial roadmap emanating from the MoD, HAL wasn’t allowed to fully develop the HTT-35 basic turboprop trainer (it could have been made available by 1996) and everyone EXCEPT ME forgot even about the existence of such a project (see: http://trishulgroup.blogspot.in/2009/10/bottoms-up-not-top-down.html ).
3) As a logical extension of the HTT-35, the HJT-36 IJT’s development should have begun in 1996 and ought to have been completed by 2005 at the latest. Now, as ACM (ret’d) has at last confirmed what I’ve been saying for the past three months (see: http://www.hindustantimes.com/News-Feed/ColumnsOthers/Mayday-mayday/Article1-806328. aspx), looks like the HJT-36 too will be consigned to the dustbin along with the HTT-35).
4) Instead of first taking the R & D process of the Dhruv ALH to its logical conclusion by obtaining EASA airworthiness certification keeping its promise of developing a fly-by-light version of the Dhruv (all promised in 2005), HAL is developing the Rudra & the LCH on its own, again without any project management inputs emanating from the products’ end-users. Consequently, service induction of both these machines will be delayed by several years as several design/performance parameters of these machines will need drastic corrections/upgrades.
5) Instead of learning from the LCA experience, India has the unique distinction of being part of two parallel R & D efforts involving fifth-generation combat aircraft: the FGFAfor which HAL is the Indian prime developer & industrial contractor, and the AMCA, which is an ADA-driven effort devoid of any inputs from/participation by any India-based aircraft manufacturing OEM!
All of the above boil down to being successive cases of “the blind leading the blind”.
To KSK: I don’t think Brazil faces the same kind of threat perceptions as India does. The Gripen NG for Brazil will be just fine. Regarding MICA-IR/MICA-EM, it’s not just the missile rounds. Their ejector pylons, field-test kits, storage systems, on-board battery stocks, on-board cryogenic coolants, and part-task trainers/CBTs for weapons employment are also being procured.
ReplyDeleteTo Anon@10.54PM: Prayers are utterly useless. Hard-nosed negotiations by the customer & cold-blooded strategic visioning of the country’s apex decision-makers will come in more handy. Afterall, nothing is pre-destined or pre-ordained; one only reaps what one sows.
Hey Prasun,
ReplyDeleteI have I have few queries
Will we get only screw driver tech or beyond that?
Will Rafales be assembled or manufactured in India?
What will be the differences between assembling/manufacturing a Rafale and assembling a Su-30MKI?
I know MMRCA is important for IAF but every1 is acting like it will leapfrog our nascent aviation industry.
ReplyDeleteNo matter the assurances no will give away the painstakingly developed advanced tech for money.
Well Prasun , to protect their intellectual property and to avoid a future competitor what sought of things will be off the table for India by France??????????????????????
And you could also list the sought of technology that India aspects ....??
And what how much of it can Indian companies absorb successfully at present state???????????????
To Anon@11.39PM: What that article so unabashedly reveals is how myopic and short-sighted the writer’s point-of-view is, and how folks like Ajai Shukla have short memories whenever they ‘highlight’ the liabilities associated with offsets. Such entities tend to overlook, among several other points, the following:
ReplyDelete1) The greatest and by far the largest quantum of ‘indirect’ defence-industrial offsets programme in India are the projects being run by the DRDO’s ATV & Sagarika project offices. It should be noted that Moscow’s commitment to help India develop and deploy a fleet of strategic SSBNs equipped with nuclear warhead-carrying SLBMs came as part of a then-secret protocol in 1989, which was attached to the official non-classified agreement to purchase the two VVER-1000 PWRs for Koodankulam from the then-USSR and procure six more in the years ahead. There was a clear quid pro quo element involved, and as a result we today have the Arihant, K-15/Shaurya/B-05 and will in future have the K-4 SLBM, while several public- & private-sector industrial OEMs in India today have been successful—with Russian assistance—in locally fabricating ALL the critical sub-systems/components for nuclear-powered submarines.
2) It was due to India’s strategic decision to go for the Su-30MKI in a big way in the mid-1990s that paved the way for Russia returning the favour by agreeing to the creation of BrahMos Aerospace Pvt Ltd, as a result of which India today is fielding the kind of multi-role cruise missiles that no one else in the whole of Asia is even able to get their hands on.
3) The Scorpene SSK deal with DCNS enabled India to get access to leading-edge CAD/CAM design processes involving TRIBON software for shipyards like MDL, GRSE and CSL. As a result, warships like the P-17A, P-15B and all future principal combatants of the Navy will be ‘virtually’ designed by the shipyards themselves (instead of the Naval Design Bureau), thereby drastically reducing the detailed design phases of these warships.
Based on the above two examples alone, how can one therefore conclude that indirect offsets have never boosted India’s military might or industrial prowess? Regretably, entities like BROADSWORD/Ajai Shukla/BUSINESS STANDARD tend not to do their homework and consequently, end up defending the indefensible.
To Anon@11.53PM: Those queries were highlighted and explained in the previous thread. The first 18 Rafales will be procured off-the-shelf by late 2015, while the following 18 will be supplied in semi-knocked-down condition by Dassault Aviation by early 2018, while another 18 will be supplied in completely knocked-down condition by 2020. Airframes and engines of the remaining 62 and possibly another 63 will be built totally in-country between 2018 and 2028 with the help of imported raw materials. As for “what will be the differences between assembling/manufacturing a Rafale and assembling a Su-30MKI?”…There won’t be any difference. But product-support costs for most of the critical components (like cockpit avionics, instrumentation & navigation systems) will be much lower since these are installed on board the Su-30MKI, Rafale, MiG-29UPG & Tejas Mk1/2.
