The above two illustrations show the Raytheon-built gunner’s sight being proposed by Larsen & Toubro for the T-72M1 MBT upgrade. This same sight is also on offer by L & T as a panoramic target acquisition system for the NAMICA troop commander’s vehicle. This sight will be mounted on a hydraulic mast on the NAMICA.
The above two photos show the Prahaar NLOS-BSM mounted on a TATRA vehicle. This poster was on display only on March 29, 2012 and was removed the very same day and was replaced by the poster (shown below), although the full-scale model of the Prahaar was shown mounted atop a TATA-built TEL. Sure beats me why someone would pull off such a caper.
Shown below is the DRDO developed and BEL-built VARUNA shipborne passive surveillance system.
Below is a scale-model of the BEL-upgraded ZSU-23-4 Schilka, seen carrying two Python-5 VSHORADS missiles.
The eight-metre long L-STAR S-band active phased-array radar shown below (whose 6-metre long derivative will go on board the EMB-145 AEW & CS) is presently being used for developing new algorithms that will enable this type of radar to undertake interleaved airspace surveillance and maritime surveillance tasks. At the same time, this radar has already demonstrated its ability to operate in a dedicated ground moving target designation mode. According to the CABS officials who briefed me about the L-STAR’s future growth plans, future projections call for a wide-bodied aircraft like the B.737NG or A320 to be equipped with, on one hand a fuselage-mounted AESA antenna capable of interleaved airspace surveillance and maritime surveillance; and a belly-mounted AESA antenna for air-to-ground battlespace surveillance inclusive of real-time ground moving target designation. Additionally, by using SATCOM-based data-links, such platforms will also be able to act as airborne control stations for MALE-UAVs, thereby doing away with the need for two-way ground-based line-of-sight ground control stations for such MALE-UAVs.
The poster below shows the terminal radar sensor for the supersonic ALCM/ASCM (Nirbhay?) being developed by the DRDO’s ASL. Needless to say, this very sensor is also very likely to be on board the Prahaar NLOS-BSM.
The illustration below clearly demonstrates how legacy communications systems like AREN compare with the new-generation software-driven TCS that the Indian Army is in need of.
CASSIDIAN teamed up with ALPHA Technologies Pvt Ltd (which likes to describe itself as a BEL but in the private-sector, and has gainfully employed all the experienced scientists and engineers from BEL who have reached mandatory retirement age) is offering the MAWS and Ariel active towed-decoy for the Super Su-30MKI.
Below is a neat piece of kit from IAI for special operations forces and paratroopers.
RAFAEL’s booth displayed (below) the Derby and Python-5 missiles that make up the SpyDer-SR SHORADS, and the 10km-range Tamir missiles used by the Iron Dome air-defence system.
Below is Mahindra Defence’s sole exhibit showing its involvement with the FICV project. Rather disappointing when compared with what TATA had showcased.
Finally, for all those interested in EW and ELINT/SIGINT, the illustrations below will come in handy.
Never a dull moment during DEFEXPO 2012, wouldn't you all agree?
But why does the BSF require artillery? You mean to tell me that during cross border firing incidents with Bangladesh and pak,BSF have the option to retaliate using 105mm arty.
ReplyDeleteregarding the BEL-upgraded ZSU-23-4 Schilka,is this being proposed only or has it been implemented already.
about the MAWS being offered for su-30MKI.is this an upgraded version
or does su-30mki lack a Missile Approach Warning system altogether right now?
To Hoods: Why not? Border clashes and unprovoked firing incidents are always resorted to by the Pakistan Rangers, for instance, and not by the Pakistan Army. The same goes for the India-Bangladesh border. Only up north are the ITBP, SSB and Assam Rifles face-to-face with the PLA. The BSF not only has 105mm howitzers, but also 81mm mortars. The 48 upgraded ZSU-23-4s are already in delivery. The Su-30MKI never had MAWS, only RWRs. Only the Su-30MKMs have MAWS. The Super Su-30MKIs will be the first ones to have MAWS.
ReplyDeletehttp://bacajela.blogspot.com/2012/04/israels-rocket-hunting-ace-got-his.html
ReplyDeletePrasun Da, has the BEL-upgraded ZSU-23-4 Schilka(with two Python-5 missiles) already operational in the Indian Army? If yes then in what numbers?
ReplyDeleteThank you for your response.Being a army brat,even I was not aware that a paramilitary force like BSF has arty in its possession. Got something new to learn today thanks to you.
ReplyDeleteDoes Assam rifles being fashioned like the Army also posses this capability?
Prasun with reference to your previous answer. What technological advancements does the XM1203 NLOS offer over the current systems. For a tracked gun if given a choice between the the DONAR and XM-1203 NLOS mounted on a T-72 Chassis which one would you pick. I believe both of them wold be in the same weight category more or less.
ReplyDeleteSo Prahaar NLOS-BSM TEL will also be used in AAD ?
ReplyDeleteHow many NAMICA are on order and how much is IA's requirement ? Also when the hell is this T72M1 upgrade deal going to be signed and how many MBTs will be upgraded under this ? Also is the Raytheon-LnT upgrade offer favorite for this program ?
Also i heard once that after these 3-4 EMB-145 based AWACS, DRDO is gonna chose some bigger platform. So is DRDO thinking of making Phalcon category heavier AWACS after these medium category AWACS ? Also the things you mentioned like fuselage-mounted AESA antenna capable of interleaved airspace surveillance and maritime surveillance; and a belly-mounted AESA antenna for air-to-ground battlespace surveillance inclusive of real-time ground moving target designation and the SATCOM for MALE UAVs, are these also present in Phalcon or DRDO is planning this multi-purpose AWACS ?
Does this Mahindra design looks like BAE SEP ?
Is there any more Quasi ballistic missile planned in the future like may be Shaurya 2 or something ?
Did you heard about the anti-Aircraft Carrier version of Brahmos (its basically block 3) ? I wanted to know whether its true or not because both speed and explosive in Brahmos doesn't really look enough to effect an AC ?
Hi, when will the Sukhoi-30 Super upgrade programme take off? Will the upgraded Sukhoi feature a laser emission Warner , an IR jammer and the Virgilus AESA jammer? Will the MiG-29 UPG have the Cassidian MAWS that will go abroad Super Su and a laser emission warner? The poster of the Cassidian MAWS shows six maw systems. Does this mean that 6 MAWS will be fitted to the Sukhoi to provide all angle coverage ? Also is the Ariel TRD is reusable or a single use radar decoy . Will it be carried on one of the hardpoints or be integrated into the airframe? Pls reply.
