Total Pageviews

Thursday, June 21, 2012

Clearing The Mist On India’s Small Turbofan R & D Efforts & Updates On T-90S MBT Upgrade


Since 2007, there’s been intense speculation by several India-based bloggers/journalists about the kind of turbofan-based powerplants being developed for both strategic and multi-role tactical weapon systems, when all it takes to get to the truth is to have an honest chat with the Ministry of Defence-owned Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd’s (HAL) Bengaluru-based Engine Test Bed Research & Development Centre (ETBRDC), and with the DRDO’s Bengaluru-based Gas Turbine Research Establishment (GTRE), which is exactly what I did. And here are the results:

1) HAL has developed a turbofan (see HAL's officially released data below) for powering a strategic cruise missile (supposed to be the air-launched and submarine-launched Nirbhay) as well as a tactical cruise missile, which, if developed by the DRDO, will have performance parameters similar to the Taurus KEPD-350 CALCM. This turbofan, which will also be powering a cruise missile simulating drone, is presently undergoing its flight certification tests under the guidance and supervision of CEMILAC. Therefore, it is high time all speculation ends on the Nirbhay missile being powered by ducted-fans, prop-fans or turboprops!!! And by the way, the ETBRDC is also close to commissioning an engine testbed centre in Sulur for the first squadron of the IAF’s Tejas Mk1 MRCAs. This testbed is capable of measuring engine thrusts up to 150kN. The ETBRDC will also be developing both the starter-engine for the FGFA and Tejas Mk2, as well as the APU for the FGFA and Tejas Mk2. 
2) GTRE, with the help of Russia’s NPO Saturn, is developing the ‘Laghu Shakthi’ turbofan (below) for a MALE-UAV now being developed by the DRDO. This is in response to an IAF requirement for a single turbofan-powered MALE-UAV capable of operating over mountainous areas—a task which cannot be optimally performed by piston-engined UAVs like the Nishant, Searcher Mk1/2 and Heron-1. The Indian Navy too has evinced deep interest in this R & D programme, especially since its piston-engined MALE-UAVs like the Searcher Mk2 and Heron-1 cannot operate from India’s island-based territories due to adverse wind conditions. A turbofan-powered MALE-UAV, on the other hand, will face no such limitations. 

Lastly, I’m glad to report that user-trials of a T-90S MBT equipped with IRDE-developed and BEL-built (see below) commander’s panoramic sight and driver’s uncooled thermal imager (derived from that developed for the Arjun Mk1A MBT) have just gotten underway. If all goes well, then these two items will be retrofitted on to both the first 310 T-90S MBTs acquired for the Indian Army just about a decade ago, as well as on 1,000 T-72M1 MBTs that are due to undergo a deep upgrade. For both MBT-types, VRDE has already developed the APU, which too is now undergoing user-trials.

The Russia-supplied T-90S MBTs originally came with the 1A43 fire-control computer, 1G46 gunner’s laser rangefinder, IV528-2 digital ballistics computer (comprising BV-1 and BV-2 modules), 1V216-M1 correction input device, 1PM-96MT ESSA gunner’s thermal imaging sight (now being produced by the Dehru Dun-based Opto-Electronics Factory of the MoD-owned OFB), and the commander’s T01-K04 sighting/night vision system using the PK-5 stabilised sight-mounting.
The CVRDE-upgraded prototype of the T-90S has done away with the T01-K04 and substitutes it with the IRDE-developed and BEL-built commander’s panoramic sight (which houses a SAGEM-built MATIS-STD thermal imager operating in the 3-5 micron bandwidth), which has resulted in enhanced static visibility levels for both the gunner and commander. 
In addition, the IV528-2 digital ballistics computer has given way to an indigenous solution developed by TATA Power Strategic Electronics Division, while the IRDE-developed driver’s uncooled thermal imaging night sight has replaced the TVN-5 night-vision device. 
Furthermore, a DEAL-developed MMW-based IFF system has been installed for enhancing the MBT crew’s situational awareness. 
Lastly, the T-90S’ track-wraps have been indigenised by AMW-MGM Forgings Pvt Ltd, which has also developed tracks with metal/rubber-brushed parallel pin-jointed gearings, stamped track-links adapted to accept rubber pads, with steel needles on the track-pins providing conductivity and picking up static electricity from rubber-brushed pin-jointed gearings during movement. 

208 comments:

1 – 200 of 208   Newer›   Newest»
Anurag said...

@Prasun Da,
Very many THANX for these great informations.Wonder why don't the other so called defense jurnos follow your way to take the hard way instead of spreading their BS!!

By the way,my bad on the Arjun Mk3.Actually you had mentioned that foreign experts had specified use of the 140mm main gun,unmanned turret etc for FMBT-so why can't the DRDO develop the 140mm gun??It's technology should not be different than a 120mm gun!!

2.And yes,China may have developed many tanks but none of their models come close to the Arjun MkI in terms of both survivality and firepower.
a)They still keep their ammo inside carousel and every place available in the hull and turret making them death traps!You should know more well what happened to our T 72M1s in Sri Lanka!!
b)They still use much shorter two piece ammo because their carousel can't hold modern unitary rounds.

And one more thing-very littile facts I have known from authors like R.P.Hunnicut,Rolf Hilmes,Steve Zaloga and blogs like Gurkhan attacks,andrei bt-all agree on one fact.That the longer the projectile greater the penetration.

So how on earth Chinese claim of their Tu and DU ammo which hold projectile not longer that can penetrate 840mm and 960mm RHA when even Germans (with their DM 53 with 750mm long projfatile and Rheinmetal L55 combo) and Americans with their M 829A3 DU round with a 860mm long projectile do not claim!!

Anurag said...

SORRY,I wanted to say Chinese two piece rounds can't hold projectile longer than 640mm because they use same autoloader used in T 72 which after upgradation can hold only 640mm projectile and that's the length of penetrator used in Russia's latest 3BM 44M Lecalo FSAPDS T rounds.

Anonymous said...

Prasun do you have any info on Akash MK2 specifications. Will it be canister launched ?
With regard to the Akash mk1 launcher. Why is it mounted on a Tractor Trailer which is bulky and requires more maneuvering space. Can it mounted on the 8X8 Trucks from TATA or Leyland.

Pierre Zorin said...

Livefist wins award again- would be a great news but I always find one photo with a heading or a few photos with just a description - which part is the informative review that stands out I still am wondering about!I reckon he should change his name from Shiv Aroor to Sieve Alone!

spanky's Blog said...

Hi Prasun,
Recently saw that Livefist has won some defense blog award. Tht's not part which had me rolling in mirth. Look at the citation:

"Livefist quite simply stands out in a crowded sector of Indian focused blogs. Livefist breaks the mould providing up to date and informative views on the Indian Defence Sector which other Indian blogs sometimes overlook"

Surprisingly this is the blog which specializes in posting pictures only and sometimes it would be so kind to post a explanation for that picture. There is virtually no interaction with the readers and no questions are ever answered. I wonder how could such a blog win a award???

It says that it got award due to its informative views. My question is where are those views??Are the pictures in itself expressing some view which I am missing??? Broadsword is better than livefist atleast it write articles expressing views instead of pictures.
BTW why didn't your blog own the award??? this blog posts most informative and technical articles than any other.

Anonymous said...

The chinese mbt2000-ztz99 do not use the same auto-loader as T72. These (later versions) can also fire long-rod ammo as well. This was the reason that the base& turret of the chinese tank was changed.

Anonymous said...

sir,i read that the head of arjun program of cvrde was killed in a road accident while going to pokhran to witness arjun mk2 trials. quite sad indeed and a loss. Has he been killed by the arms mafia, interested in selling tin cans, as arjun mk2 was found to be good over t-90 and cant rule out ISI. Can you please post an investigative report on this matter?

Anurag said...

@anon 3:25pm,can you give any proof for your claim because all the evidence and pictures I have come to see so far suggests otherwise.The hull was changed to accomodate larger engines and fuel tanks.

Mr. Ra 13 said...

Thanx for the latest and detailed news. Now I think that the maximum speed of Nirbhay missile has to be no more than 0.7 Mach.

Also that you have rightly anticipated earlier that the developed technologies on Arjun Mk1A may be find their place on to T-90 development.

Anonymous said...

SO there is some turbofan powered UAV being developed by DRDO other than IUSAV?

Anonymous said...

The 20 kN engine seems to be a new effort indeed ... the one you have talked of here is a 4-5 kN engine for powering missiles ... There is 20 kN engine in the making at HAL for powering UAVs. I had seen something about them in the HAL-CONNECT. But can't open the same now.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To ANURAG: The suggestion was made by Russia when it was offering the joint development of the T-95 MBT in 2008. The Russian, Ukrainian & Chinese approaches to FMBT design is different from what India has chosen to follow (i.e. the Western approach). The former group is of the view that it is inevitable for their respective MBTs to be much heavier, have powerpacks going up to 1,800hp, and have main gun barrels with diameters of 135 or even 140mm. The Western & Indian approach is quite different in that the emphasis here is on fielding integrated vectronics suites that will include passive/active protection systems, & developing more efficient 1,500hp powerpacks while maintaining the existing 120mm barrel diameter, but instead increasing barrel calibre (like growing from L44 to L55). In case of the Arjun Mk2, adoption of a 120mm smoothbore gun is no longer in doubt, while the length of the barrel (calibre) is still the subject of deliberation among the designers at ARDE & TBRL.
Coming to China, one has to take note of certain core issues. One, unlike India which has access to fairly state-of-the-art vectronics-based technologies & propulsion systems, China does not (since June 1989) & therefore China has had to spend more on both homegrown R & D & industrial espionage to maintain technological parity with its contemporaries. Secondly, unlike India, China has since the early 1960s invested very heavily on homegrown weapons-related R & D—both fundamental & applied. Unlike India, China’s PLA has its own chain of R & D institutes & affiliated universities, all of which from the very outset are tasked to develop weapons that suit the PLA’s operational reqmts. In India’s case, the R & D efforts are never focussed from the outset since the armed services are very rarely made equal partners in weapons development projects, and the consequence of this flawed approach is that the civilian DRDO scientists/engineers have mostly been able to come up with technology demonstrators & that too very late.
Coming to MBT designs, while the earlier Type 59, Type 69, Type 80, Type 85 & Type 90 MBTs had adopted the carousel-mounted autoloader designs pioneered by the Soviets, all this changed with the advent of the Type 59P, Type 96G, Type 99G & now the ZTZ-99A2 MBT, all of which have a semi-automatic loader that is fed by the ammo bustle that is now both hull-mounted & turret-mounted in a far more secure manner. The same goes for the Russian ARMATA MBT & Ukraine’s FMBT design. The NORINCO-made APFSDS-T rounds now in service with Pakistan can at best penetrate 450mm RHA like Russia’s 3VBM17/3BM42 (3BM44), and has a muzzle velocity of 1,650 metres/second (see my older blog at: http://trishulgroup.blogspot.in/2008/11/pakistans-indigenous-arsenals-at-ideas.html) while NORINCO’s latest APFSDS-T unitary rounds using tungsten alloy KE penetrator rods can probably penetrate only 600mm, similar to the 3VBM19/3BM42M (3BM44M) which India is now acquiring, which has a muzzle velocity of 1,750 metres/second. For NORINCO’s unitary 125mm rounds that use DU-made KE penetrator rods, it is speculated that they can penetrate 650mm RHA.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Anon@1.04PM: The Akash Mk2 will in all probability have a range of 38km, & it wonl;t be cannisterised since the end-users want this missile to be adaptable to the existing launchers of the Akash Mk1 SAM round. The IAF version of the Akash Mk1 isn’t expected to engage in cross-country mobility since it is being deployed for base air defence & therefore, high-mobility vehicles aren’t required.