ReplyDeleteTo Shree: India is most unlikely to emerge as a competitor to the likes of France or the US or Russia for the next 50 years, at least. Therefore, France is most likely to engage with India through risk-sharing strategic industrial partnerships involving the joint development and procurement of futuristic weapon systems. This could very well include the AURA and an India-specific derivative of the Barracuda-class SSGN.
Hey Prasun i thought you were posting some new article...
ReplyDeleteI have few important questions...
Are Indian companies going to be part of the research and development for mid life upgrade program for Rafale on which french companies have recently start their work and which will include alot of 5th gen technologies ?
According to AMCA program govt. initially handed ADA 200-300 cr. INR for feasibility report which was supposed to be handed over to MOD by 2011 and then the government would hand over the initial development cost which could be as much as 2 billion $ according to ADA head. Whats the progress here ?
What is the RCS of Tejas mk1 ?
Does india has the capability to even make the air-frame like the ones of F22 and F35 ? Nobody is talking about it but thats a difficult and expensive job too as airframe should also be designed to have very less RCS.
ADA head has also asked private companies to start work on display computers and man machine interface which ADA wants to put in AMCA. Any progress on this ? How is it gonna work ? I mean is government granting aid to private companies for doing research in these areas or these companies will gonna cover the cost of research by themselves hoping they will be reimbursed later when the AMCA flies ?
I recently read an article about AMCA and it appears ADA will be making the first prototype in a couple years. Is it true ? Although the article might not be reliable.
I heard SAAB has been roped in for consultancy in AMCA project. What areas SAAB is gonna help us exactly ? Are bringing dassault also for this project ? French companies have already started the work on the next generation rafale techs are we gonna join them ?
IAF chief PV NAIK said in 2009 aero show that IAF wants a full stealth aircraft like F22. Now ADA is talking about making a considerably less stealthy aircraft of the category of F35. Will ADA comply with IAF demands or they are gonna make whatever they feel they can ?
You said " Snecma Moteurs’ M88-2E4 turbofan, rated at 22,500lb (100kN) of dry thrust and 34,000lb in full afterburner "
Sorry but how do you know this because Snecma don't even have this information on the datasheet for M88 engines eco demonstrator a power of 20250 lb ?
According to the ADA, future missiles are part of AMCA project. Is there any project other than Astra that DRDO will start for AMCA ?
Who is gonna work on the fast processors and distributed systems which will be on AMCA ? Have started working on various new sensors that are planned in AMCA ?
Prasun,
ReplyDeleteWhy is it that the Dhruv has such a shoddy record in MHA service when the IA and IAF are flying the type with relatively few mishaps in much more trying circumstances and, I am sure, clocking more flight time ?
Is it that the civilian model they are using is less robust or is Pawan Hans screwing up ?
To Anon@1.17AM: Are Indian companies going to be part of the research and development for mid life upgrade program for Rafale on which French companies have recently start their work and which will include a lot of 5th gen technologies? YES.
ReplyDeleteAccording to AMCA program govt. initially handed ADA 200-300 cr. INR for feasibility report which was supposed to be handed over to MOD by 2011 and then the government would hand over the initial development cost which could be as much as 2 billion $ according to ADA head. Whats the progress here? EXCRUCIATINGLY SLOW.
What is the RCS of Tejas Mk1? NO ONE KNOWS AS YET. Is there any dedicated RCS measurement range in India for combat aircraft?
Does india have the capability to even make the air-frame like the ones of F22 and F35 ? Nobody is talking about it but thats a difficult and expensive job too as airframe should also be designed to have very less RCS. THE CAPABILITY EXISTS to make fully machined fuselage structures and wings out of composites and titanium-alloy.
ADA head has also asked private companies to start work on display computers and man-machine interface which ADA wants to put in AMCA. Any progress on this? How is it gonna work? I mean is government granting aid to private companies for doing research in these areas or these companies will gonna cover the cost of research by themselves hoping they will be reimbursed later when the AMCA flies? WHY FOR THE AMCA & not for the Tejas Mk2/3? The technologies are openly available nowadays. Private companies will only invest if there’s a firm commitment to procure a finite but confirmed number of AMCAs. If the AMCA will follow the path of the Tejas LCA (i.e. building technology demonstrators followed by prototype development without any firm orders being placed by the end-user from the outset), then one is in for a lot of wasted time & effort.
I recently read an article about AMCA and it appears ADA will be making the first prototype in a couple years. Is it true? Although the article might not be reliable. DEPENDS ON what’s ADA’s definition of “a couple of years”.
I heard SAAB has been roped in for consultancy in AMCA project. What areas SAAB is gonna help us exactly? Are bringing dassault also for this project ? French companies have already started the work on the next generation rafale techs are we gonna join them? NO CONSULTANTS have yet appointed by anyone for the AMCA project.
IAF chief PV NAIK said in 2009 aero show that IAF wants a full stealth aircraft like F22. Now ADA is talking about making a considerably less stealthy aircraft of the category of F35. Will ADA comply with IAF demands or they are gonna make whatever they feel they can? THE IAF’s ANSWER to the F/A-22 will be the FGFA. Only after ADA concludes its AMCA project definition report will one know what’s going to get built.
You said " Snecma Moteurs’ M88-2E4 turbofan, rated at 22,500lb (100kN) of dry thrust and 34,000lb in full afterburner " Sorry but how do you know this because Snecma don't even have this information on the datasheet for M88 engines eco demonstrator a power of 20250lb? IT APPEARS ON THE RAFALE Data-sheets I obtained from Dassault Aviation last June during the Paris Air Show at Le Bourget, & from the Dubai Air Show last November.
According to the ADA, future missiles are part of AMCA project. Is there any project other than Astra that DRDO will start for AMCA? NO, THERE’s NONE.