ReplyDeleteHi, What standoff weapons and tactical air- surface ground weapons are the IAF purchasing for increasing it's offensive capabilities ? What is the present no of Kh-59 and IAI AGM-142 in the IAF inventory? I think the no is not more than 100 each. We are already lagging behind the PAF. They have the H-2/ H-4 glide bombs which enable their jets to attack targets outside the range if our existing MR and QRSAM such as Spyder SR , Akash mk1 and mk2. The IAF on the other hand has no such standoff weapons. Instead it is still relying on LGBs . Also no efforts are being made to develope standoff weapons or purchase them offshelf. Then how re IAF jets going to engage static and moving targets in deep battle. Also we donot possess subsonic terrain hugging cruise missiles like the Babar and Raad to strike enemy airbases , supply depots. So it's left to the IAF . Is the IAF purchasing any standoff weapons such as glide bombs, tactical missiles? Will the IAF order the AASM in bulk ( in thousands ) and use them on the Sukhoi-30, MiG-29, Jaguar and MiG-27 other than Rafale and Mirage 2000? Also are we purchasing the Taurus KEPD 350, Storm shadow ALCM in bulk to increase and enhance our offensive capabilities ? Any news if purchasing MBDA Brimstone? Also can the Kh-31 be used for attacking high value land targets in high clutter environment . Pls reply and pls tell about IAF's standoff ground munitions aquisition program . Pls reply pls reply Prasun.
ReplyDeletePrasun,
ReplyDeleteLooks like lch td-2 got some design changes, take a look
http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/694/lchpreflight2.jpg/
http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/13/lchpreflight.jpg/
Regarding the changes in design of the wings(and probably the landing gear too), is it for increasing weapon load or just to loose some weight? also what is that "yellow thing" added both side under the canopy? Eagerly waiting for your opinion.
Thanks
To Shaurya: The stub-wings don't seem to be strengthened. The pylons for the 2.75-inch rocket pods have been redesigned, but the landing gear design stays the same. The twin protrusions below the cockpit bay are fitted with pitot tubes, presumably for the flight-test phase. The fitments for laser warning receiver & MAWS (same as those on the Dhruv Mk4/Rudra) are still missing. The LCH's designers would be well-advised to remove the nose-mounted COMPASS FLIR turret (from ELBIT Systems) and in its place house a millimetre-wave radar and just in front of the front cockpit install the Selex Halileo-built miniaturised Skyward IRST sensor.
ReplyDeleteTo Hoods: Assam Rifles, unlike the BSF, is not a border protection force, but a counter-insurgency force and therefore comes equipped with only small arms (including hand-held 40mm AGLs), Carl Gustavs & bunker-bursting LAWs.
ReplyDeleteTo Anon@8.29AM: Read my reply @3.16AM to Hoods.
ReplyDeleteTo Anon@10.24AM: Left to me, I would forego the tracked option altogether & instead get the Donar's turret installed on a truck, as KMW of Germany has done. Between a 39-cal howitzer & a 52-cal system, the latter will definitely come out tops.
ReplyDeletePrasun, can you shed some light on the current tenders for helos of the IN. How many separate tenders are out? Will the ASW/SOAR/Utilty MRHs be different platforms or a common helo say the S-70B? Also how many helos in total is the IN looking to induct?
ReplyDeleteYou mentioned previously that the P-15's induction is being delayed because of a lack of trained personal are speedy measures being taken to correct this as this situation where the finance and even the SHIP are ready but the crew are not is just UNBELIEVABLE and inexcusable and will similar delays be inflicted on future IN projects because of the same idiotic reason?
Do you see a Indian version of JSOC coming up anytime soon? Or atleast a proper separation of PARA SF and regular PARAs. And either way is their a plan to increase the number of regular PARA battalions as AFAIK right now there are MORE PARA SF btns than non-SF btns which is crazy and means that in war SFs could end up doing jobs regular PARA could do for if not for want of manpower. And IMO there is not enough distinction/awareness of the difference between regular PARA and PARA SF the two have very different mission profiles (with some overlap naturally) but are generally (especially by the media) grouped together.
And how would you rate Indian SOFs (PARA SF/MARCOs/Garuds) against foreign SOFs (especially Western) in terms of training and equipment?
Also do you see any military market for the V-22 in India at all be it IAF/IN in the future?
And recent reports have said certain MPs have raised issue with the selection of the Rafale and EADs is constantly stating they are ready to step in, do you see the IAF's/MoD's decision being changed? If not when can we see the Rafale deal being signed?
In the light of criticisms of the IA's modernisation efforts what future do you see for the IA? Is it bright and fruitful or are we in for more painful revelations and inactivity, or by 2020 will the IA be a truly world-class force with modern gear able to give hell to anyone anytime?
And what exactly is going on between the IA-MoD as it can't all be Media hyped who leaked the letter and are the allegations against Bikram Singh true/relevant?
Thanks.
What a post. Thank you!
ReplyDeleteYou said that there is no chance of war between India and Pakistan/China in the next 5 yrs. Keeping that in mind lets see what India will have in terms of air defense, artillery, air force on 2017.
Artillery: At least 300 new artillery piece - including light weight howitzer (M777); OFB manufactured Bofors guns; new 45/53 cal acquisition. Also there will be additional upgraded/up gunned M-46 field guns.
Is there any way to revive the Bhim self-propelled howitzer, keeping in mind that a work around has been invented to by pass the blacklisting of arms manufacturer. Can't an Indian private defense manufacturer, build the South African Denel T6 turret endogenously(!) and put it on Arjun turret?
Around 200 T-90 and Arjun MK II.Additional artillery locator radars, at least preliminary TCS making at least a rudimentary network centric battlefield architecture. Brahmos (500 KM), Sourya BM, Prahar, new subsonic cruise missile (?).
Air defense: Barak LR-SAM and an additional regiments of Akash (II?); Skyranger; QR-SAM; GroundMaster series of radars, Iron dome (?); additional EL/M-2084; additional Rohini.
Air force: additional Sukhois, upgraded Mig 29s and MIrage 2000; Tejas MKI; 1 squadron of Rafale(?)
Army: I think the real game changer will be the F-INSAS - hopefully India will have at least two dedicated satellite and enough hardware to set up working TCS in both eastern and western front.
I'm keeping Navy out of it as in limited war, Navy's role will be limited as most(if not all) of the maneuvers/action/deployment will be on land.
What is your opinion?
Thanks,
NR
I was reading your articles. Last year this is what you wrote :
ReplyDeletehttp://trishul-trident.blogspot.com/2011/05/grse-bags-order-from-mauritius.html
In short according to you, Mazagaon Dock was offering a design based on Fincanteiri's Andrea Dorea Class DDG and GRSE was offering FREMM design and they tied-up with DCNS. What happened in 12 months that MDL managed to force everyone to use the same poor P17 design and why the hell someone not go for the new stealthy design and opt for an old design which frankly isn't that stealthy in comparison to European designs ? In addition to this we are talking about India, things doesn't changes so quickly here. In short either your previous article of May was just bogus or MDL crossed all the lines of stupidity and took MOD and IN with them. They not only got santions for a FFGs worth more than a billion $ for each ship and they are f--king giving us a slight modern version of Shivalik Class ? I think we should scrap P17a and join Britain's Type 26 FFG, we get a world class new FFG in 500 million$, put some expensive weaponry, lets say 700 million $, that would also save more than 300 million$ per FFG.
Similarly what happened to SMX-25 ? It was you who told us about the participation of the design and being IN's favorite and now suddenly the whole Project 75(India) is cancelled ?