To Pierre Zorin & Spanky’s Blog: Blog selection for any kind of awards presentation is a subjective matter, since it all depends on the kind & quantity of entries ‘submitted’ & evaluated. Consequently, the list of contenders is by no means comprehensive. It is therefore like the deliverance of justice, for which what matters is not the emergence of truth but the quantum of facts presented. Therefore, the results of any such competitive selection process are quite meaningless. I certainly don’t bother about seeking or collecting or publicising such accolades as they don’t mean much at all, to say the very least, & also because I’m not in the business of hyperventilating broadcast journalism, which demands that its practitioners never lose any opportunuity to engage in chest-thumping & back-slapping proclamations of one-upmanship, no matter how outrageous they may be.

To Anon@9.50AM: Regretably, I’m neither an accident investigator for any insurance company, nor am I employed with the CBI or TEHELKA magazine. Also, you’re giving far too much credit to the ISI just as the ISI gives far too much credit to the R & AW for developments in Balochistan.

To Mr.RA 13: VMT. Will update the T-90S upgrade narrative above with new photos & data very soon.

To Anon@12.02AM: You bet. Let’s wait & see how this MALE-UAV evolves, & whether it has a single Laghu Shakthi turbofan or two such turbofans.

To Anon@12.30AM: You seem to have overlooked my mention of the Laghu Shakthi turbofan. The 20kN turbofan’s sought-after cooperative R & D venture—if it materialises—is being projected for a variety of uses, & is not UAV/USAV-specific, although the AURA could well be a candidate for its usage. The turbofan will be similar to the existing Honeywell TFE731 that powers the Hongdu K-8 primary trainer.

Anonymous said...

Hmmm, very interesting ... you understand that this new UAV has never been talked of before, either by DRDO or any media (leaving aside erroneous reporting my Neelam Mathews who said Rustom H is a MALE UAV flying with a 36MT engine :-)) ... if this is true, this will be breaking news!!!

AURA is supposed to be in the 15 Ton category, a 20 KT engine would be underpowered for this. Besides the engine for that has been identified to be a Kaveri-derivative (probably without the after burner). As far as I know, they have proceeded quite far based on a single engine concept.

However, this is an excellent range for 5-10 T UAV. Or for future trainers (as you have rightly identified). May be IJT re-engining or a future twin engined LIFT. Or who knows business jets and regional jets! (Okay, now I am dreaming ;-) )

Indranil Roy

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Indranil Roy: Hasn’t Rustom-H already been renamed as Rustom-2? The need for a turbofan-powered MALE-UAV first arose way back in early 2005 when both the IAF & IN had identified a definite reqmt for such a platform for their own respective operational profiles. The reasons were quite interesting: while the IAF wanted a theatre recce system for flying over high-altitude mountainous terrain (since the Army’s Nishants, Searcher Mk2s & Heron-1s and the IAF’s ex-Singaporean Searcher Mk1s were vulnerable to catastrophic losses when having to deal with cross-winds above 3 Knots), the IN found out through limited flight-trials that its Heron-1s & Searcher Mk2s were incapable of operating out of runways based in places like Port Blair & Car Nicobar due to much the same reasons the IAF-owned UAVs could not over mountainous terrain in northern J & K & North East India. Regarding AURA, the visuals released thus far do not make it appear to be in the 15-tonne category as yet, although it may in future morphe into one. Thus far, according to the GTRE officials I recently spoke to, no derivative of the Kaveri turbofan has been identified as the definitive powerplant of AURA. Rather, what was conveyed to me is that the AURA’s powerplant will be developed by imbibing the lessons learnt & capabilities acquired by the likes of GTRE, NAL & HAL whilst in the process of developing the existing Kaveri. Regarding the HJT-36 IJT, I don’t foresee a future replacement for the AL-55I. As for LIFT reqmts over & above what the Hawk Mk132 presently offers, I would much rather opt for a modified tandem-seat Tejas Mk1. While a TFE731-type powerplant would be suitable for business jets (but not for the larger 50-70-seat regional jets for sure), I have serious doubts about an India-developed & HAL-built turbofan ever being adopted for service by any reputable bizjet manufacturer, simply because HAL does not have any track-record of producing FAA-/EASA-certified airframes/engines. As far back as July 2005 I was told that the Dhruv ALH would obtain its EASA certification by 2007. Well, we all know what’s been happening since then on this front, don’t we?

Anonymous said...

Yes, Rustom-H already been renamed as Rustom-2. I was pointing out an error in reporting.

Regarding AURA, I agree that the visuals presented don't suggest a 15 T aircraft. But Dr. Prahlada (and a few more have been on record stating that MTOW). If they go for a Kaveri deriavative, that number seems right too. Kaveri being the core for AURA has been established many times. They have been studying it for a while and gave away prizes for distinguished research regarding the same. Besides, the raksha mantri has also said the same in the Parliament.

Regarding the HJT-36 IJT, I was not speaking of replacing the AL-55I from the current design (They are halfway through setting up the production line in Kanpur). I was speaking of refitting them during mid-life upgrades like what is happening on our Jaguars.

Agree with you on LIFT.

Agree with you on the business jet option.

Indranil Roy

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Indranil Roy: Appreciate your views, but at a time when even European aerospace giants (let’s not even consider the North Americans & China) have formed consortiums to develop a product like the Neuron UCAV that will have a MTOW of less than 10 tonnes, I can only conclude that anyone in India who’s intending to develop a homegrown USAV with 15-tonne MTOW and that too by trying to go it all alone is just having a pipedream unsupported by realism & logical reasoning. This has got all the hallmarks of yet another totally scientist-led technology demonstration project sans any kind of operational inputs from any prospective end-user. The same also applies to the prospect of developing a smaller, non-afterburning derivative of the Kaveri, since even the existing Kaveri’s flying life-cycle or TTSL has not been established, and is unlikely to be ever established, since it has been and will continue to be bereft of a manned flying platform—unless of course the DRDO first tries flying an existing Kaveri on a testbed like a specially configured Rustom-2 UAV. Consequently, in the absence of this turbofan not acquiring a certificate of airworthiness at all, it will be foolhardy on anyone’s part to try & develop a derivative, bigger or smaller. Hence the feelers now being aired about seeking international cooperation for co-developing a 20kN thrust turbofan (never mind if it is underpowered for a 15-tonne MTOW AURA, for the USAV’s design can always be modified to accept two turbofans—which is likely to be the argument put forth by the DRDO in all probability). As for what the RM said, this is what he stated in Parliament on March 21, 2012: “Kaveri spin-off engine can be used as propulsion system for Indian Unmanned Strike Air Vehicle”. Such a statement hardly confers any certainty about the Kaveri’s future prospects, for by the same token both you & me too can just as easily state to the world & my old friend Dr Pralhada that both the non-afterburning version of Honeywell’s F125 & Rolls-Royce’s Adour Mk871 (which by the way are fully flight-certified, as opposed to the Kaveri) too “can be considered” as viable contenders for powering the AURA.
As for considering this would-be 20kN thrust turbofan as an alternative to the AL-55I during future mid-life upgrades to the HJT-36 IJT (the IAF by the way has been maintaining a stoic silence for more than a year now about its procurement plans for this IJT), the AL-55I is of modular design & therefore as upgrade modules become available, they will be easily retrofitted without writing off the entire engine (as is the case with present-generation turboprops & turbofans). There is a specific clause to this effect concerning the future growth prospects of the AL-55I in the contract inked between HAL, NPO Saturn & Rosoboronexport State Corp.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Indranil Roy: This is what HALConnect’s Issue 13 states on page 3:
ETBRDC plans Design and Development of 20 KN Thrust Class Engine for Military/ Civil Applications
Potential application of Engine:
Military Trainer
Light Commercial Transport Aircraft
Business Jets / Private Jets
Military Transport aircraft
Light Compact aircraft
UAV/UCAV
Reconnaissance Drones

Now, has the ETBRDC already tied up with the DRDO for participating in the AURA USAV’s R & D programme? Or will it be a combination of GTRE & NAL who will take the lead role in developing the AURA’s powerplant? Or is HAL planning to come up with its own in-house USAV design in cooperation with a foreign strategic industrial partner & is it for this reason that it is proposing to develop a suitable turbofan for powering its own product, which could well compete with the AURA? We are after all in an era of competition where the best & cheapest party wins, & so if industrial entities can compete for supplying TCS networks or various types of 155mm field artillery howitzers or even fifth-generation multi-role combat aircraft like the FGFA & AMCA, then which not new-generation USAVs? Only after you’ve found answers to these questions will the reality of the AURA programme will emerge, rest assured.

Anonymous said...

Appreciate your views. I agree, there is too much in the realm of the future. And I, being in the public domain can only speculate :-).

However, I disagree with you on the difficulty of making 15 T USAV. If suitable propulsion is present, it is actually easier to build a 15 T USAV rather than a 5T- 10 T one. You just have a much bigger margin to play with. Both in terms of weight and internal space. Also, control laws would be easier to write.

Indranil

SK said...

Prasun on a off topic. You have mentioned in the previous thread that the IN has decided for Nuclear Propulsion on IAC-2. As you pointed out there are quite a few challenges to over come like
A) Developing a Nuclear Reactor.
B) If its a flat top carrier then the Catapult EMAL or steam either way has to come from United States. (They would probably sell them as China is on road to aquire carriers)
C) AWEC for the carrier E-2D aircraft (This was already offered)
D) Shipboard Navigation equipment and MLS landing aids etc etc.

Although possible to build this looks like a tall order with conservative estimates 2025 looks probable.

Or can IN take alternative approach (just throwing around a idea) like aquire 4-5 squadrons of shore-based improved Su-34 bombers.
IN can insist them to be able to carry 2 or 3 Brahmos Missiles, capability to air launch torpedos or Sonobuoys. These long range bombers supported by A330 MRTT and IAI Gulfstream G550 CAEW can almost effectively cover IOR region. Gorshkov or IAC-1 will never be used against shore based Pak locations, and IAC-2 with 40 MMRCA aided with 4 E-2D seems like a distant dream and expensive one. Is this alternate idea feasible ?

IN can base couple of these squadron on both Eastern and western Coasts. With these bombers and their volley attack of Brahmos capability engaging Chinese Carrier in IOR region will not prove difficult.

amey said...

Thanks for the brilliant job u r doing keep it going sir.
1. Any update on MiG-27 fleet ?
When it will be operational?

2. What guidance is konkur m?
SACLOS?

3.Has indegenous prod of su-30mki run into rough weather?
Wht r reasons for it?wht steps r being taken to streamline it?

4.Has initial batch of 50 su-30 started to being upg by irkut to super su std?

5.When will 1st of the other newly built 42 super su-30 will arrive in IND?

6. Are cbu-105 delivered to IAF?
thanks in adv!!!

Anonymous said...

why both shivalik and kolkata class destroyers will carry just 4× 4-cell klub or brahmos.Why just 16 ? similar kind of chinese destroyer will carry 32 vsls so why is the destroyer and frigate carrying similar quantity of weapons.

Mr. Ra 13 said...

What job is that the Su-34 can perform, but the MMRCA Rafale can not?

An Indian said...