Who is gonna work on the fast processors and distributed systems which will be on AMCA ? Have started working on various new sensors that are planned in AMCA? PROBABLY the DRDO’s DARE.
To SBM: The answer is simple: sheer lack of in-house skilled human resources within the BSF, such as licenced aircraft engineers & technicians to handle the mandatory periodic inspections like the 50-hour, 100-hour, 250-hour and 500-hour inspections, all of which must be carried out by an OEM-certified MRO facility. And how many such facilities are presently there throughout India? Only one at the moment. More are reqd to cope with the increasing workload as the ALH fleet expands in future. Lastly, low-cost HUMS (like the one developed jointly by HAL & Merlin Hawk) needs to be installed on all ALHs as standard fit, so that ‘on-condition’ maintenance practices are adopted by all ALH operators. Right now this isn’t happening.
ReplyDeletePrasun da, please tell which missile among Meteor and ramjet PL-12 would have greater no escape envelop?
ReplyDeleteAlso, in which year ramjet PL-12 would become ready for production?
If a fighter jet is flying with droptanks for few hours and fuel of both aircraft and droptanks is utilised than can an ariel refuller refule both aircaft as well as droptanks? Or only aircraft will be refulled and not droptanks?
ReplyDeleteTo anon @ 11.11am,
ReplyDeleteYes, you can refuel drop tanks in flight provided the fuel plumbing system of the aircraft is configured for it. The role of the thumb is that the internal (main) tanks get filled first to maintain centre of gravity.
Here's how it works on the US F-15E
http://www.f-15e.info/technology/fuelsystem/air_refueling/air_refueling.htm
thanks a lot and some more prasunda, the way u explain is very comprehensible and lucid. :)
ReplyDeletewe are all eagerly waiting for your F-INSAS and updated RAFALE write-ups in here :)
however given the IA's new proactive war doctrine which envisages making shallow thrusts of maximum 30KMs inside enemy territory, what are the merits of having unwieldy and very large strike corps in such a context? after all we are no longer looking at cutting pakistan by half,a concept which gave rise to the notion of strike corps. would not having smaller sized elements like the division sized combined arms IBGs be much more effective to not only stage the break-in battles but also the break-out battles. while the strike corps can come under their usual commands, having division sized elements from the strike corps to achieve the above objectives,i believe would be much beneficial given how the advent of PGMs and guided artillery and stand-off weapons and sophisticated ISR and TA will make it increasingly difficult to hide such large forces and making them vulnerable to enemy attacks (as pointed out by a senior chinese military official in response to IA's plans to set up 4 new mountain divisions alongside the china border) besides reducing mobility and increasing the logistics chain.
kindly share your views
#### When are you posting that rafale article ? I thought you were going to post yesterday ?
ReplyDeleteCant say how much I appreciate your clarity and your logical thinking.
ReplyDeleteWaiting for your article on Rafale. On a related note Dassault has been as ubiquitous as the MIG in India.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dassault_Ouragan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dassault_Myst%C3%A8re_IV
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dassault_Mirage_2000
And indirectly through Breguet Aviation which became part of Dassault (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breguet_Aviation)
Sapscat
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breguet_Aliz%C3%A9
Cheers,
NR
Hi Prasun,
ReplyDeleteThanks for your reply.The reason for going in for Nirbhay even though we got Brahmos may be two fold
1. The range of Brahmos has limitations
2. The DRDO wants to completely indigenise the cruise missile propulsion system it acquired from Russia under Brahmos program.
It looks like DRDO wants to have a long range cruise missile with complete indigenous tech (as far as possible).
http://www.moneycontrol.com/news/wire-news/us-again-says-it-would-provide-f-35-data-to-india_660327.html
ReplyDeletePrasunda in here there are talks of 80 additional a/cs. could you tell us something about this
thanks :)
To Anon@9.44AM: Ramjet-powered BVRAAMs using terminal-stage active seekers will still be vulnerable to the targetted aircraft’s internal self-protection jammers like the SPECTRA or ELT-568. Having a no-escape engagement is possible only if the BVRAAM is equipped with dual-mode seekers, i.e. active X-band monopulse radar and an imaging infra-red seeker. And neither the Meteor nor the PL-21 will have them.
ReplyDeleteTo ABS: In future limited wars, strike corps-sized formations will be of no use. That’s why the Indian Army is now experimenting with various types of Division-sized integrated battle groups that would be supported by rocket artillery like the BrahMos and Prahaar NLOS-BSMs. Army Aviation Corps’ own attack helicopters would make a huge difference in terms of undertaking swift and decisive military campaigns with limited objectives. That bis the main reason why the Army HQ has been increasingly calling for attack helicopters to be transferred to the AAC, instead of being manned and operated by the IAF. Lastly, it is not about an additional 80 combat aircraft for the IAF, but about an additional 63 M-MRCAs which will be ordered in a follow-on tranche, as has been written down in the M-MRCA RFP. Therefore, it will be 126 + 63 Rafales M-MRCAs that will be ordered in a staggered manner.
To NR: VMT.
To Spanky’s Blog: Possessing long-range subsonic cruise missiles like the T-LAM or CJ-10 makes sense only if there are adequate shipborne or airborne launch platforms. In India’s case, neither of these is available nor is required. Therefore, cruise missiles like the 550km-range land-launched BrahMos-3 & 600km-range Nirbhay ALCM should more than suffice for the tactical battlefields of tomorrow, especially when waging limited wars.
hello sir,
ReplyDeleteby limited wars i guess it means, in India's case,not to venture too far into enemy territory but low intensity border conflict,no room for the use of any nuclear weapon but only as a deterrent(no usage but as a display that i have one so don't use yours)so what is the use of building and maintaining carriers....