And what happened to Nirbhay UAV ? I don't know where you got this information man, but how is it possible that DRDO, MOD and all the news agencies are wrong and considering it a cruise missile while you are the only person who calls it a UAV ?
You go around spreading shit about other bloggers but if you read your own previous articles you will see that you retract alot of your own statements.
"Left to me, I would forego the tracked option altogether & instead get the Donar's turret installed on a truck, as KMW of Germany has done."
ReplyDelete1) How much does the truck mounted Donar's turret system weigh ?
2) Will it be light enough like the Caesar to carry on a C-130 ? (not much data is available on the net for the truck mounted system. Can you guide to a link)
3) Donar's Turret like the Archer is fully automated. You particularly mentioned the IA doesn't need such a Hi-tech system (Weight being other valid reason for Archer) So can IA manage a Fully automated system such as DONAR be it truck or tracked system.
@ Anonymous 3:21 PM
ReplyDeleteThe Donar is an automatic system that houses nearly twice as much ammo than a CESAR system, so of course it is heavier than a CESAR.
If weight is an issue for IA, the Archer with it's big truck platform which weighs around 30t, just like the tracked Donar wouldn't be a wise choice. But since IA evaluated the Denel G6 with the PZH 2000 turret, that weighs more than 40ts, weight or air transportability, is not a requirement for them, which is a very silly decision. The Donar here is the compromise of a system that requires less crew, with good ammount of ammo and light weight to be air transported in numbers.
@Sancho its anon 3:21 PM. CESAR carries 18 rounds where as DONAR carries 30 rounds. 12 additional rounds won't add couple of tons weight to the system. Its the automatic system which adds a major portion of the weight. For your info CESAR's on board ammo was reduced deliberately inorder to fit the C-130. It can carry more if its not being airlifted by C-130.
ReplyDeleteMy specific question was how much does a truck mounted DONAR turret system weigh.
Regarding Automation PSG stated IA doesn't need it. I am curious why.......is it because Western forces use more automation due to lack of manpower where as IA has a dearth of them. Or is it due to our terrain & meteorological conditions that make these equipment prone to failure.
To KSingh: The total number of naval helicopters of all types cleared for procurement by the Defence Acquisition Council is 56. Of these, only the first 16 (10-tonne MRHs) have been tendered for. The S-70B comes in various versions, and even the ASV/ASW variant can be used as a MRH. Why do you find the manpower shortages of the IN unbelievable? Just look at what happened after the surge in piracy along the Horn of Africa and after 26/11, when the Navy took on additional responsibilities pertaining to maritime security. And what does one expect when the Navy’s existing OPVs are constantly utilised by the DRDO as tracking vessels for its ballistic missile tests? All these illustrate a total lack of long-term planning. Firstly, the Navy and DRDO should have pooled their resources to acquire at least four ocean-going missile tracking vessels that could not only be utilised for the DRDO’s ballistic missile R & D projects, but also be employed for monitoring similar activities of India’s neighbours. This would have made the Navy’s existing OPVs available for escorting civilian merchantile shipping along the Horn of Africa, instead of deploying expensive warships for constabulary duties. Secondly, post-26/11, the Govt of India made the terrible mistake of making the Navy overall in-charge of maritime security—a constabulary job that could easily have been fulfilled by the Coast Guard provided the MHA and not the MoD were to be made responsible for speedy force modernisation-cum-expansion of the Coast Guard. However, in reality, intense turf wars continue to prevail, and despite the Coast Guard’s crying need for medium-range MPAs for the past 15 years, the Navy dominates all decision-making (since for ridiculous reasons the Commandant of the Coast Guard continues to be a three-star Vice Admiral on deputation from the Navy even after 33 years of the Coast Guard’s formation) and therefore the Coast Guard’s force expansion plans are always played down. Even now the requirement for amphibian aircraft for SAR purposes is more suited for the Coast Guard, but the Navy remains stubbornly opposed to it and instead wants to be in the driver’s seat. Only when you examine all such prevailing dysfunctionalities does an overall picture emerge and the manpower shortages begin making sense.
ReplyDeleteTo KSingh: I don’t foresee the emergence of entities like JSOC unless and until there’s total integration of the three armed services at the theatre-level. Until then, each of the three armed services will continue to have their own standalone war-plans meant for fighting piecemeal and uncoordinated battles. In terms of capabilities & proficiency, Indian SF formations are battle-tested entities and are therefore on par with those of India’s neighbours and Western counterparts. In some areas like the Ghatak platoons, the West has nothing comparable to offer. But there’s always room for improvement when it comes to acquisition of latest military hardware. There’s definitely a need for platforms like the V-22 Osprey, especially for high-altitude warfare, but its cost is still prohibitive as of now. Give it another five years and things could get serious for the V-22 with respect to the Indian market. The Rafale deal will definitely be signed in this current fiscal year. The IA’s future definitely will be bright & fruitful, that’s not the issue. But whether or not by 2020 all the problems will be overcome, no one can say. The core problem is not about the IA and MoD, but about the outrageous system being followed by the MoD since the 1960s under which DPSUs were created and given contracts without any competitive bidding for absorbing screwdriver technologies. Over the years, these DPSUs haven’t graduated into enterprises capable of offering indigenous solutions and worsely, are now totally dependent on offsets obligations in order to stay afloat, and have no indigenous in-house solutions to offer. But what is worst is that these DPSUs are constantly lobbying with the MoD’s Dept of Defence Production & Supplies for preserving their monopolies are doing everything possible to prevent the entry of private-sector firms into military-industrial areas. This is what has now gotten exposed thanks to the BEML-TATRA scandal. The situation can still be redeemed IF a Defence Minister has the intellect & balls to undertake structural reforms by allowing strategic disinvestments under which the private-sector buys shares of these DPSUs and become equal industrial stakeholders, instead of being competitors. For instance, Pipavav should be allowed to buy into MDL, while MDL begins mentoring Pipapav in warship construction. Pipavav could then well supply warship gulls in modular form to MDL for final assembly & systems integration. Likewise, L & T should buy into BEML, Mahindra Defence should into OFB, while TATA should buy into HAL, and TATA & HCL should buy into BEL,ECIL, ITI etc. The overall idea should be to create industrial synergies. Such a formula for strategic industrial consolidation should have been announced at the same as the Defence Procurement Procedures were unveilled. Since this was not done, what you now have is needless industrial rivalry, discredited monopolies and wasteful competition.
ReplyDeleteDear Anonymous @ 12:42 PM
ReplyDeleteI don't think Mr. Prasun realises that he just contradicted himself. I agree with you. Infact Donar will be more Hi-tech system and if IA doesn't need an already built solution like Archer then why go to the length to make a new system that will be more automated and possibly more heavier than Archer itself.
I also think considering quality of Bofors(BAE) guns and IA's liking of these systems, i would say Archer is not our of race yet until said by IA or MOD. Considering it now sold by BAE and not Bofors, its chances are more to win rather than the chance of an unknown system CAESAR by not so famous company in India (Nexter).