Prasun Da,

-What is the status of manufacturing 1000 T-90S tanks in India..?How many actually has been built till date?

-With MBT Arjun Tank's Main Designer died recently in a road accident (A Truck crashed into the Car he was traveling in Rajasthan).

-What impact do you see this incident will reflect in Indian Tank Projects and Army's plan ?

-Do you think,now India may go for production of newly launched/displayed T-90 AM/SM instead of existing T-90 S Bhisma (As India already has an agreement to produce 1000 T-90 S Bhisma in India).

-I understood T-90 AM/SM has a better design (rather implemented western design for storage of Ammunition for better safety of crue if penetrated).

Regards,

Anonymous said...

Sir, the IN way back in the nineties evaluated and procured the Barak - 1 after Pakistan Navy bought a substantial no of Harpoon ASHM. The Barak was the only option left to the IN for intercepting those ASHM due to the arms embarago. Now, if the Barak-1 was incapable of intercepting Harpoon and other high subsonic ASHM, the IN would not have procured them in so large nos. There must be something. Why is IN still installing Barak-1 on its newly built ships when RAM, VL-MICA and ASRAAM are available? Is it because IAI has assured the Naval top brass that it is up to the mark and is capable of defeating all current subsonic ASHM . And when the Palma is available , why I the IN still going for the AK-630?

Unknown said...

Prasun can you tell me what Radar Warning & Locating System, if any, the Mig-29UPG, M2K-UPG, MKI, PAK-FA,MIG-27, LCA and Jaguar have in IAF service?


And do you expect IAC-2 to have EMALS? If so in the context of the F-35s consitent failings what a/c will IN most likely go for to operate off this ACC? Rafale-M?

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Indranil Roy: I really wish I could share your & HEADLINES TODAY's optimism regarding a futuristic 15-tonne USAV, but am unable to do so unless & until I can first see the DRDO delivering on its promise made two years ago to deliver the all-singing-and-dancing Rustom-1 UAV. Furthermore, I just don’t see the ready availability of a trained pool of skilled & experienced human resource personnel within the DRDO that can possibly undertake such a daunting R & D task, leave alone trying to develop a fifth-generation AMCA. If the Europeans, despite adopting a consortium approach a decade ago, are nowhere near to fielding an operational version of the nEUROn even today (while the US can do so within a period of four years starting from project conceptualisation to maiden flight), then I certainly do not expect a human resource-poor country like India to come up with a futuristic stealthy USAV even in the next decade.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To SK: What the IN’s HQ said way back in 2005 was that it wanted, for its future projected fleet of SSBNs & SSGNs, a lifelong PWR with an output of 200mW whose core does not have to replaced every 10 years (a highly cost-prohibitive exercise that has been acknowledged & admitted in public by the present CNS Admiral Nirmal Verma), as is the case now with the KLT-40C PWRs of the S-1/2/3/4, which were designed by Russia’s Afrikantov OKBM, fabricated by L & T, and designed to deliver 23.5 propeller mWe from the 82.5mW PWR. In response to the IN’s demand, the DAE stated that it will take 15 years to deliver a mature & fail-safe PWR design meeting the IN’s specs. The DAE began work on such a project in 2005, meaning only by 2020 will the first PWR prototype be available for installation on board the 20,000-tonne S-5 SSBN. Furthermore, in order to make it easier for the DAE, the IN has since then offered to the DAE the option of trying & testing a shipborne version of this PWR (a much easier task) & for this reason has PROPOSED that the IAC-2 be the first vessel to house the DAE-developed 200mW lifelong PWR. Only by 2016 will the DAE be able to confirm whether or not such a shipborne lifelong PWR can go on board the IAC-2. Therefore, the IN’s Naval Design Bureau has ceased all design work-related matters for the IAC-2. By 2016, I expect both India & the IN to formally ask the US for supplying the EMALS & up to four E-2D Hawkeye 2000s. If all this gets approved by the US, then by 2020 the IAC-2’s keel-laying could well take place.
Regarding the IOR area of responsibility, the reqmt is not for keeping an eye on the entire IOR, but only on the SLOCs that originate from the Horn of Africa & Hormuz Straits, pass through the IOR & go as far as the Singapore Straits. For this to happen, what’s reqd is a fleet of up to 24 P-8Is backed up by aerial refuelling tankers like the IL-476 (if Russia gets its act together & completes developing it) or even B.767-type platforms (the A330-200 MRTTs are more for supporting the IAF’s expeditionary power projection capabilities in support of UN deployments overseas & during multinational exercises overseas). Don’t forget that two OTH-R sites are also coming up along India’s eastern & western seaboards for persistent air/surface surveillance. There are several options for using INS Vikramaditya & INS Vikrant against Pakistan’s shore-based naval establishments aimed at neutralising the PN’s P-3Cs armed with AGM-84A Harpoons & the PAF’s to-be-acquired JF-17 Thunders armed with C-802A ASCMs (to replace the existing Mirage VPs armed with AM-39s). I don’t think even for a moment that the PLA Navy has any ambitions of engaging in any form of adventurism with its projected carrier battle groups anywhere in the IOR, just as the In never has any similar ambitions of sending its CBGs into the South China Sea. Even if a PLAN CBG does want to enter the IOR, it can do so only by transiting the Malacca Straits, in which case the OTH-R in southeast India & P-8Is out of Port Blair will easily track the CBG’s course land-launched BrahMos ASCMs from Indira Point or Car Nicobar will easily be able to block & nix the CBG’s entry into the Andaman Sea, Bay of Bengal or IOR. There’s thus no need for Su-34s or G-550 AEW & CS or Su-30MKIs armed with BrahMos scrambling from Kalaikunda or Car Nicobar.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Amey: No updates on MiG-27YPG, except that it proves my earlier point (made last year in an earlier thread) about the IAF making the wrong decision of not re-engining the MiG-27Ms with AL-31F turbofans. Spares for the R-29B turbofan are no longer available from anywhere else, and HAL stopped supporting the R-29Bs almost a decade ago. Konkurs-M is 2nd generation ATGM using SACLOS just like the Milan-2T. Local production of Su-30MKIs is running as it used to run since 2003. Super Su-30MKI project is still another two years away from taking off. HAL will begin delivering the 42 Su-30MKis only after 2016. CBU-105s will begin being delivered by the year’s end.

To Anon@7.34PM: The P-17 FFGs each carry only eight Klub-Ns. The P-15A DDGs each can carry 16 BrahMos. All PLAN DDGs carry only 16 ASCMs, be it C-802 or C-602. The PLAN’s FFGs carry only eight ASCMs.

To Mr.RA 13: On the contrary, the Rafale can perform a lot more than the Su-34, since the latter is not multi-role/omni-role, whereas the Rafale is & will remain so.

To An Indian: Only about 320 T-90S MBTs have been built from raw material stage by HVF. The present on-going user-trials, if successful, will see all these modifications (that I’ve listed above) being incorporated into all existing T-90S MBTs of the IA, as well as on those 200 more MBTs that are yet to be built. That’s why the present user-trials are extremely critical. Negotiations are now underway between the MoD & Rosoboronexport about the possibility of acquiring off-the-shelf some 300 T-90SMs from Uralvagonzavod JSC, and once this deal is inked & deliveries begin within 8 months, then the first 310 T-90S MBTs acquired in 2001-2003 will proceed for their mid-life overhauls-cum-upgrades, during which all the locally-developed modifications/upgrades (that I’ve highlighted above) will be incorporated into these 310 MBTs. No man is indispensible & while the Arjun MBT’s Chief Designer’s recent death is a tragic loss, it won’t adversely impact the MBT’s progression, since all design-related activities are carried out by a team, & not just one individual.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Anon@11.34PM: There are several other “latent” reasons why weapon systems are bought, like the decision to acquire the first eight Type 877EKM submarines from the USSR at a time when no one from the IN had projected even a reqmt for such SSKs, since the IN was quite happy to acquire as many as 16 Class 209/Type 1500 SSKs from HDW/IKL and that was the very reason the MoD had bought off all design rights (IPRs) for this particular SSK model. In the same way, all that the IAF wanted in the 1980s was a single type of MRCA capable of air superiority & ground attack, & the Mirage 2000 was the obvious choice. And yet, the MoD of the day not only drastically reduced the no of Mirage 2000s to be acquired, but instead ordered MiG-23MFs, MiG-23BNs, MiG-27Ms & MiG-28B-12s, which in turn became an unmitigated disaster for the annual defence budgets by 1989 and led to India’s virtual bankruptsy by 1990, while maintenance of the IAF’s operational readiness became a logistician’s worst nightmare and this nightmare persists till today. Sadly, all the members of Team Anna & the Baba Ramdevs suffer from memory loss/amnesia & no longer remember these ‘ghotalas’ of the 1980s. Even sadder is the craving among many more in India for a second line of SSKs, instead of supporting the obvious & most logical solution that calls for ordering 10 more Scorpenes that are fitted with Stirling engine-based AIPs. Why Stirling-based AIP? Because that’s the safest, cheapest & totally trouble-free AIP solution available today, which is why both Japan & Singapore along with Sweden have it in service, while China’s & Pakistan’s new Type 043 Qing-class SSKs too will have Stirling engine-based AIPs. In a new years, numerically speaking, there will be more Stirling engine-based AIPs operational on SSKs than all the other AI solutions (MESMA, or Ethanol-based or fuel cell-based plug-ins) put together.

To Unknown: MiG-29UPGs, MiG-27Ms, MiG-21 Bisons, Su-30MKIs, Tejas Mk1 & Jaguars all have the DARE-developed & BEL-built Tarang family of RWRs. FGFA will have a new DARE-developed & BEL-built RWR, while the Mirage 2000UPGs will have THALES-built RWRs.

Anonymous said...

Prasun Da,
Will the new 30 mm Guns that are being purchased for the Navy, will have capablity to destroy harpoon and C-802 type of missiles and guided bombs?

SK said...

Prasun many thanks for the reply. Its this situational awareness and common sense that sets you apart from the rest.

On a related track you have reported the sorry state of IAF Su-30 MKI operational preparedness. IAF has one long list of goofups with SU-30 to say the least.

a) Building shelters for the jets after a decade.
b) Absence of Flight training simulators
c) Which leads to more usage of planes, there by approaching the MTBO dates far sooner than scheduled.
d) Lack of sufficient numbers of cockpit procedures trainers & weapons part-task trainers, Absence of LIFT supersonic training planes (like the tandem-seat Tejas Mk1).
e) Failure to establish MRO facility till date. Leading to breaking up planes and shipping them to Russia for overhauling via Chinese Airspace.
f) No MAWS on board (To be rectified in the scheduled upgrade)

IAF Takes 5 YEARS !!! for a squadron to achieve full operational capability. If a professional force like IAF cannot optimally manage its assets leading to only 3 out of 7 squadrons to have full operational capability.....whats the point of multi-billion dollar acquisitions.

Could you please do a detailed article and send it to Indian News Media ? I felt doing the same but realized neither I have your credibility or in-depth knowledge. I understand you don't usually do such things but I believe it might make a difference (atleast we tried) Maybe one of the TRP hungry and glory seeking media will take fancy and hound the MOD-IAF to get their act right.

SK said...

"meaning only by 2020 will the first PWR prototype be available for installation on board the 20,000-tonne S-5 SSBN"

I believe the "20,000 tonne" is a typo error.

So DAE has started developing a 200 mw reactor. There is no news anywhere regarding this. Will DAE be able to make a life time reactor ? Even the present French reactors have to re-fueled once in their entire life. Can Indian institutions come up with such 4th gen tech for Nuclear reactors.