India will not go to south china sea because that will no longer be a limited war scenario and Pakistan is not bound by any no first use policy that is, if they see they are losing ground and losing a war then they will strike with a nuclear weapon,in that case will it remain a limited border conflict........will china engage India directly or will it continue to use Pakistan and do our limited war doctrine takes in to account the enemy's doctrine cause if our opponent's doctrine is like all out war then will the limited war concept be of any use........
thanks....
Hi Prasun,
ReplyDeleteUr thoughts on India's chances in UNSC as a permenant menber?
India voted against Syria recently in the UNSC against its traditional anti-imperialist stand.What is India to gain from it?
Prasun,
ReplyDeleteWhen can we expect to see the Details article on IAF Rafale? Have been check the blog at least 3-4 times a day.
What are the chances of IAF cancelling the Mirage 2000 UPG program and getting a new Rafales, which makes more sense. That way it helps IAF to reduce headache to maintain another type in the inventory and also by paying some extra 2B we get brand new Rafales
Thanks
To Soumyadip: Make no mistake….limited wars are like the wars of mid-1999. They can be of a very high intensity. When one talks of limited wars, it means wars with limited objectives (such as OP Iraqi Freedom or OP Enduring Freedom). Total wars are like the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s. Under the limited war scheme of things, the Indian Navy can definitely be expected to venture out into the South China Sea. In my view, nuclear weapons in South Asia are strictly political weapons of deterrence, and will never be used by any sane individual. For even if one detonates nuclear weapons on one’s own soil, the geographic proximity of high populated civilian areas on both sides of the border will ensure that the aftereffects of such a nuclear holocaust will be felt throughout South Asia.
ReplyDeleteTo Anon@12.26AM: The Indian vote at the UNSC was in line with the stand taken by the Arab League (the majority of whom are Shias). The bulk of the Islamic ummah is therefore pitted against the ruling Shias of both Iran & Syria. In any case, according to the Israelis, who are closest to Syria and are in the know of things, there is likely to be an exodus of Syrian Shias from the Allawite sect and Israel has started bracing up for this exodus.
To Anon@2.35AM: The article will not just deal with the Rafale, but it will be more of an analysis of the future challenges for the IAF’s HQ Training Command over the next 10 years in terms of inducting into service combat aircraft with far more operational capabilities (which will also be highlighted), such as the MiG-29UPG, Mirage 2000UPG, Super Su-30MKI, Rafale, Jaguar UPG, and the FGFA. It will also deal with future planned upgrades for the Rafale, and delve into the critical linkages between the IACCCS and the Army’s ASTROIDS system, and how will the AirLand battlespace be networked in order to drastically lessen the sensor-to-shooter loop. Therefore, as you could well appreciate, it will be a comprehensive analysis and will therefore be likely completed for uploading before dawn this coming Thursday.
BAE considering Typhoon price cut?
ReplyDeletehttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/industry/defence/9065493/BAE-may-cut-Typhoon-price-to-win-India-order.html
Prasun-did you see this-do you think this has any impact on the MMRCA-I'd assume it opens a new can of worms?
Hello Prasun!
ReplyDeleteGreat articles and analyses, as usual! Thank you for writing..
I have a couple of questions for you:
1) You said that the "firewalls" from the French OEMs will prevent the PAF from getting to know the Rafales well, in case the UAE selects it.
What about the PAF pilots embedded with the UAE AF? Wont they manage to get a close-up look or even fly or sit in for tactics/ training? Like the ones who got to fly against the EF-Typhoon in TUrkey..
2) You said that the Brahmos is something so good (not a quote :) )that other Asian powers dont have...
Do you mean that even the PRC does not have something comparable or better? How so?
Many thanks in advance..
@prasunda
ReplyDeleteokay.
1)so if im getting you right,then in the future limited war environments, division sized elements from the strike corps (in addition to the 8-10 IBGs now for the break in battle) would be used to achieve the limited objectives after the present IBGs have broken in, for the break out battle??? thats great news, this question had bugged me a lot.
just for affirming it from you, heres what will happen. the present 8-10 IBGs located near the border will within a span of 3 days launch the break in battle after which the 'division sized IBGs' FROM the integral part of the STRIKE CORPS, located in the interiors of the country, will launch within a span of 7 days from the launch pads created after the break in battle was staged by the other IBGs???
2) IF what i said above is what you meant, then when can we expect the operationalisation of this new concept of war??? for one it will require a lot of air lift assets from the air force for speedy mobilisation of troops and armaments.
3) the present doctrine is heavily based on INDIA going on the offensive. however what would INDIA's riposte be if pakistan goes into an offensive (though pakistan i believe has seized to be a conventional threat to INDIA,and is a sub-conventional threat in being,but even then we should be ready for any eventuality) given their doctrine of offensive defence??? would INDIA be just defending or would it take a far more proactive stance by launching pre-emptive strikes and then taking the battle into the enemy territory???
4)prasunda can you tell us as to why there are so many hyped exercises of the IA/IAF/IN simulating the war environment in our western border while there is hardly any such exercise happening to cater to future wars in the eastern part of the border???
5)will the pro-active military strategy be only limited to the western border or will it also be applied to the eastern theatre in the future(by which im meaning 'taking the battle to the enemy territory')?? without a credible offensive stance INDIA can not hope to have any sort of a deterrent against the chinese.
6)prasunda despite your assertions i believe, INDIA should go ahead and procure strategic bombers and long ranged cruise missiles. this will give the us the capability to strike deep inside the han heartland (serving as a potent deterrent, just like the PLA which is not averse to the usage of long range LACMs/ALCMs and BSMs to strike deep inside our territory) and will give us the wherewithal to strike at PLA and PLAAF bases located inside mainland china beyond the TAR from where the troops and a/cs will be put in action and the CJ-10 and BSMs launched,in case of a war with INDIA. so its very important to possess such pre-emptive strike capability. with the high altitude bases of the PLAAF,due to their heights not being able to pack sizeable offensive into their a/cs, the PLAAF would always use the mainland bases located in lanzhou and chengdu MRs to launch an offensive against INDIA, besides using refuellers to great use.