In short i think Archer has the maximum chances of winning the wheeled SPG deal.
--------------------------
I also wanna tell everyone, there are reports coming that we can use INS Chakra in the war time also unlike what Mr.Prasun said. According to the news, some people just assumed that the new Chakra SSN is coming with the same restrictions as the old one but its not true. So celebrate people, we can use the INS Chakra for whatever role we want in any situation.
@Sancho
He used disappointing because while Tata sowed what will be there FICV design, Mahindra on the other hand showed the picture of BAE SEP, which might just be showing their involvement in FICV project and not exactly the design of Mahindra's FICV.
In short the picture in the poster might not be the FICV.
As far as your approval for BAE SEP is there, yeah its a good new generation platform but India has a very different terrain than UK and SEP has to pass all the filed trials inorder to win this program while Tata build it from scratch so they must have build it by taking these things into account. You cannot just bring SEP and expect to win, you will have to be extrmely lucky and hope that SEP passes all the tests also.
To NR: The T-6 turret’s design can indeed be bought over by TATA and then optimised for installation on the hull of a T-72M1 which is fitted with a 1,000hp V-92S2 engine (the same as that on the T-90S & T-72CIA Ajeya). It will then be a lot cheaper than what it was when the T-6 was mated with Arjun MBT’s hull to create the Bhim. But the problem here is the the MoD’s precondition (under DPP guidelines) of competitive bidding, under which the Bhim will now have to be pitted against the Samsung Techwin & K-9 and BEML/Konstructa Defence AS’ ARZU (which is being offered on the Arjun’s hull, as was shown in BEML posters during DEFEXPO). The only way out of this is to specify in the GSQR that only turrets mounted on upgraded T-72M1 hulls will be considered. Both TATA/Denel & BEML/Konstructa will then be reqd to bid competitively. But one thing is sure: the T-6/Arjun combination (the Bhim) is now totally out of the reckoning since BEML has lobbied successfully with the MoD & DRDO to develop the ARZU variant. Even so, there’s no escape from the competitive bidding process. Consequently, the original Bhim SPH is now truly dead.
ReplyDeleteFor air-defence, the IAF component is strong, given the confirmed orders for Akash Mk1 & Barak-8 LR-SAM. What the IAF now needs are additional SpyDer-SRs to replace the OSA-AKMs. The Army’s ground-based air-defence assets are truly obsolete and it’s surprising why orders for the Akash Mk1 (mounted on T-72 hulls) haven’t yet flowed in. While the OSA-AKMs do need to be replaced by SypDer-SRs, an upgrade package for the Strella-10Ms can be easily acquired, for which the laser-guided SOSNA offer from Rosoboronexport State Corp will be a truly cost-effective solution. The Mistrals are expected to be procured to replace the existing Iglas and eventually the Igla-S.
For the Army, the real gamechanger will be the integrated battlespace concept inclusive of the TCS, BMS, BSS and ACCCS, all of which will feed into the CIDSS. F-INSAS will first be fielded in a pilot form with the 66,000-strong Rashtriya Rifles, while CIDSS and all its components will be first fielded with a Pivot Corps in the western sector. It is planned to connect the CIDSS with a military communications satellite and with the battlespace surveillance platforms (JSTARS-type) of the type the CABS wants to develop (as I’ve state above). This will ensure total battlespace transparency and remove the fog of war. Only then will both the IA and IAF be able to wage persistent and relentless knowledge-based warfare (hopefully by 2022), instead of the present-day estimates-based warfare.
@ Anonymous 10:10 PM
ReplyDelete"Its the automatic system which adds a major portion of the weight"
That's exactly what I said, this and the additional rounds combined in a very small modul adds much to the weight. Not to mention that the 30t include the weight of the tracked platform. According to KMWs website, the gun modul alone weighs 12t, now add it to one of Ashok Leyland trucks and you will have a lighter version as well.
The Cesar is air transportable in a C130, but as a system it is far inferior to the Donar. It needs 3 time the crew to operate it, can be used to fire only in a range of 30° to both sides, or the whole vehicle needs to be repositioned, the firing range and rate is lower and as mentioned, it carries far less ammo and needs to rearm more often.
@ Rudra
The SEP just like the CV90 are actually developed by the swedish company hägglund and according to swedish requirments. BAE Systems just took over the company and now sells them as their own.
Not sure what he thought, but as mentioned, if BAE offers the SEP the possible modular design would be the biggest advantage for IA to replace 1000s of different vehicle, but reduce costs and logistics at the same time.
The TATA FICV on the other side, seems not to be very special, two different designs, one wheeled one tracked and the only commonality we know so far is the turret, which is German and not developed for Indias requirement.
Another point that speakes for the SEP proposal is, that it is far closer in size and weight to the BMPs, while the TATA FICV seems to be aimed at other western designs, above 20t. That offers advantages in terms of transportability too.
However, we will have to wait and see and there will be other offers as well. So far Mahindra just seems to have gathered the best partners with BAE and Rafael.
To RUDRA: Much as you would like to believe that everything works according to a choreographed script, in the real world, things don’t, and policies always change due to various reasons, often within 24 hours, leave alone 12 months, and especially in India! In this area I’ve been there and seen it all with my own eyes and can therefore claim to have eaten more salt than all the rice you may have consumed so far! PRIOR to the MoD’s final decision around last October, there were indeed OEMs like Fincantieri & DCNS that were offering their respective FFG designs. The situation changed by mid-2011 when the MoD concluded that the workforce at MDL engaged at that time in P-17 FFG construction would become idle after the third P-17 FFG’s delivery because the P-17A design had not yet been selected and even if it were selected then, contract negotiations would take another three years to complete. Hence, it was decided by the MoD & Navy HQ to modify the existing P-17 FFG’s design into a P-17A with Fincantieri’s assistance. You in your all-knowing self-righteous wisdom may consider the P-17’s design as being “poor” or “old” or “frankly isn't that stealthy in comparison to European designs”, but that does not mean your opinions are the gospel truth, unless you can prove yourself beyond reasonable doubt by producing comparative radar/acoustic signatures of the P-17FFG and its European counterparts.
ReplyDeleteThe Project 75I was never suddenly cancelled. In fact, the Project 75I’s Project Office in Navy HQ was disbanded as far back as 2005—ask the Navy’s Directorate of Submarine Warfare at Navy HQ and get it confirmed yourself. Don’t hold me responsible for all the fantasies conjured up by the ‘desi’ mass-media entities about P-75I over the years! The Indian Navy was opposed to the policy of operating two different types of SSKs in the 1980s, and does so even today. Consequently, the plan always was to build upon the gains made by the Scorpene programme by sticking to solutions from DCNS, be it the SMX-21/25 or a ‘Super Scorpene’ gitted with AIP. As it now happens, the MoD has decided to order an additional four Scorpenes, and the situation became clearer early last February AFTER the Rafale’s selection of the M-MRCA, following which it became possible to enter into serious negotiations with France regarding the Barracuda SSN, something which you ought to read more about at: http://www.indianexpress.com/news/the-stealth-queen/933127/0
Regarding the ‘Nirbhay”, you ought to read up more at: http://trishul-trident.blogspot.in/2012/02/is-nirbhay-n-capable-alcm-being-co.html
By now you should have realised that I’m the ONLY ONE that has to date reproduced any kind of official MoD-vetted and approved material concerning the Nirbhay, as opposed to blind-firing shit by “other bloggers”. At least I don’t go around pasting the term ‘Nirbhay’ on a Tomahawk T-LAM illustration.