Anonymous said...

I have to clear a few doubts :

1) http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_o_no4M2xEPY/TVKdj9bNhBI/AAAAAAAAMhw/BQpfFReHy3U/s1600/DSC07240-718724.JPG

So this model of Rustam is wrong ? Will there be 2 turbofan used in Rustam or one ?

2)How much launchers will be there in 8 regiments of QRSAM cleared recently ?

3)So is it finalized that IAC-2 will be nuclear powered ?

4) Will there be only 1 20000 ton SSBN (S5) ?

F said...

Prasun,

Does Link Y have enough bandwith to
enable FLIR imagery from the RMNs Super Lynxs, to be displayed in real time on the Lekiu and Kedah class?

It was reported some time back that the South African Navy's MEKO frigates and the South African Air force's Gripens have been fitted with Link Y to enable the sharing of data. In your opinion, at some point in the future, will the RMAF adopt a common data link to fit on the Hornets, MKMs and whatever MRCA is ordered?

Anonymous said...

give some information about Air Force Net
(AFNET)

KSK said...

Regarding news about India developing indigenous unmanned stealth bomber IUSAV....y so much excitement its not even on the drawing board!!!
We r still struggling to produce a full 4th gen fighter ....
I dont know if it is optimism or stupidity???
I think it would be better if we join the European nueron or Talorian projects instead of doin it on our own.
we should also try to tag along the americans or the russo-israeli ucav project.

KSK said...

The info thru comments is excellent thank you for the effort.
Issue of buying 2nd line of SSKs is troubling .. earlier u said that IN is looking to terminate it instead focus on SSNs .. is that still true?

One can understand why India bought Migs at the time...friendly relations with the 'once' superpower could not be overlooked.

Could you do wat SK requested at 1.02PM ?
It seems that only shaming MOD thru media will make them act

Anonymous said...

Can PLAN ships take a different to Indian Ocean without using Malacca Straits. For example using Lombok and Makassar Strait into Timor Sea there by arriving from the south into Indian Ocean

sntata said...

Dear Prasun, thanks a lot for very enlightening post on ongoing development of various engines for UAVs and aircraft and also sub-systems for tanks. A lot of my were clarified. But it is not clear which of these engines is going to power Nirbhay. Also I want you to clarify what the acronyms - APU and RWR stand for [forgive my ignorance]. And what is a cruise missile simulating drone?

Anonymous said...

http://alert5.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/195739za1o13b0i4r40srr-500x448.jpg

Shenyang’s new fighter? Any info

Mr. Ra 13 said...

Any problems with the SPYDER missile, if it is fitted atop a Czech Tatra truck.

Unknown said...

Prasun,

do you know what kind of fire fighting equipment is present at IAF bases (big and small) one would hope it was modern and very capable given the ever increasing value of IAF purchases such as very advanced fighters and the like so such assets have to be protected from such basic things as fires.


Most major AAI adminstered airports in India have well trained and well trained ARFFs with very advanced equipment like Roesnbaur 6x6 in the like.

Simarliy how well are IAF bases protected in terms of electronically (motion sensors/CCTV/Electric fences) and physically (patrols/dogs/guards) especially the most sensitive equipmet like AWACS and SIGNIT a/c. Aren't these well protected?

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Anon@10.28AM: Absolutely not.

To SK: I’m certain your suggestion is extremely well-intended, but regrettably, India’s mass-media generally trends to thrive upon illogical sensationalism, for instance by alleging that TATRA HMVs are obsolete, when in reality they’re not & the only thing wrong with the whole deal was that it was BEML that has since 1986 failed to create the reqd localised depot-level MRO facilities, which in turn has affected the availability & serviceability of such HMVs. A more recent instance is that about the former COAS Gen (ret’d) V K Singh, about whom most retired former Army officials had expressed very high regard. What all these officers along with various ‘desi’ mass-media entities have not revealed/disclosed/admitted is that ALL armed services chiefs of India have, since the early 1990s been LYING to the Indian public about the state of the armed forces’ operational preparedness. Gen V K Singh was no exception & while on one hand he declared on January 14 this year on Army Day-eve that the Indian Army was capable of defending India against all forms of external threats, this very COAS next proceeded to brief the Indian PM on March 11 about the Army’s glaring deficiencies & unpreparedness (this is a purely common-sense issue about which the ‘desi’ mass-media is still asleep & unaware)!!! Could he not explain all this to the citizens of India on January 14 itself, instead of giving false assurances??? Most regrettably, he is not alone in giving such false assurances, & his colleagues from the IAF & IN too are guilty of spreading falsehoods. That’s why the CNS of the IN still refuses to acknowledge that assuming the role of primary coastal security provider post-26/11 has posed an enormous drain on the IN’s financial & human resources, resulting in the INS Kolkata & INS Kamorta not yet being handed over to the IN for their sea trials! Therefore, it won’t serve any purpose for singling out only the IAF for the shortcomings. Also, the present-day ills plaguing the IAF are the results of the havoc unleashed by the govts of the 1980s, which totally messed up the planned planned/intentioned force modernisation plans of the three armed services (I’ve already highlighted two such instances above, these being the MRCA & SSK procurements). What therefore needs to change is not merely the intentions of folks like ‘Saint’ A K Antony, but the very mindset of the govt in power. Most sadly, time & again the ‘desi’ mass-media entities go into tangents, instead of focussing on such core issues & refusing to bring to light the glaring mistakes of the past.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Anon@2.55AM: That scale-model of the Rustom-2 MALE-UAV is not wrong. It was only my personal suggestion that the DRDO ought to modify this design into a turbofan-powered MALE-UCAV & develop a non-afterburning version of the Kaveri turbofan for powering such a UCAV. This an approach similar to the one adopted by US-based General Atomics while developing the Avenger UCAV from the existing Predator/Reaper’s airframe. 8 Regiments of QR-SAM haven’t been cleared for procurement, only three. No of launchers will be the same as that on extsting SpyDer-SR Regiments. IAC-2 will be nuclear-powered ONLY IF the DAE is able to develop a 200mW PWR before 2020.

To FARIS: Bandwith availability is not about data-links, which will always continue to evolve & grow. Instead, it is about the bandwidth & frequency spectrum allocations of a particular country or region for civil/military telecommunications purposes. That’s why the world over, when it comes to terrestrial communications for all armed forces, the focus has been on extending fibre-optic networks so that the spectrum availability for wireless telecommunications remains appreciable for both civilian and military users. LINK Y has enough bandwidth available for wireless datalinking for voice, imagery & data exchanges. Before the RMAF can obtain data-links capable of communicating with the RMN & Malaysian Army, the first step to be taken ought to be the establishment of a network-centric tactical comms system now being developed by THALES/SAPURA.

To Anon@8.03PM: Did that months ago when In created the thread on the IAF’s IACCCS.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To KSK: If course it is sheer stupidity, especially to claim (by HEADLINES TODAY) that the first AURA USAV prototype will be flying within the next three years!!! Anybody with the slightest modicum of knowledge about UCAV operations will easily realise that the first elementary step to be taken in this direction is NOT the designing & prototyping of a UCAV (which by the way, if HEADLINES TODAT is to be taken seriously, looks remarkably similar to the SCAT from Russia’s UAC), but the creation of three vital capabilities/capacities: firstly, availability of dedicated MIL-STD telecoms satellites (like the Navy’s GSAT-7); secondly, the creation of a constellation of GPS navigation satellites like the projected IRNSS; and thirdly a policy formulation & enunciation by both the DGCA & the IAF on the management of airspace usage un order to achieve deconfliction of air navigation routes for manned civil/military aircraft & unmanned aerial vehicles. At a time when only baby-steps have been taken by India towards acquiring MIL-STD telecoms satellites & the IRNSS constellation, it is wildly outrageous for anyone to claim that the IAF wants stealthy UCAVs to become available by 2020 at a time when even the Europeans are finding it hard to overcome certain UCAV-related technological hurdles & core airspace management issues.
Regarding the brazen procurement of MiG-23MFs, MiG-23UBKs, MiG-23BNs, MiG-27Ms & MiG-29B-12s, what ought to be noted here is that post-independence India has traditionally been possessed with the idea of how to make the world a better place through ill-conceived notions of non-alignment & Panchsheel, instead of being possessed with the idea of making India a safer, more secure & better nation. Regarding SSKs, the IN does want to stick to SSKs in addition to clamouring for new-build SSGNs, but when it comes to SSKs, it has informed the MoD that its preference is for a proven SSK equipped with AIP modules of proven design, i.e. additional Scorpenes equipped with Stirling engine-type AIP.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Anon@10.53PM: Yes, the PLAN can, which is exactly why the IN will have two OTH-R stations along its eastern & western seaboards for long-distance monitoring of such naval movements. Either way, the entry into the IOR by any CBG-led task force of the PLAN won’t be able to retain the element of surprise.

To SNTATA: Firstly, let’s answer your as as-yet unanswered query in another blog about what powers the Rustom-1 UAV. It is a Lycoming engine rated at 160hp. Secondly, the HAL-developed mini-turbofan (first poster/visual above on this thread) will power Nirbhay. APU stands for auxiliary power unit, while RWR stands for radar warning receiver. A cruise missile-simulating drone is used as a surrogate target for simulating the terrain-hugging flight-profile of a cruise missile so that air-defence gunnery crew can hone their interception skills, whereas drones like the existing Lakshya are used for simulating the flight-profiles of low-flying combat aircraft.

To Anon@11.33PM: That’s not a new stealthy combat aircraft, but a new carrier-based variant of the L-15 Falcon LIFT now being developed for use with the PLAN’s Varyag/Shi Lang aircraft carrier.

To Mr.RA 13: No problems at all from a technical standpoint, but there’s a question mark regarding its serviceability, as I’ve explained above to SK.

To Unknown: I haven’t seen any imported firefighting vehicles on any IAF air base, although the firefighting kits are sometimes of foreign origin. As for perimeter protection, that’s well taken care of.

Anonymous said...

Prasun da,
I beg to disagree on your comment that the feigned neutral policy of India towards superpowers was wrong. Infact NAM served a purpose of independent foreign policy. Do you think that we should have sided with the Nato powers? I think with such a huge population we would have been a fifth world among the bigwigs. Just see the nations which aligned with the powers, almost none of them have an independent stand of theirs and still feel threatened be it S.Korea, the Gulf nations or even Japan, not forgetting our siamese twin the Pakistan which failed utterly. The nations which sided with the Soviet block were even worse, with even the successor nation Russia struggling. China is possibly the only nation which got it big from siding with the superpower, that too because of an early split. Now a very disciplined (by force ofcourse) China with its radical experiment (which proved successful though at a price of million deaths) is noway comparable to a democratic country with its weakness. In that way India which became one of the self claimed leader of NAM (which passed shelf life) could save the calamity of running as laboratory of coldwar.