7) i do hope in a future limited war scenario in the eastern front INDIA would be using division sized IBGs rather than having large formations cuz the chinese possess ample PGMs and LACMs/ASCMs/BSMs to pulverize such large formations (as was clearly spelt out by a chinese military official).???
prasunda i hope to get answers to all of my above queries. thanks :)
Hey Prasun,
ReplyDeleteAjai wants India to by f -16:
http://idrw.org/?p=8213
He is trying hardest to sell it to India, more then his lords.
To Anon@9.06AM: It is too little & too late. The only way prices can be reduced is by shelving the EF-2000’s final assembly lines in Germany, Spain and Italy, and having only one final assembly line in the UK (since the RAF will be the EF-2000’s largest operator). And we all know that this won’t ever happen. Therefore, logic demands that the Eurofighter GmbH consortium gracefully accepts the Indian decision and begins courting the various Arab countries and exploring ways of convincing the sovereign wealth fund managers of these Arab countries to invest in the EF-2000 programme. After all, this is exactly how the Airbus consortium had resorted to fort financing the A380 & A400M prgrammes (by convincing the Kuwait Finance House to buy 35% of the shares of the Airbus consortium).
ReplyDeleteHeberian: VMT. The PAF pilots on deputation to the UAE Air Force are non-combatant flight instructors, and are not permitted to engage in any kind of operational flying. This also means that the PAF pilots are not given any access to the software-driven areas of UAE-operated combat aircraft, such as the radars, EW suite and its threat library, etc. As for the PRC’s missile arsenals, it’s true it does not have anything to match the BrahMos. The nearest anything China-made comes to the BrahMos are the C-101 and C-301 supersonic ground-launched anti-ship missiles of 1980s vintage for coastal defence.
Prasun @ 6.17,
ReplyDeleteWhat I would like to know is would the EADS offer (if they indeed cut prices) affect the MMRCA negotiations? I mean in a political sense, though the GOI has its own compulsions to play it safe. All in all, as you say, BAE has cast itself in a poor light. Pity since concepts like the Typhoon-2020 variant would have been neat, if it got the support.
Hey Parasun,
ReplyDeleteIn regards to the MMRCA can you comment on how much infrastructure work will go into the programme as you have reported multi-multi-multi- million dollar jets left out and exposed to harmful rays and nature so will the MMRCA have provisions from day 1 to stop this and this have more foresight? I mean from the day the deal is signed (March or whenever) the IAF/Dassualt have ample time to set up facilities in India to look after the Rafale.
Also when will we know the final configuration of the Rafele IAF will get? As I assume IAF will be going for some "MKIastion" of the Rafale in terms of some avionics and IFFs , what about engine? M88-2/3? And what about HMDS? Also what datalink will be onboard? As I believe the standard currently is the NATO Link-16 but will this be compatible with IAF? And are MKIs' datalinks compatible with the rest of the IAF's fleet as both UPG M2K and Rafale (maybe Mig-29UPG AFAIK) will have the same datalink will all IAF fleet be integrated?
Thanks a bunch pal.
Will the IAF pilots who fly the Rafales be fresh out of flying school or be experienced fighters from other platforms like M2k and MKI? As we saw when MKI entered IAF service many of the pilots were ex-Bison pilots who first flew them. You'd expect a mix I suppose, eventually all pilots would be fresh down the line.
ReplyDeletePrasun,
ReplyDeleteNow that the Rafael seems to be in the lead:
1) Will the RBE2 AESA reach Indian production Rafaels ?
2) Will the Meteor be procured ?
On a wholly unrelated issue:
What role will the Brahmos play - and is it currently playing - in land-based coastal defence ?
Thanks
Prasun,
ReplyDeleteMBDA's offer of Taurus KEPD 350 is for IAF's MMRCA(Rafale). Not for Mirage-2000UPG or Super Su-30MKI. Right? But given that its range will be limited to <300km I wonder why MBDA offered KEPD in first place instead of SCALP.
Specially now when Rafale has emerger as the L1 bidder(although offer was made before L1 announcement), what will happen? Are they gonna test & qualify the missile on Rafale? Or they will withdraw the offer in favor of SCALP?
To ABS: Here are the clarifications:
ReplyDelete1) The eight-off IBGs being explored will be Divisional-sized formations, and not Brigade-sized. This is because the Indian Army’s Aviation Corps is being denied the quantum of attack helicopters that it requires for multiple coordinated offensive thrusts. The greater the availability of integral & high-mobility firepower (delivered by attack helicopters/light observation helicopters, or self-propelled tube/rocket artillery, along with an integral mobile air defence umbrella), the lesser the size of the required warfighting formation, simply because the warfighting efficiency and operational tempo of such fast-moving formations is much greater than a Division-sized formation relying solely on a scarce pool of IAF attack helicopters and fixed-wing combat aircraft required for battlefield air interdiction. And that is precisely why the Army’s AAC has been incessantly making demands over the past six months for being allowed to have its own integrated fleet of attack helicopters like the LAH variant of the LCH. That the AAC urgently requires this capability has been proven repeatedly in the 10 major exercises held since OP Parakram in 2002, and this point was highlighted by the Army’s COAS himself during his Army Day press conference last month.
2) To enable swift mobilisation of the Division-sixed IBGs within 72 hours, the first and foremost requirement is to have these formations permanently home-based close to the international border, for which at least eight new cantonments will have to be built. This has not yet happened, and is unlikely to be completed before 2020. IT must be noted here that while the Indian Army is talking about rapidly mobilizing only eight IBGs within a 72-hour period, what it will be confronting will be the entire Pakistan Army, which can be mobilized and forward-deployed within a 96-hour period, thanks to Pakistan’s elongated geography.