To Anon@12.42PM: You can read all about it at: http://www.kmweg.de/10843-bD1lbg-~PRODUKTE~artillerie~agm~agm.html
ReplyDeleteIt is possible to develop motorised 155mm/52-cal solutions that weigh no more than 18 tonnes, like the Caesar, the AGM & the truck-mounted system from Serbia’s Yugoimport SDPR. Of these, only the Caesar can go on board the C-130J, but not the AGM. Even without automation, both the Caesar & NORINCO’s SH-1 have demonstrated MRSI capability. I therefore would not bet on spending more on automated features when they don’t offer any greater operational advantages.
To SANCHO: The baseline design is indeed that of the SEP, but what ought to be borne in mind is that the Indian Army’s FICV reqmt is for a tracked vehicle, and not wheeled, therefore design modularity won’t give the SEP any edge. TATA’s tracked FICV design is derived from a Rheinmetall DeTec-developed base design. Rheinmetall’s solution (Denel G6 with the PZH 2000 turret) was for an earlier reqmt (of 1999-2008 vintage) for wheeled howitzers, which has since been merged with the reqmt for mounted gun system. Consequently, the solution being sought is for motorised (truck-mounted) howitzers and that’s why both TATA, Punj Lloyd & L & T are now offering only truck-mounted solutions. Earlier, during DEFEXPO 2008, L & T had shown a K-9 Thunder turret mounted on a wheeled chassis, but this year it confirmed at DEFEXPO 2012 that this option was no longer being considered by Army HQ, since the wheeled SPH reqmt has been shelved and given way to the Mounted Gun System (like the Caesar shown at Nexter Systems’ booth adjacent to L & T’s pavilion).
@ Sancho;
ReplyDeleteMy guess for truck mounted DONAR system (Ashok Leyland or TATA) should weigh some where near 20-22 tons. May be with some investment and R&D into this arrangement might eventually bring the weight down under 20 Tons inorder to fit the C-130.
Looks better bet then the CESAR. PSG Plz give your opinions.
To RUDRA: Archer is definitely out of the race, and that’s why it wasn’t even shown in any form at DEFEXPO 2012. Read the IA’s GSQR for the Mounted Gun System and you’ll know why. As for the INS Chakra ‘can’ used in wartime, what you ought to take note of is that in rules of engagement, there’s no such thing as can or could or should. Either one will, or one won’t. There’s no room for subjective terms like ‘can’. Furthermore, in terms of using such a weapon in wartime, the question you’ve failed to ask is, in what manner will this SSGN be used? Because here too the rules of engagement need to precise. Will it be used only as a stalker, will it be authorised to go on the offensive and take part in active hostilities, or will it only have the right to undertake a retaliatory strike in self-defence? What I therefore suggest is you go back to those who’ve reported that “we can use INS Chakra in the war time” and “for whatever role we want in any situation” and ask them to give you far more precise reports, before you get delirious and start wandering around like a headless chicken. Better still, ask that any ‘desi’ journo how come the INS Chakra remained totally submerged while exiting the South China Sea to enter the Andaman Sea and the Bay of Bengal. This was the same question that Heberian had asked, citing UNCLOS regulations, and he’s still waiting for his reply from a particular ‘desi’ journo. Chances are that he’ll never get a reply, since this ‘desi’ journo is obviously unaware of India’s treaty obligations under UNCLOS.
ReplyDeleteTo Anon@12.40AM: The DONAR turret weighs 12.5 tonnes and it would indeed be possible to mount it on an Ashok Leyland-built 6 x 6 truck, since Ashok Leyland and KMW have an industrial partnership agreement. Regarding transportability on a C-130, it all depends on the width and height of the AGM in mounted configuration. I’ve uploaded above the motorised AGM’s photo (the bottommost).
Prasun, thank you so much for replying to my Qs- much appreciated. Regarding the TATRA issue, do recent issues mean we will not see a single TATRA inducted into the Indian armed froces from now on? Because AFAIK the TATRA is the platform for many key pieces of equipment in Indian forces such as the Pinka MRLS and BRAHMOS. Or will future orders be placed but with high degrees of scrutiny? Surely this will significantly slow down the induction of key techs. And you say in some cases Indian private company trucks can be used but are TATA 6X6/8X8 really comparable and as good as the TATRA trucks? If so then it begs the question why didn't the TATA trucks become inducted far earlier. And where do you see the TATRA issue progressing from here? As India as A LOT of these trucks and issues with supplies could be a massive blow to national security.
ReplyDeleteAnd you have said in a reply the IA is no longer interested in MRAPs but JLTV type vehicles, where exactly is the procurement of these type of vehicles for IA at? I mean this is a gaping gap in the IA. And where exactly is the replacment for the Gypsy for all armed forces? There have got to be 10,000s of these 70s jeeps in service in all wings of the forces and they just have no place in a military trying to look to the future.
Thanks in advance.
Hi PRASUN, why did the new GSQR for artillery abandoned the wheeled artillery requirement like the Archer, Denel G-6, Zuzana? Will the IA go for automated motorized howitzers or manually loaded systems like the CAESAR? The one offered by the joint venture of TATA and Denel has burst fire capability and is able to fire 3 rounds in 18 sec. Isn't the Soltam ATOMS 2000 not participating in the mounted gun requirement? The ATMOS can fire 3 rounds in 15 secs. Also according to the old GSQR 400 155/52 cal towed artillery were to be procured off the shelf ans another 1400 were to NE license produced by OFB. What about this? Will the IA procure tracked SPH? WHat will be the nos? Is the Panzer 2000 being evaluated for tracked SPH because it is the best tracked SPH on offer.
ReplyDeleteI am Anon , April 7, 6:06 pm. I know I am off the topic but am very eager to know about them. Will u kindly ans the queries and sometime layer post an article on IAF's present offensive capabilities and the various PGMs and tactical missiles purchases it is making or the IAF is going to make to beef it's offensive capabilities. Pls reply soon. Waiting patiently for your reply.
ReplyDeleteHi, when will the MoD sign a deal regarding purchase of 9 Barracuda SSN ? Will these 9 SSN be exact Barracudas or will feature modifications according to the requirements of the Navy. Some time ago in one of ur comments u said that the IN wants to have a fleet of 5000 t class SSN whereas the MoD wants the SSN to have larger displacement of 9000 tons. So a compromise was reached and the Navy will have 7000 ton SSN. Are the Barracudas we will purchase have a heavier displac, have 6 533 mm tubes instead of 4 present on the current SSN. Will it have VLS for the Brahmos missiles or the Klub-S? Will it have a double hull. Will some Barr be purchased off the Shelf from Dcns ? Pls reply.