In my view we are still weak nation because we lack self confidence which ought to have come from motivation. As British ones said, we are the best servants in the world, not good masters.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To SK: No typo error. If you take a look at the artist’s impression of the S-5 (from the NPOL brochure) that I had posted before, you’ll realise that the S-5 is designed to accommodate 12 SLBMs, each of which will have a range of between 6,500km and 8,000km & therefore to accommodate such missiles, the missile silo will have to breech the SSBN’s 10-metre high pressure hull (like those on the Soviet-era Delta-3/4 SSBNs). The design of the S-5 was ‘bought’ by India from Russia & the contract to this effect was inked on January 20, 2004, the same day India signed the $1.5 billion agreement for procuring the modified/upgraded Admiral Gorshkov. There won’t be any publicly available news about the new 200mW PWR being designed/developed by the DAE simply because this is an entirely new area on which in-house expertise (concerning both reactor physics & reactor engineering that is fail-safe from a nuclear safety standpoint) has never existed. One must take note that the DAE had tried four times since 1978 to try to re-engineer a 1971-era West German PWR & had totally failed by 1986. Hence the decision taken in 1989 to seek the KLT-40C PWRs for the S-1/2/3/4 from the USSR, which were designed by Russia’s Afrikantov OKBM. The R & D problems that need to be adressed by the DAE now are two-fold: First, designing a lifelong PWR (which can be refuelled with new fuel-rods any number of times) from a reactor physics standpoint; & secondly designing a lifelong reactor core from a reactor engineering standpoint. The latter means that the entire reactor vessel housing the core will not be required to be taken out & replaced with a new one—a process that is cost-prohibitive since no one in India possesses the reqd shore-based infrastructure to undertake such work. The KLT-40C PWRs’ reactor vessels housing the reactor core on S-1/2/3/4 will ALL have to be physically removed after they’ve completed 10 years of service, meaning that the pressure hulls of the S-2/3/4 will ALL have to ripped apart & re-assembled after the new reactor vessel/core has been installed. Lastly, the KLT-40C’s usage efficiency in submerged conditions has not yet been established and until that happens, no one can be sure of even the 10-year lifespan figure of this PWR that has been quoted by the Russians.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Anon@6.56AM: If India was indeed non-aligned, then she would never have openly & publicly invited the US for taking responsibility of her air-defence against the PRC post-October 1962. The façade of India’s no-aligned posture thus came down crashing in October 1962 itself. Non-alignment means maintaining equidistance from either of the world’s superpowers during the Cold War era, something which India never adhered to after the 1962 Sino-Indian War, & even more so after August 1971 after inking the India-USSR of Peace, Friendship & Cooperation. In stark comparison, two countries—China & the former Yugoslavia—never inked such agreements & never joined either NATO or the Warsaw Pact. If any country can be truly labelled as being practicioners of non-alignment, then to me they are China & the former Yugoslavia under Tito. Do you still think India has an independent stance on most of her foreign policy issues especially after India has complied with the US’ wish for steadily reducing crude oil imports from Iran? In what way then is India better than a South Korea or Japan?

Anonymous said...

I am anon@6.56

yes I agree that the entire facade of NAM fell very early and hence i purposefully used 'feigned'. More than the defense aspects it was more with the food import which was actually driving India to a kind of subservience to the West. A particular phrase 'ship to mouth' has its origin from the fact that India's import of wheat from US was so tight that entire shipload virtually was not even enough for the mouths in India. Fortunately the green revolution worked for us.
so the initial dilly dalliying with West was abandoned (65s US inaction to curtail Pakistan another factor) and a more of gambling of cards were used with West and Soviet bloc. The peace and friendship treaty should be read in the background of a more belligerant Nixon administration and fear of China. Even among all these India stood its ground on what ever feeble feet it got by not actively entering the Afghan war of USSR(though in background India supported it). Thus while Korea or many of Western allies were bound to quid pro quo India was not. Czeckslovakia again fell as the laboratory of cold war, blame it on the boundary of Soviet and Western forces. You cannot say China was independent in its foreign policy atleast till the sinosoviet split, and they turned out to be gainers.

Even till date Japanese forces are named self defence forces, when they have one of the most formidable force in Asia. Can you cite any major weapon systems any of the allies have which is from outsided their allied system?

Iran is an important question not only for West but for India too. Can India antagonize the gulf countries ignoring the millions of Indians in those countries and support Iran. A too strong Iran is not in India's interest.
India has substancial independence in foreign policy a matter which was reiterated by a) nuclear test b)having caveats in nuke deal c) rejecting US/Russian fighters to name a few.

so while in democratic terms India is more emulating West (with which it has many sharing properties like English speaking, democracy)in socialistic terms we emulate eastern bloc.

As for China, it could withstand implosion (due to internal troubles) because of iron hand. Do you wish to see India in those shoes? i wish otherwise. Had India tried that way we would have had many republics representing us.

Anonymous said...

" That scale-model of the Rustom-2 MALE-UAV is not wrong. It was only my personal suggestion that the DRDO ought to modify this design into a turbofan-powered MALE-UCAV & develop a non-afterburning version of the Kaveri turbofan for powering such a UCAV."
If the Rustam team start chasing turbofan now, then the project will get delayed till 2020. Putting turbofan in plan of turboprop change the whole thing. Right now best move for them is to work on turboprop like predator while let aura team to work on turbofan. After turboprop is done by 2015-16, they can start working on turbofan with the help of AURA team, while AURA team according to me will in the first few years will concentrate not much on design parameter but the take-of, landing and flight control. When Rustam-2 is complete, Rustam-2 can share other parameters of a fully operational UAV with AURA team.

What i am trying to say is AURA team can let other issues upto Rustam team while they concentrate of landing, take of and flight control. Believe me landing and flying a UAV at a speed of Mach 0.8 will be a pain in the ass and alot of accident will happen. Flight control computer programming itself will be mind boggling. Dude everything, ever sensor will have to work on itsef, it will be a engineering beauty.

Anonymous said...

Why is every news agency saying that MOD cleared the purchase of 8 regiments of QRSAM and 14 Dronier and sniper rifle for IA while you are saying only 3 regiments are cleared ?? Are they wrong ??

Anonymous said...

Hi, has the MoD given nod for procuring another 8 regiments of QR-SAM other than the 3 regiments of Spyder-SR already in service.
"Saturday, June 23, 2012India Begins $2.2-billion QR-SAM Procurement Effort
The Indian government has cleared the way for a massive procurement effort for quick-reaction surface-to-air missiles (QR-SAMs) to arm eight air defence regiments of the Indian Army. The missiles are intended to replace obsolete Soviet air defence systems, most of which are unserviceable anyway......I hear that MBDA has competition from the Rafael-IAI SpyDer, an upgraded version of Raytheon's MIM-23 Hawk or modified SLAMRAAM and the Russian TOR M1 9M330.

The Army, as I reported a year ago, is looking for a QR-SAM system with a reaction time of six seconds or less, with an engagement range of 9-15 km at altitudes of not less than 6 km. It's looking for a weapon that delivers a single shot kill probability (SSKP) of at least 70% for a single missile fired, and 85% for a salvo shot involving two missiles. The missile also needs to be able to threats moving at speeds ranging from 0 km/h (a hovering helicopter) to 500 m/s on fast jets. The Army is hoping for systems that deploy missiles that have ECCM capabilities and compatibility with vehicles currently in use. " As read at Livefist. If this is inded true it will be a major boost to the Army's air defense capabilties.

Anonymous said...

Sir,why isnt the IAF buying standoff long range air-ground tactical miisiles, inertially guided glide bombs equipped with IIR,MMW seekers for terminal guidance. When the PAF has purchased & license produced large no of Denel Raptor -2 glide bombs in two variants-one with 65 km range and other with 120 km range, why arent the IAF doing the same? There is developing a huge gap in air-ground capability with the IAF. Most of the air-ground weapons the PAF is employing are all standoff PGMs.
When will the IAF order such munitions in huge nos? Is the DRDO developing any sort of glide bomb?
We donot have 200 km+ range AG missiles. What the IAF has is laser guided Kh-29 with a 10-12 km range and AS-30 also having 12 km range. These weapons have become obsolete in today's battlefield sprawling with SAMs. And these AGM"s employment greatly reduces the survivabilty of the launch platform.(In fact, the launch ac will most certainly fall prey to either AAA or SAM as nowadays all point defense SAMs have a range excedding 12 km.
Also the IAF has a poor inventory of ARM both in terms of quality and quantity. The ALARM & Kh-31P ought to procured in large nos.

Infact the PAF is quickly gaining upon the IAF. It possess a larger no of AWACS,and now it has an appreciable lead in the field of standoff precision strike.

The IAF ought to seriously think about these matters and take steps to address them before its too late.

Anonymous said...

is the"AURA" and the so called IUSAV the same project.jst confirming ...
also is the SU-30 MKI beter than the EUROFIFGTER TYPHOON

Anonymous said...

IS TEJAS MRCA really a technological advancement w.r.t. other fighter a/c of world lyk gripen ,j-17????

SK said...

Prasun, Many thanks for the replies. Based on your info S-5 requires to overcome quite a few challenges. India took quite a long time to make the Arihant, that too with the Submarine & Reactor design/assistance from Russia.

If my understanding is correct then For S-5 the navy has only acquired the Submarine design from Russia leaving the Nuclear Reactor to be designed, developed & tested by India. This will be another long time consuming process......will any Russian help be sought to validate the reactor designs ?

Like the S-1/2/3/4 Russian equipment is bound to go on-board the S-5. Any idea on the Combat management System on-board S5 ?


And then there is the yet to be launched Agni-5/6 SLBM with 6000-8000 km range. To mature all this technologies and to install them in one platform the ETA will be around 2025+.

Kudos to you, no where else it is mentioned that IN bought the designs for the S5 from Russia.

Will this same reactor be used for the IN proposed SSGN's ? Or will a different one be developed with French Assistance.

Shankar D Singh said...

Hi Prasun ,

I am an engineer with the IAF . According to you what are the technologies that the armed forces ( army, air force , navy) must immediately invest in .

Regards,
S D Singh

Anand said...

Hi Prasun,

Whats all these news about Delhi and Mumbai coming under BMD cover?Is the current BMD system even fully matured to protect these cities?And finally who have ordered them and who will operate them?

Regards,

Anand.

Mr. Ra 13 said...

On the channels I am finding the comments going on between the prime requirement of Missiles Vs Toilets.

In the worst case if the ChinoPak make first strike against us, then are we supposed to hide in these toilets or are we expected to retaliate with the Toilets.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Anon@8.50AM: “Fortunately the green revolution worked for us.”----it worked precisely because of the tireless efforts of US scientists/institutions like Dr Norman E Borlaug and the Ford Foundation.
“Even till date Japanese forces are named self defence forces, when they have one of the most formidable force in Asia. Can you cite any major weapon systems any of the allies have which is from outsided their allied system?”-----the Mitubishi F-1 combat aircraft, which was a re-engineered version of the SEPECAT Jaguar, Oerlikon Contraves’ Skyguard 35mm air-defence system, to name a few.
“Can India antagonize the gulf countries ignoring the millions of Indians in those countries and support Iran?”-----Can you confirm if China has reduced its intake of crude oil from Iran by even one barrel? China has much more economic relations at stake with Arab countries than India has.

To Anon@9.17AM: The Rustom-2 is not planned as a turboprop-powered MALE-UAV, but Rotax engine-powered. Also, as I’ve stated above, I just am not convinced about the ability of DRDO to mobilise the number of skilled human resources & finances reqd for developing such a USAV, let alone trying to come up with the reqd number of terrestrial flight-test support infrastructure. It is totally futile talking about a USAV’s flight-control R & D efforts unless & until a credible MIL-STD satellite-based telecommunications system is put in place. Mind you, the same limitation applies to the Rustom-2 as well.

To Anon@9.20AM: They’re saying that because they’ve overlooked the details, within which the devil always lurks. Only three regiments will be acquired during the years 2012-2017, while the remaining five are due for allocation between 2018-2022. Therefore, since funding is allocated only on a five yearly basis in India, only those regiments due for procurement between 2012 & 2017 will be funded.