3) Against a nuclear backdrop, the Indian Army needs to develop asymmetric responses to sub-conventional threats. And here again, for delivering swift and surgical responses as in a limited war, assets like attack helicopters and air-assault formations like combat aviation brigades will come in very handy. However, the IAF remains opposed to this line of thinking, while the MoD remains comatose on this issue, instead of adjudicating.
4) Of course there are two exercises held every year by the Army’s HQ Eastern Command & the IAF’s eastern Air Command. It is the ‘desi’ media agencies, mostly Delhi-based, that don’t bother to report about such exercises. And that is exactly the reason why till this day most Indian citizens aren’t even aware of OP Falcon & OP Trident (related to the Sumdurong Chu crisis in 1986-87), while most of them have heard of EX Brass Tacks.
5) The Indian Army’s pro-active strategy was vividly demonstrated back in 1986-87 throughout Arunachal Pradesh and Sikkim during OP TRIDENT during the Sumdurong Chu crisis. The very first Bofors FH-77Bs that arrived in Mumbai by ship from Sweden in 1986 were straightaway ferried to Tawang in their first-ever operational deployment in India.
6) Why should India contemplate deep strikes within China’s hinterland when the Chinese themselves are not contemplating any such thing? The PLA is only constantly fine-tuning its warfighting tactics within a ‘limited border war’ template by using forward-deployed rocket/tube artillery and NLOS-BSM assets. You can read all about it the February 2012 issue of FORCE magazine, where I’ve explained all this with several illustrations of last year’s and early this year’s PLA Army & PLAAF exercises.
To YAWN: There’s no way Eurofighter GmbH can now ‘subvert’ the Rafale’s contractual negotiations process. The fault does not lie with BAE Systems, but with Germany-based Eurofighter GmbH. It was always the Germans that sabotaged the EF-2000 programme since the early 1990s. And it is they who have still not yet decided whether or not to procure EF-2000s equipped with Captor-E AESA-MMRs. Therefore, as of this day, there’s no firm order for any such radars.
ReplyDeleteTo Unknown: All infrastructure-related reqmts were already highlighted in the previous thread. Same goes for the Rafale’s final configuration. IFF Mk12 will come from HAL. Software-defined Comms units and their encryption systems too will come from HAL. HMDS will be the TopOwl-F. Data-link hardware will come from THALES (and will also be on the Mirage 2000UPGs) but since it is software-defined, it will be easily adaptable to the Israel-origin data-links present on the A-50I PHALCON, EMB-145 AEW & CS, MiG-29UPG & Su-30MKIs. Link-16 defines the encryption, transmission rate and bandwith standards followed by NATO, and is not hardware-defined. And as I stated above yesterday, these data-links will have to be integrated with the Army’s ASTROIDS network for drastically reducing the sensor-to-shooter gap.
To SBM: Starting from the first IAF-operated Rafale to the last one, ALL will have THALES-built RBE-2 AESA-based MMRs. Meteor will be available only after 2016 and therefore its supplemental procurement contract will likely be inked later. Right now it’s just the MICA family of BVRAAMs that’s being procured for Rafales & Mirage 2000UPGs. As for BrahMos for land-based coastal defence, neither the Army nor the Navy have procured anything for meeting this reqmt. The Navy’s BrahMos Block-1s are all for shipborne applications, while the Army’s BrahMos Blocks 2/3s are for land-attack.
To Shaurya: KEPD-350 will be for the Mirage 2000UPG, to-be-upgraded Jaguar IS, and the Rafale. Right now, no one is confirming whether or not this PGM’s range will be capped at 300km, meaning that this turbofan-powered PGM could well be offered with a 600km-range envelope. Flight qualification of the Taurus KEPD-350 on the Rafale will involve only three test-firings, and will not be a complicated affair. It could even be done in India itself, with the A-50I PHALCON being used for real-time trajectory tracking of this PGM after its launch.
sir one humble question
ReplyDeletehow many MIG29K ARE PLANNED TO BE INDUCTED in Indian Navy Air wing
Dear Sir
ReplyDeleteCan we some MORE French stuff
going into LCA MK 2 NOW that we
are BEST Buddies
Can RBE 2 AESA or RDY 3
be fitted in LCA mk 2
Dear Sir
ReplyDeleteAs per your Article in Force Magzine
the next India China Land war will be nothing but
MASSIVE ARTILERRY DUELS
So till Prahar comes along why cant we get more SMERCH
Secondly is it POSSIBLE to USE
PRITHVI Missiles in the India China TERRAIN
I am asking this BECAUSE BRAHMOS
is EXPENSIVE AND in LIMITED NUMBERS
@prasunda
ReplyDeletekhub sundor kore bujhiyecho, tomar moto eto sundor kore keu bojhabe na, but then i hope you dont mind answering :)
related to your reply, i would like to ask you two more things which you did not cover. in the response before the last one you had mentioned the following
quote >>In future limited wars, strike corps-sized formations will be of no use. That’s why the Indian Army is now experimenting with various types of Division-sized integrated battle groups that would be supported by rocket artillery like the BrahMos and Prahaar NLOS-BSMs.<< unquote
1)while it is widely known that division sized IBGs would be used. what i was talking about is if the strike corps would be divided into several division sized IBG like formations to stage the break out battle??? or if it will be as large and unwieldy and cumbersome like the present?? as you had mentioned such large strike corps would be of no use given the advent of PGMs.