ReplyDelete@ anon 6:28 PM.
ReplyDelete"Will some Barr be purchased off the Shelf from Dcns "
Are you day dreaming !!! Do you really think any nation is going to sell a nuclear sub. You crossed the threshold from wish full thinking to fantasizing.
French will only help India with the Non-Nuclear parts of the SSGN. They won't be giving India the design blue-prints for the Nuclear Reactor. India will end up making some under powered reactor like in the Arihant.
Hi Prasun,
ReplyDeleteIf one casually looks at defense acquisition of the three services (army, navy and airforce) of India in the near past and the near future (say around 3 years), then one sees lack of acquisition on the part of Indian army. The major investment are let me guess - battle tanks, some cruise missile regiments,raising additional divisions, transport aircraft (helicopter and fixed wings), F-INSAS is the biggest thing in the pipeline. Did miss anything here?
Do you think the Hawkeye recoil technology (Kalyani group has a tie up) can be taken up by India to build a naval howitzer?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wNbTTCgBK8c
Thanks in advance.
NR
"...is that the Indian Army’s FICV reqmt is for a tracked vehicle, and not wheeled, therefore design modularity won’t give the SEP any edge. "
ReplyDeleteThat's not correct! The modular design is a benefit even if it's only for the tracked version, because you still can use a single vehicle in serval different roles, because it can simply change the mission module. Today you have to build many BMPs each for a single role only, which is lostically way more expensive.
Also if the FICV would be only for tracked vehicle, why is TATA clearly advertising tracked AND the wheeled version for the FICV competition:
http://img687.imageshack.us/img687/2787/dsc02644ix.jpg
http://img42.imageshack.us/img42/2239/dsc02641x.jpg
P.S. "TATA’s tracked FICV design is derived from a Rheinmetall DeTec-developed base design"
ReplyDeleteWhich is also not correct, since the vehicle back than was a Denel G6 and not from Rheinmetal, so they can't have any relation, besides that this 8x8 and the G6 6x6 are totally different vehicles.
Also TATAs own press release says:
"At the DEFEXPO, Tata Motors displayed scaled models of its concept Futuristic Infantry Combat Vehicle (FICV) (Tracked & Wheeled), including the turret."
http://www.tatamotors.com/media/press-releases.php?id=741
So for tracked AND wheeled again!
AMRAAM Could Not Stand The Heat
ReplyDeletehttp://bacajela.blogspot.com/2012/04/amraam-could-not-stand-heat.html
To KSingh: On the contrary, it is the continued reliance on BEML-TATRA heavy-duty vehicles (HDV) for the past 26 years that constitutes the gravest threat to national security, simply because throughout these 26 years, as per the Indian Army COAS’ statement, BEML-TATRA never even made any attempt to establish a service centre anywhere in India to cater to the MRO reqmts of such a large fleet! On the other hand, HDBs from TATA & Ashok Leyland not only incorporate the latest technologies, but are fully backed up by in-country service centres for guaranteed through-life product-support, something which BEML-TATRA has never offered, believe it or not.
ReplyDeleteThe reqmts for JLTV have already been drafted by all three armed services and will be procured in the near future under a tri-services acquisition plan.
To Anon@6.15PM: The wheeled SPH reqmt, that so specifically for ex-stock G-6s declared as surplus stock by the South African Army, was raised rather suddenly in the midst of OP Vijay in mid-1999 by the Army HQ’s Directorate of Artillery at a time when motorised 155mm/52-cal howitzers were not freely available from various vendors. Only the Caesar had been fully developed by then. After OP Vijay, it was realised by 2001 that as per the cost-benefit matrix, going for a motorised 155mm/52-cal solution was much better than opting for a wheeled 155mm/45-cal solution since by then motorised solutions were available from Nexter Systems, DENEL Land Systems, Yugoimport SDPR & Soltam Systems. During DEFEXPO 2002, the SOLTAM Systems’ ATMOS was brought to India and evaluated. Other advantages of a motorised solution (what the Army calls the Mounted Gun System) like the Caesar are its ability to be airlifted by transports like the C-130J, and their ability to negotiate with ease the roads straddling the hilly mountainous terrain of India, which wheeled howitzers like the G-6 can’t. What matters during war is not the burst-fire rate, but the sustained firing rate. The Pzh-2000 is not being considered at this stage.
To Anon@6.20PM: These issues were discussed and highlighted by me way back in October 2008 in my older blog at: trishulgroup.blogspot.com
To NR: Raising of additional divisions is uncalled for, since the problem can be resolved by doing away with the 66,000-strong Rashtriya Rifles, which has outlived its usefulness. While the Army can still stay in charge of the counter-infiltration grids in J & K, the counter-insurgency grids can easily be manned by specially trained CRPF personnel. Instead of raising additional infantry-specific formations, priority should instead be given to a) increasing the firepower available to existing formations, and b) improving the border transportation infrastructure so that such firepower can be brought to effect whenever and wherever reqd.
To SANCHO@10.01PM: The tracked FICV too will have a modular design and will be built in various versions, just as the BMP-2 has been built in different versions. No one in India to date has built many BMPs each for a single role only. As to why is TATA clearly advertising tracked AND the wheeled version for the FICV, the answer can be acquired by simply talking with TATA, which I suspect you did not and hence your erroneous deductions. While TATA showed its tracked FICV concept for meeting an Indian reqmt, the wheeled FICV concept is meant purely for export markets. That is why Mahindra Defence showcased ONLY a tracked FICV concept. TATA Motors is a multinational company that is only HQed in India and this doesn’t mean that its range of military vehicles are meant exclusively for the Indian market. Had you been to anywhere in North Africa you would seen with your own eyes the wide range of military/paramilitary vehicles sold by TATA, Ashok Leyland and Mahindra & Mahindra over the years.
ReplyDeleteTo SANCHO@10.13PM: Again you’re comparing apples with oranges. The FICV has no relation to the G-6, which is a wheeled self-propelled howitzer. One cannot compare a tracked design with either a 6 x 6 or an 8 x 8. Besides, the turret designs of both the tracked FICV and wheeled 8 x 8 FICV are totally different.
Prasun,
ReplyDeleteShiv Aroor is reporting the blacklisting of IMI is going to affect the devlopment of the Arjun Mk.2. Is this true, and if so what kind of delay are we looking at?
Army Chief says Indian air-defense is 97% obsolete .... do you agree?
ReplyDeleteHey Prasun,
ReplyDeleteWhich Small,medium and heavy machine guns does IA employ?
is there any machine gun in joint development with poland??
http://www.hindustantimes.com/India-news/NewDelhi/IAF-s-sourcing-spares-for-MIG-planes-from-outside-Russia-wrong-Envoy/Article1-831186.aspx
ReplyDelete"On the issue of delay in
delivery of Talwar class-follow-on frigates to the Navy, the Russian diplomat said "better ask about the Scorpene (submarine) delay."