Ti Anon@11.37AM: Raytheon’s MIM-23B I-Hawk is a MR-SAM with 40km-range & as such is not on offer. Of all the systems on offer, only the SpyDer-SR offers 100% compatibility with vehicles currently in use.

Ti Anon@12.12PM: That’s not happening because the IAF has adopted the path of capability-based force modernisation, instead of threat-based force modernisation. Let’s hope the HAL-developed turbofan can throw open possibilities for developing a family of turbofan-powered CALCMs.

To Anon@12.46PM: The Eurofighter EF-2000’s sensor fusion capabilities are superior to those of the Su-30MKI.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To SK: There won’t be any Russian assistance regarding new-generation PWR technologies for the S-5. Consequently, deployment of the S-5 with its complement of SLBMs capable of reaching the Chinese hinterland is at least 15 years away. By then an indigenous combat management system will be available. A DAE-developed PWR destined for the S-5 can also go on board a SSGN, and that’s why the IN has requested the Govt of India to open channels of communications with the French so that certain critical French technologies related to nuclear safety can be obtained in order to shorten the R & D timeframe for the PWR now being designed by the DAE, & in return India can consider the option importing the hull design of the Barracuda SSN for licenced-manufacturing , i.e. an arrangement similar to that struck between France & Brazil. And that’s precisely why DCNS was showcasing its Barracuda SSN during DEFEXPO 2012 late last March. This is exactly why it is very important to keenly observe what’s being displayed/highlighted during such trade expos, as opposed to just wandering around like clueless headless chicken & then pronouncing DEFEXPO 2012 as being the most boring ever & lackluster!!! (LoLz)

To Anand: In order to find the answer, one just has to read the report carefully & the illogic will then be clearly evident. What this ‘desi’ reporter has done is create a story from a non-story & has in the process put the cart before the horse. For instance, the report first states that “ The detailed proposal is being prepared for final clearance from the Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS)”. And then comes the whammy, which is: “The strategic planning has already begun to install the defence system in the two cities and the final proposal will be put before the government after detailed analysis of the entire project, sources said”. It is elementary logic that unless the CCS clears any proposal, the Defence Acquisitions Council (DAC) can’t authorise any funding for the project& consequently, when funding is unavailable, hardware procurement doesn’t take place. Therefore, any talk of installing any kind of defence system is pure balloney. In any case, the BMD’s phase-1 is only a tech demonstration project, while phase-2—involving the development of PFV & AAD-1/2 interceptors—will be the definitive operational version of the BMD. Therefore, before phase-2 is concluded by 2016 (as promised by the DRDO), no operational deployment of any component of the BMD will commence.

To Mr.RA 13: Really? On which channel?

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Shankar D Singh: It is not just technologies alone, but infrastructure as well. This is a topic that requires a long explanation, but to cut a long story short, these are what’s reqd:
1) In India all military R & D projects are initiated & run by civilian scientists/technocrats, & as a result end up being terminated as mere technology demonstration efforts. In China, Israel, Russia & the US, in stark contrast, such projects are initiated & driven by the armed forces and therefore the R & D objectives are always result-oriented from the very outset. There is therefore a strong need for the Secretary of DRDO to report & be answerable to the HQ Integated Defence Staff (IDS) instead of reporting to the Defence Minister.
2) Future wars will be aerospace-based, i.e. the side with superior space-based assets (like GPS navigation satellites, MIL-STD telecoms satellites & ballistic missile early warning satellites &overhead recce satellites will be able to score decisive wins in the arenas of both conventional warfare as well as irregular sub-conventional proxy wars & cyber warfare. Therefore, there ought to be a HQ IDS-driven tri-services synchronisation & orchestration of efforts to gain supremacy in aerospace-based technologies & platforms.
3) Utmost importance ought to be accorded to acquiring core technological competencies in areas like network-centric sensor fusion (for removing the fog of war & improving battlespace situational awareness & also for developing dual-/tri-mode terminal sensors for precision-guided munitions), battlespace ELINT/SIGINT, and synchronised flight operations involving manned combat aircraft as well as UAVs/UCAVs.
4) For all this to happen, HQ IDS will need to play the decisive role in ensuring that the armed services are not engaged in standalone efforts that stand the risk of being duplicated. For instance, the reason the Army is not network-centric today is because the BMS, BSS, F-INSAS & TCS projects are all being run & controlled by different Directorates at Army HQ, like the Signals, Artillery, Information Systems, & Infantry. None of these DGs have been able to agree on common user/operator protocols, following which only confusion has reigned. What’s reqd to sort out this mess therefore is an apex multi-disciplinary body which can design & implement common-user protocols, which will also enable the software-defined comms systems of all three armed services to become enmeshed in a seamless manner, so that everyone’s communicating with one another effortlessly. Presently, this isn’t happening, as each of the three armed services has its own comms protocols/systems that can’t exchange voice/imagery/data with one another.
5) To try out & implement all of the above, the armed forces need to set up a unified tri-services National Wargaming Centre. As for the IAF, it also needs to set up a dedicated experimental flight-test facility somewhere in India’s southern peninsula, so that all the existing institutions like the ASTE and HAL’s National Flight-Test Centre (which ought to be IAF-owned & not HAL-owned) can co-exist under one roof in a single location, i.e. something like the USAF’s Edwards AFB & Russia’s Gromov Flight-test R & D facility in Zhukovsky. It is here that facilities for measuring the RCS of various manned/unmanned aerial platforms can also be performed on 1:1 scale-models (something which is non-existent today).

Anonymous said...

Ofcourse we are reaping the benefits of both Western and Eastern blocs efforts. But my point is that had we relied only on one, we would have had more difficulties. A kind of self sustenance (of course a 'kind of'). India's problems require Indian solutions even though it is conceived elsewhere. In most aspects it is neither comparable nor desirable to emulate China (i hope you didnt forget China is a P-5 nation expected to have independent stance, which often they do, where as our voice rarely is heard outside the regional sphere if at all)
In a nutshell by feigning the NAM served us a purpose though it is outdated now. A lot could have been accomplished and need to, but what we gained is not to be forgotten.

Anonymous said...

It is totally futile talking about a USAV’s flight-control R & D efforts unless & until a credible MIL-STD satellite-based telecommunications system is put in place.

Who told you that ?? Under controlled condition you can do anything. I am talking about take-of, landing and testing flight computers and algorithms for various tasks at limited height and for a small duration of time. You can call it lab test. I wold love to work on this project if i could get a chance.

Anonymous said...

Traditional PWR Nuclear reactors pose quite a few hurdles when it comes to installing them in Submarines.
Is any one trying to develop the Molten Salt Nuclear reactors for Submarines ? They don't have a solid core, so no need to break open a submarine to change the reactor core. India does have a considerable R&D in Thorium based reactors, investing some time and money in Molten Salt reactor can prove beneficial to both Civilian and Military use. If PWR development work is done on a 15 year time-frame then such options should also be pursued.

Anonymous said...

@Anon 9-38AM
Your comment indicates that you're most likely a DRDOwallah obsessed with tech demos/lab tests that can at best only withstand the rigours of controlled conditions, but never of operational conditions. Good luck with your tinkering for as long as you do that at your own personal expense, and not at the Indian taxpayer's expense!!!!!!!

Mr. Ra 13 said...

Toilet Vs Missile:

http://news.oneindia.in/2012/06/24/no-use-launching-agni-missiles-if-no-toilets-ramesh-1024197.html

Anonymous said...

Sir, I an anon atJune 24, 2012 12:12 PM. Even if the IAF is going for capability based modernisation instead of threat based modernisation, the procurement of such air-ground weapons, CALCM, ARM, glide bombs & long range standoff PGMs, will greatly enhance the ground attack capabilty, which at the present moment is almost non-existent,uses obsolete tech and uses tecchniques which are suitable for attacking ground targets in the 80s. The present air to ground capability is centered on a 1980s war and doesnot take into heed the largescale proliferation of all sorts of air-defence weapons -AAA,QR-SAM,MR-SAM,LR-SAM.The planners at IAF HQ cant even imagine the huge attritional losses to its present fleet of combat ac during any regional conflict given the poor stock of AGM and lack of a descent self defensive EW suite,IADS on its strike fleet.

Sujoy Majumdar said...

Prasun Da ,

The IAF had laid out 600 technical parameters for the various fighters in the MMRCA selection program . For the benefit of your readers will you plz state what are these 600 technical parameters.

accidental loser said...

K prasun, i agree with u tht nearly every LOH/LUH has skid gear arrangement, but why also every Medium or Heavy helo hv got a landing gear typ arrangement!!!!! Anyway, leave the topic.
http://img144.imageshack.us/img144/9285/bulpupinsasbg2.gif
wht's ths pic.?????????????

Mr. Ra 13 said...

The bulpup Insas if otherwise successful must be formidable. Good Luck!

Anonymous said...

Prasun can a AC-130 gunship suitably modified be used against pirates. India is presently using expensive warships for constabulary duties escorting ships near the Somalian coast. Instead of this Indian Navy can deploy UAV's to monitor the ships and when a threat is detected, AC-130 gunships on standby based in Maldives or Seychelles can takeoff to engage the pirate ships. The 105mm canon may not be needed so it can be replaced with other suitable equipment. It can airdrop a few commandos with rigid hull inflatable boats to secure the pirates and their vessel.
Technically the amphibious Shinmaywa based gunship would be better suitable but Japs don't sell weapon equipment and it will be to expensive to develop a gunship for such a small batch order.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Mr.RA 13: This is an excellent read: http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?281376

To Anon@11.55PM: It will be a cost-prohibitive exercise to make use of AC-130s against measly pirates equipped with only assault rifles and RPGs—it’s like using a sledgehammer to kill an ant. Instead, while UAVs can be employed for persistent coastal & EEZ surveillance, a far more cheaper alternative to the AC-130 is the Do-228-220 equipped with twin 12.7mm MGs or even a solitary 20mm cannon-pod mounted underwing. It is equally cost-prohibitive to capture or secure the pirates. For instance, who will pay the bills for their ‘accommodation while in detention as they await trial & during the trial itself? Is it worthwhile for Indian jails to be swarming with such foreign elements? It is therefore far better to either destroy their vessels by straffing them. Arming the SH-3 isn’t a problem at all since this task can be easily accomplished in India itself AFTER the aircraft have been delivered by the OEM. This is what Myanmar’s air force has been doing since the 1980s ever since it acquired the PC-7s & PC-9s (i.e. accepting the aircraft in unarmed condition as per Swiss export laws, & then arming them locally) & this is exactly what the IAF will do as well if reqd with its PC-7 Mk2s.

To Sujoy Majumdar: The parameters essentially deal NIT so much with the flight performance parameters, but has more to do with the guaranteed total technical service lives of the airframe, engine, avionics, accessories & instrumentation, along with their serviceability guidelines, similar guidelines concerning various types of computer-based training aids/tools, + guidelines on the maintenance/repair/overhaul schedules of the airframe, engine, avionics, accessories & instrumentation & future prospects of their upgradation.

Mr. Ra 13 said...

It shall be an eye opener to the concerned.

Anonymous said...