2) prasunda you forgot to tell about my question as to what would happen if Pakistan initiates an offensive against INDIA would we just defend or we will launch an offensive and take the battle into enemy territory??
prasunda
ReplyDeleteone more doubt that rises in my head would be if the IA had all along maintained a pro-active war strategy since 1986-87 and given the IAF's significant advantage over the PLAAF, why do we still dont have a credible deterrent against the chinese(which will only come with a potent offensive capability) and why is it that at best we have a very defensive deterrent of strategic defence without any offensive attached to it??? in the future war scenario are we to take the battle into enemy territory against the chinese???
Hi PRASUN, u said the radar aperture area of both the Captor AESA and the RBE 2 is the same. Then how come the Rafale has a small nose whereas the radome of Eurofighter Typhoon is so large. Pls clarify. Also can post the pics of the radar aperture areas of them. Among the Spectra and DASS which is more advanced. Can the Rafale takeoff with it's full payload of 9.5 t from a Rajasthan airbase in the intense summer heat. Will the very first ac of the IAF be equipped with the 34000 wet thrust variant of M88? Will any thrust hectoring and super cruise capable variant of m88 be developed like that of EF2000? Has the Brahmos block 3 having 550 km range entered operational service?
ReplyDeleteHello Prasun!
ReplyDeleteThank you for the clarifications. Appreciate you replying, as always!!
I must admit that I am still wary about the chances of the PAF getting a close look at any a/c with most Gulf states.. or the MKM with Malaysia..
@Prasun the british[after the EFT shock] have said their aid to India will go to the three poorest states. Some states may now feel there is an advantage in staying backward.
ReplyDeleteSuch aid has never ever brought people out of their misery because there is a system that feeds off it and will not allow things to change.
Is such aid foolproof in that at least 90% reaches the common man or is it just a backdoor way of gaining influence[maybe with deals like the MMRCA]?.
@prasunda
ReplyDeleteregarding my contention that the IAF should procure deep strike capabilities viz long range bombers like PAK-DA and long range cruise missiles of 1500-2000 km range; its mainly because the PLA would resort to such strikes from its chengdu and lanzhou MRs using CJ-10/CJ-20 and JH-7A bombers and other a/cs against INDIA. most of the chinese TBM and cruise missile launch sites are located in these MRs beyond the TAR and the usage of these airforce bases would be done to cater for the PLAAFs inability to pack sizeable offensive power in their a/cs with bases in TAR due to their high altitude. hence its about rendering such assets useless by usage of such cruise missiles and TBMs(a greater ranged shaurya) to render the usage of such missiles to nil and thereby establishing a potent deterrent.
Hey Parasun,
ReplyDeleteDo you know if any work is being done to improve the infrastructure for IAF MKIs on the ground in terms of shelters? I was just looking at Bareilly AFS on google maps and saw AN ENTIRE SQD of MKIs out in the open air, this is not ideal for obvious reasons. So is anything being done?
Hey Parasun,
ReplyDeleteDo you know if any work is being done to improve the infrastructure for IAF MKIs on the ground in terms of shelters? I was just looking at Bareilly AFS on google maps and saw AN ENTIRE SQD of MKIs out in the open air, this is not ideal for obvious reasons. So is anything being done?
@anon 1.05 pm: thrust vectoring on Typhoon ? Once again the magic of MS Powerpoint ! They developed a very basic prototype, not more, not less. Nothing close to an operational system, none of the 4 EF nations has the slightest interest for that (nor the money to finish the development).
ReplyDeleteTo Buddha: 45 MiG-29K/UBK in all.
ReplyDeleteTo Anon@11.24AM: There’s already quite a lot not just on the LCA, but also on the ALH & LCH.
To Anon@11.28AM: Two more Smerch-M Regiments will be raised in addition to the two already existing.
To ABS: What the Indian Army has been experimenting with are various concepts aimed at enhancing the offensive firepower of its existing Corps-sized ‘Pivot’ formations that are already deployed close to the border during peacetime. The objective is to extract the eight Divisional IBGs from these ‘Pivot’ formations within a 72-hour period. As for the three existing Strike Corps there are two options being explored: do away with them completely and instead distribute their armoured assets among the eight Divisional IBGs; or create a Strategic Command within the Army for command-and-control of these Strike Corps. Between the two, the first option is likely to prevail.
As for Pakistan staging a pre-emptive military offensive against India, such an option has been totally ruled out by both India and Pakistan since the early 1990s. Nor is this likely to happen even over the next five years, given the fact that Pakistan’s economy has reached breaking point, and the country’s national railway network is unlikely to stage a recovery over the next four years. That’s why pakistan’s PM two days ago stated that Pakistan cannot afford to go for full-scale war with anyone in the 21st century. Militarily, India’s armed forces have always had conventional deterrence capabilities since the early 1980s, and still do. Likewise, offensive postures have been wargamed. That’s not the problem. The problem is with the defensive mindset of the country’s civilian decision-makers.
Regarding IAF’s deep-strike capabilities, the Su-30MKIs supported by aerial refueling already have a long reach. Cruise missiles & TBMs are employed against large fixed-base targets that can easily be defended by a SAM-based layered air-defence network. It is virtually impossible to target Chinese cruise missile/NLOS-BSM launch sites with either Shaurya-type missiles or air-launched cruise missiles since the Chinese missile storage/launch areas are located deep within mountain ranges in Sichuan, Xinjiang and Aksai Chin.