His reply seems to be arrogant...so why is India not buying spares from Russia??
http://www.hindustantimes.com/India-news/NewDelhi/BrahMos-develops-anti-aircraft-variant-of-the-missile/Article1-833434.aspx#
ReplyDeleteWhats new with that?
cant the anti-ship variant used against aircraft-carriers?
Hey Prasun,
ReplyDeleteCould he have survived it?
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=163_1327328469
Anon@April 11, 2012 10:33 PM
ReplyDeleteAbsolutely
KSK@April 11, 2012 10:35 PM
Its naive to take a decision based on comment which is presumed to be arrogant. The Russian ambassador has a point, it should be noted that he replied to some journalist, I'm sure he wouldn't say it to any Indian diplomat/official enquiry.
KSKApril 11, 2012 10:37 PM
The same Brahmos with new flight profile/control algorithim where it can make a steep dive on a target the way it has been tested on targets lying on the other side of a hill.
AnonApril 11, 2012 10:45 PM
RPG blast doesn't kill anybody, however the poor guy might loose eye sight. Google what the rebels in Somalia and Afgannistan do to tackle blast from RPG.
Hi, its not what i meant to say. Prasun, u have got me all wrong. What i want to ask was whether the IAF was purchasing long range standoff bombs and,or long range air to ground missiles having terminal guidance. In your October 2008 thread u wrote about the bombs being procured from Russia for the Sukhoi-30 mki. Those are free fall iron bombs with a range of only 5 km. They have either no guidance or are TV guided. With tv guided weapons u cnt strike targets in bad weather. Long gone are the days when one uses such bombs such as FAB-250/500/1500kr for engaging hostile targets. Nowadys integrated air defence systems have come up in Pakistan. The PAF & PA are fielding multilayerd and interconnected sam fields. When using such bombs against targets defended by these Sams as well as various AAA and point defence sams , the delivery platform will nt survive. Standoff weapons are used to bypass such Iads. The PAF has well understood this and is indicting the H-2 and H-4 glide bombs. Also for strikes against heavily defended targets the PAF is indicting the terrain hugging ALCM in large nos. The IAF lacks such standoff weapons. So 1. Will the IAF procure such standoff weapons for it's fleet of Su-30, MiG-29, Mirage 2000 , Jaguar IS and MiG-27. 2. The IAF will procure a variety of standoff PGM as part of it's MRCA deal. The selection of the Rafale means the IAF will procure the AASM , Storm Shadow cruise missiles. My ques is will the no of AASM and Storm Shadow be enough ( in thousands and hundreds respectively) to arm the Su-30, Jaguar, Mirage , Mog-29/27 fleet? OR these are to be procured for arming only the Rafale and Mirage fleet? 3. Will the IAF PROCURE THE TAURAS KEPD-350 cruise missile? 4. CAN THE KH-31 BE USED FOR LAND ATTACK? 5. DOES THE TV GUIDED KH-59 OFFER ALL WEATHER TARGET ENGAGEMENT? CAN THIS MISSILE BE USED AT NIGHT considering it is a TV SEEKER. WHAT ARE IT'S NOS in the IAF? 6. In your old blog u said that IAF uses the Popeye Lite missile for attacking leadership targets. How many are in service with the IAF? Pls reply when u have the time. Waiting in patience.
ReplyDeleteTo KSingh: Design of the Arjun Mk2 was completed two years ago and IMI’s involvement with CVRDE was successfully concluded for the R & D phase. The blacklisting of IMI will now affect only the supply of Iron Fist APS & WAVE-300 RCWS for the Arjun Mk1A & Arjun Mk2, but if IMI is clever enough, then it will find a way out of this fairly quickly by teaming up with an Indian company (like DENEL has teamed up with TATA) and designating this Indian company as the prime contractor to the CVRDE & HVF Avadi fior supplying the Iron Fist APS & WAVE-300 RCWS. Solutions are always available.
ReplyDeleteTo Anon@10.31PM: The Army Chief never said that. What he said was that the assets at the disposal of Army Air Defence (AAD) was 97% obsolete, and he’s right, since the existing 30 Regiments of L-70s need to be replaced ASAP.
To KSK: I don’t think that’s an arrogant answer. He is factually right, after all. Will post accurate data soonest on the reasons behind the delayed delivery of the Project 1135.6 Batch-2 FFGs. As for India not buying aircraft spares from Russia, this question needs to be put to Indo-Russian Aviation Ltd (IRAL), the JV between HAL & Russia’s United Aircraft Corp. It is this JV that’s responsible for procuring and stocking up spares for all Russia-origin aircraft in service with the IAF. As to why this JV has been unsuccessful in fulfilling its mandate, I can only blame it on corporate mismanagement, which hopefully the CAG will be able to identify and reveal. Last year I had already explained this issue in great detail and explained exactly why the Indian Navy faces no such spares shortages.
To KSK: Of course the existing BrahMos-1’s Block-1 can be employed against aircraft carriers. What Dr Pillai was explaining was the feasibility of using the BrahMos-1’s Block-3 variant for the same role.
To Anon@11.37PM: Since when have the PAF & PA begun fielding multi-layered and interconnected SAM fields? Pakistan’s financial situation being far more worse than India’s, there has hardly been any air defence-related hardware induction by the PAF and PA since 2007. Pakistan’s ground-based air-defence network is far more worse off than India’s. H-2/H-4 glide bombs can be detected fairly early as their launch aircraft are launched from altitudes that are always covered by long-range airspace surveillance radars and such munitions can easily be neutralised by SHORADS. Pakistan’s stocks of terrain-hugging Ra’ad ALCMs do not exceed 100 and here too they’re easily detectable by radars like EL/M-2084/Arudhra and can therefore be successfully intercepted by SpyDer-SR SHORADS. The procurement of a few hundred CALCMs like the Taurus KEPD-350 for the upgraded Mirage 2000s, upgraded Jaguar IS/DARIN-3, and Rafale is now assured and will be more than adequate.
Prasun, why is the INSAS regarded by the media as a substandard rifle ? It seems to have been accepted quite well. I mean the M-16 in its early decades had a lot of problems. So why beat up on the INSAS ?
ReplyDeletePrasunDa,
ReplyDeleteY DRDO/MOD is running Pinaka-Prithivi-Prahar project simultaneously. Cant they be merged into one...when +/- their objective is same.Like they could develop a MBRLS PINAKA with a range of 30-40km, 50-80km, 80-150km,150-350km...as China is doing successfully. Y wasting Tax Payers money for same type of projects. DRDO seems slowly trying to become OFB.
To SBM: Interesting, wise and right choice of words indeed! Specially the term “by the media”. But ask the end-users, be it the armed forces or CAPFs, and there won’t be any such criticisms. My best guess is that the media is ill-advised, ill-informed, and subsequently ill-capable of arriving at objective conclusions. It is like their allegations about the Army’s MBT fleet suffering from night-blindness, when it is crystal-clear that there’s no such thing. ALL MBTs and ICVs of Soviet/Russia origin come equipped with IR searchlights in order to navigate and acquire their targets at night. What ought to have been said was that not all MBTs have third-generation digital hunter-killer fire-control systems, but this vital fact has been overlooked by the ‘desi’ media.