" This is what Myanmar’s air force has been doing since the 1980s ever since it acquired the PC-7s & PC-9s (i.e. accepting the aircraft in unarmed condition as per Swiss export laws, & then arming them locally) & this is exactly what the IAF will do as well if reqd with its PC-7 Mk2s.
"
I think its the cheapest and the best option for both anti-piracy and anti-naxal operations.

dashu said...

sir
is S5 and Borey class SSBN are same design wise ?
btw have u seen the Ajai Shukla's recent topic regarding offset dilution ,
why our policy makers are sucking big time

Anonymous said...

In our scenario instead of MIL-STD telecoms satellites required for operating UAV, why can't we use TCS as area of operation for UAV's in our case will be always in our neighborhood and TCS along with expeditionary forces can provide us depth required for UAV operation in hostile territory. Can TCS be expended from few 100 to say 1000 Km?

dashu said...

as the s5 pic u have uploaded is very similar to borei class.

Vikram Guha said...

Hello Prasun,

Gen Shankar Roy Chowdhury had stated when he was Army chief that the inability of the Army/Air Force to strike terrorist camps in PoK with precision strikes allows them to flourish .

What are the technical constraints because of which India is unable to indigenously manufacture precision guided munitions ?

Ramesh said...

Hello Prasun,

Encouraged by India’s continuing move away from reliance on Russian weapons Textron is now selling 512 CBU-105 sensor fuzed weapons for $257.7 million . Is Textron also transferring the technology to India ?

Regards,

Ramesh

Anonymous said...

Hi Prasun,

Can you tell this Obama dude that Pak nukes are from China and as you have mentioned many times, under strict Chinese control? Why is the US President not listening?

http://dawn.com/2012/06/26/obama-fears-pakistans-disintegration-book/

Anonymous said...

@Vikram Guha,

It is not the lack of weapons but the reaction from Pak...it will be swift and sharp ...and extremely painful :-)

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Dashu: No, the S-5 is not the Borei-class SSBN. The S-5 SSBN will house only 12 SLBMs, whereas the Borei-class SSBN will house between 16 and 24 SLBMs.
Regarding India’s skewed military-industrial offsets policies, this was bound yo happen as I had predicted a few threads ago, because the formulation of the Defence Procurement Procedures/Manuals since 2004 only amounts to putting the cart before the horse. After all, what’s the use of industrial offsets guidelines when in the first place there’s no formulation of a national military-industrialisation policy or roadmap? Without such a roadmap, it is futile to chart out courses for either industrial offsets or indigenous weapons development.

To Anon@12.36PM: The TCS will cover an airspace & frontage only as far/deep as the Indian Army’s tactical battlespace & therefore UCAVs tasked with interdiction/strike sorties deep into enemy territory will have no other choice but to rely on SATCOMS for flight/mission management.

To Vikram Guha: What Gen Shankar Roychowdhury had said in his book “Officially at Peace” in 2002 was this: “Our apparent tolerance towards these blatant terrorist attacks from Pakistan in J & K was actually due to the run-down in our military capabilities for decisive punitive action. Effective counter-offensive capabilities were the precise area where the Indian Army’s potential had been greatly eroded.”
What he meant was that since the early 1990s, especially from 1993, the Indian Army’s war preparedness was deeply compromised due to severe equipment shortages in almost every warfighting arm, something which finally came out in the open during Operation Vijay in 1999. That is precisely why I’ve stated that every Army Chief since the early 1990s has given false assurances to the Indian public when they claimed every year on Army Day-eve that the Indian Army was prepared for warding off any kind of military threat posed to India.

To Ramesh: No, because no ToT will take place in return for ordering such a small quantity of SFWs. Instead, what the IAF’s Jaguar IS fleet will receive is a weapons interface system from Raytheon which will allow the Jaguars to be armed with the SFWs.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Anon@5.43PM: O yaar, please try to understand that these are all antics/shadow puppetry of the Obama Administration aimed at laying its hands on incontrovertible evidence about Pakistan’s linkage with the PRC and North Korea regarding the development of WMDs. The US had warned China back in the early 1990s that the latter will have to pay a heavy price one day for its deliberate proliferation of WMDs, & since then the US has been looking for ways to roll-back such blatant proliferation efforts. And that was precisely the reason why the US forced President Zardari & Hussain Haqqani to issue 4,000 visas for US personnel three years ago so that folks like Raymond Davies could enter Pakistan & begin the process of obtaining GPS coordinates/targetting data for the 70+ odd locations housing these WMD components, including some 56 sites around Islamabad.

To Anon@5.48PM: That’s pure baloney. If Pakistan during 1999 could not retaliate after the IAF shot down the PN’s ATL-2 MR/ASW aircraft over Gujarat, it will definitely not be able to retaliate decisively in any manner if India decided to initiate military hostilities across the LoC, since the LoC is only a ceasefire line (and not a boundary defining a country’s territorial sovereignty) that can be violated at any time by any party and will therefore not be viewed by the international community as being tantamount to committing aggression.

Vikram Guha said...

Prasun , many thanks . But then why is India unable to produce PGMs in house . What are the technical constraints ?

Regards,
Vikram

Dimple Sharma said...

Hello Prasun ,

According to you how do you view India's current relation with Russia . The Vikramaditya deal left a sour taste in our mouth . Though we still leased a nuke submarine. Are relations improving with Russia or is USA our new partner( though I doubt USA'a sincerity) .

Thanks,
Dimple

Anonymous said...

sir ,
see this link
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=345322765533411&set=a.160908680641488.39829.160762230656133&type=1&theater
read what's written..is this really true ?
can a militant commander seriously have gumption to walk upto an indian commander & threaten him ?

Anonymous said...

http://wuxinghongqi.blogspot.in/2012/02/us-apache-helicopter-appeared-in-china.html

wat the hell how did it get there?

accidental loser said...

Hey prasun, i fear u didn't checked my last queries abt the bullpup INSAS version
http://img144.imageshack.us/img144/9285/bulpupinsasbg2.gif
And btw a second ques!! Why u think placing the EO sensor suite on the front is inferior to placing it atop the rotor-hub of the LCH.

Anonymous said...

What happened to the dedicated secured fibre optic network for armed forces ??/

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Vikram Guha: Of course PGMs are being made & developed, for instance the BrahMos & Prahaar. The Sudarshan LGB too is nearing its R & D phase & could enter series-production by as early as the year’s end. The Nag ATGM too is a PGM, as will the CALCM variant of the Nirbhay.

To Dimple Sharma: Do you really think that the INS Vikramaditya deal left a sour taste in India’s mouth? Kindly consider the following facts:
1) Both India & Russia knew from the very outset that any warship’s refurbishment cannot be a fixed-price affair, since the real extent of refurbishment, repair & overhaul reqd will be evident ONLY AFTER the warship’s superstructure is ripped open. Consequently, both countries had catered for the prospect of price escalation for the amount of work to be undertaken.
2) The issue of delayed delivery of INS Vikramaditya had nothing to do with India since it is attributable to the problems faced by Russia at a time when its shipbuilding industries were in a process of corporate consolidation. Money was never a problem for Russia since from 2005 onwards Russia stopped being dependent on weapons exports as its main source for forex revenues. Therefore, the allegations about Russia seeking to bleed India in order to stay afloat doesn’t hold any water.
3) The actual price escalation for refurbishing & refitting the INS Vikramaditya is ONE-THIRD that of the US$800 million that India agreed to pay on March 12, 2010. The balance two-thirds of this amount was payment to Rosoboronexport State Corp for transferring to India all documentation related to the construction of the projected three units of the S-5 family of 20,000-tonne SSBNs, which was agreed upon as far back as January 20, 2004. For obvious reasons, the S-5 deal had to be ‘masked’ via a disinformation/misdirection exercise at that time, since any financial transaction involving forex (like US$ or Euros) leaves behind a paper trail & can therefore be easily traced. In case of the S-1/2/3/4 SSBN deals, this paper trail was absent because the payments were all made by India to Russia by adjusting the Russian debt owed to India as a consequence of the Rupee-Rouble trade deal during the Cold War era.
Based on what I’ve just explained above, I hope you now realise what really was the issue concerning the cost-escalation for refurbishing & refitting the INS Vikramaditya.
As for trusting the US, I don’t find any reason to doubt its sincerety, just as India never doubted the US’ sincerety when she requested the latter for emergency shipments of weapons after the 1962 Sino-Indian border conflict, and when in the early 1980s India ordered the combat management system built by Singer-Librascope (now owned by Lockheed Martin) for the IN’s four Class 209/Type 1500 SSKs.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Anon@9.56PM: That’s pure baloney.

To Anon@10.22PM: It’s a cheap photoshopping effort.

To Accidental Loser: I don’t see any bullpups, just the standard 5.56mm INSAS SLR & INSAS SMGs. For attack helicopters, when it comes to a target acquisition sensor--as opposed to a fire-control sensor), be it an optronic sensor or a millimeter-wave radar, these are always placed atop the main rotor hub or on the cockpit roof. The Eurocopter Tigre & AH-64D Apache are no exceptions. In case of the LCH, since it will have to first locate & track UAVs before shooting them down with Mistral-ATAMs, a nose-mounted search radar is necessary, since it can cover a much wider field-of-view in both azimuth & elevation & also have greater search-n-track range than an optronic sensor (like the LCH’s existing FLIR turret). Once this is done, where else can the FLIR turret be located, except atop the main rotor-hub?

To Anon@2.40AM: That’s what the ASCON & AFNET are all about.

accidental loser said...

Yeah. Tht's wht i exactly mean to say. But if an army specific version of LCH/LAH ever comes to play it would hav a primary task of anti-surface warfare rather than UAV killer typ. To effectively materialize an attack against enemy armour formations we need more fire and forget typ missiles rather than semi-active typs as it permits salvo firings against multiple targets at one go. The MMW missiles are fire & forget typs unlike optronic guided semi-active typs. So we need a 360¤ surveillance capable MMW radar with greater range. Also except anti armour missions all other anti-surface missions lyk reckon, asset protection, SEAD/DEAD, COIN, light target destruction, counter infantry missions require less or no need for a MMW radar. so what's need to be done here that the radar sud be mast mounted as it.always can be easily removed when there's no need. That's wht Boeing did with the A/H-64D's longbow radar. ths also a cost saving measure. So what's ur tak prasun!!!!!!!!!!
and hey, it seems i always miss to say gd nyt to u. so ths tym on advance, gd nyt mate.

Anonymous said...

Can you tell us what will be the composition of escort ships for Vikramaditya and IAC-1.
Do we have enough destroyers & frigates to cover for escort duties as well as standalone operations.

Will the deployment follow a European way or the US CBG way.

The Indian Army has been looking for aerial surveillance assets.

http://idrw.org/?p=12396

Is this true.But why didn't it do some field tests to compare between the Astor and Israeli systems.

Anonymous said...

"The actual price escalation for refurbishing & refitting the INS Vikramaditya is ONE-THIRD that of the US$800 million that India agreed to pay on March 12, 2010. The balance two-thirds of this amount was payment to Rosoboronexport State Corp for transferring to India all documentation related to the construction of the projected three units of the S-5 family of 20,000-tonne SSBNs"

How do you know this ? If India went to such extent to mask the paper trail as you reported, no naval officer would readily share such information, that too with media person. Granted the NPOL relased pic closely resembles the Soviet era Delta 3 and 4. But even then the dots are far too wide to connect them. If no nuclear reactor design is part of the deal then that begs the question why the subterfuge. The French-Brazil Nuclear submarine tie-up is no secret.France publicly stated it is only assisting in Non-nuclear components. Russia can simply state the same and moreover their assistance with Indian Arihant is a known fact.