To Anon@1.05PM: Then how come the Rafale has a small nose whereas the radome of Eurofighter Typhoon is so large? Because the Rafale from its inception has had the RBE PESA radar, whereas the EF-2000 has had the ECR-90 with a slotted-array mechanically scanning antenna. Photos of the Captor-E antenna installed on the EF-2000 clearly show the much-reduced antenna aperture. Just because an aircraft features a bigger & wider nose-section doesn’t mean the AESA-MMR’s antenna should be equally bigger & wider. Even the Super Su-30MKI’s huge nose-section will house the same MIRES AESA-MMR that will also go on board the much smaller nose-section of the FGFA. Therefore, for those who claim that the Rafale “has a very small sized nose that severely limits the radar aperture, giving lower performance than a corresponding larger sized radar,” these are merely ill-informed and mischievous remarks made by those who can’t figure out the distributed nature of airspace surveillance and airborne battle management operations in an era of AESA-based radars for AEW & C and AESA-MMRs on board combat aircraft. Both the SPECTRA & DASS are equally advanced. And yes, the Rafale can take off with its full payload of 9.5 tonnes from a Rajasthan air base in the intense summer heat. The M88 dedrivative to be available by 2020 will have supercruise capability. Thrust-vectoring is not a critical reqmt in an era of highly manoeuvrable within-visual-range AAMs, IRST sensors & HMDS.
ReplyDeleteTo Heberian: VMT.
To Unknown: Yes, all this is being done, but at a snail’s pace. Things need to be fast-tracked, especially the construction of underground air-conditioned maintenance and storage facilities.
Prasun,
ReplyDeleteI haven’t seen any (news of) PRC assertiveness at the LAC in the recent past compared to two years back. Is it true or it is just that it is not being highlighted by the GOI.
When it comes to PRC why is it that GOI goes an extra step to say again and again that TAR is part of china ( today’s statement by the external minister), when PRC is making every effort to say that Kashmir is a disputed area. More over PM assures the nation that PRC has no intention to attach India, as if it is (PRC) in his domain. Can we call this height of insanity by not learning from the history? We had a similar assurance by one of the previous PMs decades back and we got wacked. As a common man, is it some thing that I am not understanding here…..please help me to understand.
Thanks.
As far as any information available on the web, HAL is busy producing 166 Dhruvs for which IA placed orders 4 years back. But HAL recently handed over few Dhruv mk3 to IAF. So i want to know how many Dhruvs order has been placed by IAF, IN and BSF and how many still needed to be produced ?
ReplyDelete@prasunda
ReplyDeletewow thanks for the insights :)
its very re-assuring to hear about the likely plans of doing away with the strike corps and transferring their armoured and offensive assets to the 8 IBGs(which are totally pakistan centric).In the future when catering for 2 fronts i do believe such IBGs should be increased in numbers with a substantial number of them suited to carry out such offensives in mountainous terrain.The IA hence should do the same along our eastern border with china, to take the battle into enemy territory and be capable of capturing shallow territories inside tibet just like with pakistan.
having said the above prasunda, we, in particular, donot know much about how the IA will look to launch an offensive (if at all) in the eastern theatre on the outset of hostitilities and what would be their plans and objectives and what is this 'pro-active strategy' you talked about earlier vis-a-vis china??? if we had had a pro-active strategy dont you think we would have had enough offensive firepower to have had a credible deterrent against the chinese??
if you could throw some light on these. thanks :)
^^ also what would be INDIA's response to Chinese plans of using cruise missiles and NLOS-BSMs against large concentration of INDIAN forces?? would we be operating in such huge concentrations or would wee be looking to operate in smaller numbers so as to make it more difficult for the chinese TBMs and LACM/ALCMs???
ReplyDeletea few more questions that arise in my mind are 1)
ReplyDeletewhat would be the role of the pivot corps now?? would it just be to create the launchpads required by the IBGs??
2) and once the strike corps are done away with what would happen to the soldiers and their respective offensive and defensive assets???
PrasunDa, Like R-27 and R-77 does SD-10 also comes with IR seekers or is it an active radar guided missile only?
ReplyDeletePrasun you have mentioned that the Brahmos 3 will have a range of 550 KM and possibly the Tarus could be offered with 650 KM range. Won't this be a MTCR violation ? Ofcourse China has violated it many times but I didn't expect Russia or France will do it.
ReplyDeletePrasun, How heavy is the new MIRES AESA for the Super 30s ? Also is there any plan to reduce the weight of the Su-30s by introducing more composite and decreasing the radar weight ?
ReplyDeleteAgain, will HAL manufacture the new 157Kn engine and if yes then from when ?
Is the 44Kn engine enough for Jaguar ?
Waiting for your response. TIA.
Hey Prasun, it is being said by a politician and a major gen. that the Rafale was rigged to win the MMRCA competition. Is it true? And also till the very last wasnt the Typhoon leading the Rafale by many points. The Typhoon scored about 643 pts. Also the EADS has been agreeing to reduce the price of Typhoon. Dies the Rafale lag in any way behind the Typhoon?
ReplyDeleteHi Prasun,
ReplyDeleteAbt Kooodankulam Nuuke site,
There have been allegations that some western powers are behind the anti-KKNPP campaign, through the local churches, to block the Russians from capturing the massive nuke power market in India. in nov 2011
wat do u think of it? Is Koodklm a civilian version of strategic cooperation of type in Nuke sub by Russians?(although considered commercial by news grps).MMS govt is also unusually supportive of this proj and Russians unlike in Jaitapur (no media coverge to this extent and conspiracy theories)
This blog suggests these two projects one subsonic and other supersonic ramjet missile are named under single name 'Nirbhay' on simple reason that it is mentioned that Nirbhay is strategic.
ReplyDeleteIt should be reminded to this blog that Tomahawk, a subsonic cruise missile was also configured as a strategic weapon.
This blog raises suspicion whether this Nirbhay subsonic cruise missile will be of the spec similar to KEPD-350 or Storm Shadow to .
The spec of Nirbhay says it is a ~1000 kg missile with a range of ~1000 km very much similar to KEPD-350/Storm shadow.
This rests the speculation.
To Anon@^^^: It does seem that you're wrong on several counts, especially after one reads this: http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/article2968219.ece
ReplyDelete