ReplyDeleteTo THINK TANK: The Prithvi project was concluded three years ago and what’s left are only surplus rounds for test-firing. As far as NLOS-BSMs go, only the Prahaar is under development. Pinaka is not a NLOS-BSM, and the only new element being developed is the 40km-range rocket. There’s a new MBRL under development with a range of 120km. So there’s no duplication and no waste of resources. NLOS-BSMs are totally different from MBRLs.
Hello Prasun,
ReplyDeleteWhat is the role of "standing committee on Defense"? Is this committee is more powerful than the service chiefs?
Since this committee consists of MPs, I wonder, whether these MPs will influence programs that matter to Armed services such as procurements, purchases, etc, thus increase the corruption? Any sensitive documents pass through these committee members, who may sell to our enemies for money/women/gifts, etc?
Thanks.
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/india-revises-defence-offset-guidelines-370375/
ReplyDeleteis it enough?
Hi Prasun, thanx for replying regarding the procurement of TAURAS KEPD 350 fir the Rafale, Jaguar and Mirage. EADS offered the KEPD -350 as an ALCM fir the Sukhois. So aren't the Su-30 MKI fleet be equipped with this . Will the IAF not procure the 250 km MBDA Storm Shadow for it's fleet of Rafale, Jaguar , Mirage, Mig-29 and Sukhoi. Regarding the Sagem AASM will it not be purchased in large nos for Rafale and Mirage 2000? I want to know whether the IAF order the AASM in bulk ( in thousands ) and use them on the Sukhoi-30, MiG-29, Jaguar and MiG-27 other than Rafale and Mirage? Pls ans. Pls mention the no of Popeye Lite and Kh-59 in IAF service . Pls reply PRASUN. Waiting forward for your ans.
ReplyDeletesir, i am really looking forward to more pics. i am sure that your four day hard work cannot be covered by 2 posts
ReplyDeletelooking forward to new posts. also is there going to be new engines for Arjun mk.2
Hi,
ReplyDeleteThe AASM has become the standard air-ground PGM of the French Airforce. Will the Iaf adopt it as its principal air delivered PGM by procuring in bulk? The AASM has a small range = 55 when compared to other rocket powdered glide bombs such as Denel Raptor? Will variants of the AASM having 500lb and 1000, 2000 lb and 60 and 120 km range like the Raptor be developed? 2. Is the ARDE of DRDO developing glide bombs like the US Walleye and rocket powered glide bombs having IIR seeker like the Raptor? 3. How can u be so sure that the PAF has 100 Raad and not more than that? If the no of Baburs is not very high then the no of Spyder SR in service with the combined Iaf & IA is sufficient for neutralising all the threat from H-2, H-4, Babur and Raad cruise missiles in case of a high intensity conflict with Pakistan. Thanx in advance. WAITING FOR YOUR REPLY.
Does Indian Army has any tracked amphibious carrier like the Russian PTS-2
ReplyDeleteAlso you promised more pics from the defense expo. When can we expect them.
Prasun, it has been reported that Rafeal are offering the Trophy APS for the Arjun Mk.II but I thought the Iron Fist had already been selected for the Mk.II? And which system is superior in respect to the Iron Fist vs Trophy/ what are the various pros and cons of each system?
ReplyDeletehttp://bacajela.blogspot.com/2012/04/inaction-hovers-over-indian-mmrca.html
ReplyDeletehttp://bacajela.blogspot.com/2012/04/cias-secret-fear-high-tech-border.html
http://idrw.org/?p=10105
ReplyDeleteWhat now ?
what weapons will be used in the scorpene?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abhay_IFV
ReplyDeleteWhat happened to this project?
Is it really HAL's fault that they have still not developed a basic modern trainer aircraft on the lines of pilatus -7 mk2 /pil-9 with a good engine.Costly taxpayer's money are going waste in the process and rupee fluctuations are gain not helping .
ReplyDeleteAnd what is the update on sitara/hjt-36.
To KSingh: The Iron Fist APS was chosen more than two years ago by both the CVRDE & Army HQ. What IMI should now do is form a cartel with Rheinmetal Air Defence, DENEL Group & ST Kinetics and as a united group tell India’s MoD in no uncertain terms that either provide incontrovertible proof any wrongdoing committed by these companies, or else remove these companies from the blacklist. If the MoD does not budge, then these companies must sue the MoD or seek monetary compensation after referring the case for international arbitration. This is the only way to teach an everlasting lesson to the MoD.
ReplyDeleteTo KSK: Only those weapons certified for use by the Scorpene SSK have to be acquired. This includes the Black Shark torpedoes. No two ways about it.
To DynaDemos: HAL had developed the HTT-35 BTT as far back as 1994, but the prototype never took off. The project was shot down by the MoD and IAF HQ. Therefore, the MoD has to take the blame for India now importing the PC-7 Mk2 and wasting the Indian taxpayer’s money. As for the HJT-36 IJT, the IAF will have no use for the IJT once the PC-7 Mk2s are bought. Between the PC-7 Mk2 and Hawk Mk.132 AJT, there’s no need for an IJT. An IJT would have been reqd only if there was a gap to be filled between a piston-engined ab-initio primary trainer and an advanced jet trainer. But since the PC-7 Mk2 is a basic trainer powered by a turboprop engine, the gap to be bridged between it and the Hawk Mk.132 does not require the services of an IJT. Instead, what’s required now is the mass-production of at least 60 Tejas Mk1 tandem-seat lead-in fighter trainers to bridge the gap between the Hawk Mk132 and the tandem-seat Su-30MKIs & Rafales.
To Anon@9.37PM: It was thankfully terminated with extreme prejudice lest it waste any more of the Indian taxpayer's money.
ReplyDeletePrasun,
ReplyDeleteHow do you compare akula-2/3 INS Chakra with the latest akule russian have Gepard. Are they same?(excluding weapon load) Or whichone is more advanced specially in terms of sonars and other sensors? And what will be the use of nerpa for the russians once the 10 year lease is over? I mean if they want to keep it and use it for long term they they have to modify the sub once again to change her weapons load. Isn't it?
To Shaurya: The INS Chakra/K-152 Nerpa is of more recent vintage compared to the Gepard. When talking to the five-odd Russian OEMs present at DEFEXPO 2012 who are vendors for the INS Chakra, the combat management system & integrated platform management system are far more advanced than those on the Gepard. In addition, the bulbous structure at the rear of INS Chakra houses both a LF thin-line towed-array sonar as well as a winch-operated ELF comms antenna incorporated specially for the Indian Navy (since the Chakra will be used mostly for escorting the Arihant and its follow-on S-3 & S-4 SSBNs during their sea-trials as well as their operational patrols). That's the reason why the Arihant was awaiting the arrival of INS Chakra and can now at last proceed for here sea-trials.
ReplyDeleteSome people are trying to prop up BSF against army in-addition Home ministry is quick to grant these police walas without much fuss
ReplyDelete