Anonymous said...

Hi, the Army has placed orders for 1600+ T-90. Of these 310 T-90M were purchased off the shelf from Russia and the rest will be manufactured by the HVF, Avadi. Am I correct ? Why cant we license assemble T-90AM instead of the current T-90S. 1000 are yet to be produced.
Whats the essential difference between T-90AM,SM,MS ? The T-90AM sports a new gen ERA package, Relikt. How does it improve over the Kontakt-5? Can it stop tandem warhead equipped anti-tank missiles ?
A suggestion : Instead of the new era armour package in the AM model, thd DRDO can apply a layer of the Kanchan composite armour over the tank's base armour. Or the Kanchan armour can be fitted onto the base armour as blocks. This armour should cover the upper , lower glacis; turrent front, rear, sides, top; and the sides of the hull above the tracks. Like what Rheinmetall has done with the Leopard 1 &2.
Composite armour can take multiple hits at the same place in the armour unlike ERA and is much better at protecting from tandem warheads. Kanchan 2 which is now being developed for the Arjun mk2 should be fitted to the T-72m1 during its deep upgrade in the form of blocks. Even after that if additional protection is required ERA blocks can be fitted above the composite armour blocks .

Vikram Guha said...

Prasun , thanks for sharing this valuable information

Nikhil Mathur said...

Hi Prasun,

Why did India design the Shaurya instead of purchasing the Iskander missile from Russia ? The Iskander is a generation ahead of the Shaurya.

The Iskander missiles mostly fly below the main radar path, making it hard for missile defense systems to detect it and counter it (PAC-3, etc).Also,they have maneuvering abilities to evade incoming defense threats.

Thanks & Regards,
Nikhil Mathur

Anonymous said...

Prasun,
When is Nirbhay and Ind-Israel ceuise missile gonna be tested ?

With Skyshield now out of the picture, can we expect IA to still able to sign the deal for air defence guns before the end of this financial year ?

Is Finance ministry gonna release all the funds that were allocated to MOD in defense budget this year or the defence budget is reduced ?

Is the DRDO-MBDA Maitri project gonna be renewed with this new requirement of IA for QRSAM ?

Does it look like that TCS project might go to private sector ? I mean whats the talk in New Delhi ?

CAn we expect the helicopter deals to be finally signed this year ? There atleast 3 deals of IN, 4 of IAF and 1 of IA.

You were talking about DAE-developed 200mW lifelong PWR, why aren't we asking for French help ?

When is the Javelin deal gonna be signed ?

IA issued RFI for new assault rifle and carbines for the soldiers, any updates on this deal ?

Anonymous said...

www.bizjetblogger.com/2012/06/25/indian-air-force-take-delivery-of-global-6000/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=indian-air-force-take-delivery-of-global-6000

why?

dashu said...

good question mr Anonymous @ June 27, 2012 10:16 AM

How did he know all these ???

How he knows all the minute details of whats going on with various dept of GOI and armed forces.

actually an excellent question

Anonymous said...

Sir, what does an IAF fighter pilot do when his aircraft has been locked on by a PAF fighter pilot what does he do?

If a F-16 block 50/52 obtains a lock on Sukhoi-30 , MiG-29 , Mirage 2000 using it's APG-69v2 what will these acs do? The Tarang RWR on board these jets will tell them that they have been locked. But if an AIM-120 BVRAAM is launched at each of these jets what will they do? All of these jets at the present moment lacks a MAWS, so they will not get any warning of it? Also these jets will not be able to get any info on how close the missile is to the jet, from which direction the threat is coming, what is it's bearing? The Su-30 carries the EL-8222 EW pod on every operational sortie . So it might be able to jam, confuse and effectively counter the missile. But the MiG-29 and Mirage 2000 carried none and will be sitting ducks. As for the rest of the fleet , they are history. The IAF should pay close attention to these urgent matters, equip every combat ac with Integrated air defense system and an internal EW jammer instead of quarreling with the Army over petty issues like the ownership of heavy gunships and the Army's intent to purchase them. Like they say in Bengali, "Anyar charkai tel dewar age , age nuer charkai tel daw."

KSingh said...

Prasun, I ha e just read CAPFs have been told by HM to stall all current efforts to procure armoured vehicles due to " the current finacial issue" do you know how soon this ban will be in place ie are we looking at months/weeks/years? This is pretty serious as it directly effects the operational effect invests of key agencies like CRPF and others especially in the anti Maoist fight.

Shaurya said...

Prasun,
Regarding S-5 the displacement 20000 ton is of fully loaded(including the complement of SLBMs) or just the empty vessel? Dont you think its an overkill? I mean such a monstrous SSBN with complement of only 12 SLBMs!! PLAN Jin class repotedly carry 12 SLBMs of 8000km range, displaces close to 10000 ton!

Anonymous said...

sir,
when reading about recce & surveilance units on google..one comes across a plethora of US units
like USMC force recon, radio recce platoon ,Air Naval Gunfire Liaison Company ,
plus US army units like cavalry scouts , Reconnaissance, Surveillance, and Target Acquisition units ,
& some long range units..the names of whom i don't remember & various specialized courses they undergo for carrying out recce & surveillance..
my ques is do the indian units also undergo similar training..like batallion recce units..do they undergo similar training or are they regular soldiers who are grouped together on basis of their age & fitness..& not neccesarily the courses they have done..
& also what about long range recce..like may divisional & corps level recce..
also most of these US units are not under USSOCOM..& still so well trained..can u plzz compare the indian units..

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Accidental Loser: The NAG/HELINA ATGM is of the fire-and-forget type. Regarding an Army-specific LCH that would need radical redesigning & re-engineering, that is at least another six years down the road IF the IAF gives its consent tomorrow for the Army being equipped with attack helicopters. However, this is most unlikely to happen.

To Anon@9.40AM: Any Indian CBG will require five escort vessels, like two DDGs & three FFGs, plus at least one SSGN. Standoff maned battlespace surveillance platforms are reqd by the IAF, & not the Indian Army. While the IAF has to look at least 250km inside hostile territory for it to locate targets for its tactical interdiction combat aircraft, the Army’s deep battles will be fought over a depth not exceeding 50km, something which can be taken care of by MALE-UAVs flying surveillance & target acquisition missions.

To Anon@10.16AM: How did I know all this? Very simple & elementary. I did the math. How does one do that? Well, for starters, by talking to the people involved with contract negotiations, such as Rosoboronexport State Corp, & the shipbuilder in this case, SEVMASH. That’s why during defence expos, one has a lot more to do than just chasing like headless chicken the likes of Ravinder Rishi or Dr V R S Natarajan at the BEML Pavilion/hospitality chalet, & then claiming such expos to be dull, most boring, lacklustre, etc. You’re right about no naval officer from India sharing such information, since I’ve never approached any IN officer—serving or retired—for such info. The need itself never arose. Secondly, you’re again assuming that I’m a media-person. For the nth time, therefore, let me state that I’m not a member of any media organisation/agency & I’m not accredited with any India-based news organisation/agency, nor do I gain entry to defence/aerospace expos by using media accredition identities. Therefore, don’t make any such assumptions blindly, since assumption is always the mother of all fuck-ups. I know of a few mediapersons whose fathers are either serving or retired IN officers, but I’m most certainly not one of them. Regarding S-5 SSBN & the NPOL’s illustration of the design, the dots may be too wide for you as you’re obviously not in touch with the designers of the SSBN. Furthermore, you could you even dxream about comparing the India-Russia scenario with the Brazil-France scenario? Don’t you know that India is outside the nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT), while Brazil is a signatory to the NPT? AS to why all the subterfuge, don’t you know that there are far more nuclear weapons-related materials on board an SSBN than just the PWR?

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Anon@10.19AM: T-90AM & T-90MS are one & the same. It is now being negotiated for off-the-shelf procurement in successive tranches.

To Vikram Guha: You’re welcome.

Nikhil Kumar: The Shaurya is a TBM, while the Iskander is a NLOS-BSM, more like the Prahaar. Therefore, the two can’t be compared. In reality, it was R & D on the Shaurya TBM (which was supervised & mentored by the Indian Navy) that led to the development of Agni-4 & Agni-5. Therefore, there was ToT from the Shaurya R & D team to the Agni-4/5 teams. The DRDO itself is on record for having stated while the Agni-1/2 & 3 had technologies of the 1980s, the Agni-4/5 missiles have more advanced navigation/guidance technologies. But what the DRDO has never officially spelled out thus far are the various technological spinoffs of the Shaurya/L-15 missile project & how they’ve all found their way on to the Agni-4/5. The iskander-E’s terminal homing phase does have evasive manoeuvring capabilities, however, these are all pre-programmed, and are not REACTIVE in real-time to any BMD network. Consequently, the Iskander-E’s terminal flight-path too is vulnerable to interception by new-generation SAMs like the Barak-8 LR-SAM or even the Barak-2 MR-SAM.

To Anon@1.53PM: Nirbhay’s CALCM version ought to be flight-tested before the year’s end. Captive carriage trials of an inert dummy round have already been flight-tested on a Su-30MKI. Regarding AAA, let’s see if further orders for ZU-23-2 are placed, but the upgrade of 468 existing ZU-23-2s should begin early next year. This fiscal year’s revised expenditure will definitely be reduced. I don’t see the Maitri SHORADS’s R & D cycle being able to meet the Army’s timelines for procuring SHORADS. The SpyDer-SR will likely win this round of contracts too. As for TCS, the combined strengths of TATA Power SED, L & T & HCL Infosys will definitely overwhelm BEL in terms of competitiveness & sophistication. The AH-64D deal is likely to be processed this year. We’ve already asked for French help for the 200mW PWT. No further updates on the Javelin ATGM deal & the competitive trials for new-generation SLRs & Carbines.

To Anon@2.53PM: Why not? The IAF has had a longstanding reqmt for persistent battlespace surveillance platforms. Nut this same aircraft could well be modified into a ELINT/SIGINT platform for the R & AW’s ARC, all of whose existing aircraft are IAF-registered aircraft.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Dashu, Elementary, my dear fellow, as I’ve explained above.

To Anon@10.19PM: The Su-30MKI never carries the EL/L-8222 pod during every sortie. The Tarang RWR not only provides warning of radar lock-on, but also of lock-ons by a BVRAAM’s active radar. That’s the time to deploy on-board countermeasures, i.e. chaff. If a Su-30MKI is being painted by a hostile airborne MMR, then the only option left is to manoeuvre out of the search-n-track envelope of such MMRs. MAWS does not provide warning of incoming radar-guided BVRAAMs or SAMs, but of IIR-guided AAMs & SAMs, & laser-guided AAMs & SAMs. For MiG-29UPG & Mirage 2000UPG/Rafale, there’s the ELT-568 & Spectre AESA-based active jammers NOT for jamming hostile airborne MMRs, but ONLY for jamming the active radars of inbound BVRAAMs.

To KSingh: Such a moratorium will last for at least one fiscal year. Sad, but shit happens!

To Shaurya: The S-5’s submerged, fully loaded displacement will be 20,000 tonnes. It isn’t an overkill at all, since the Jin-class SSBN, carrying 16 (not 12) SLBMs, displaces 24,000 tonnes submerged, just like the Delta-3/4 SSBNs. Also to be noted is that the Jin-class SSBN—like the Delta-3/4 SSBNs—is powered by two PWRs. IF the S-5 is powered by a single lifelong PWR like that of the Akula-2 SSGN, then weight reduction is possible, but the S-5’s design as of now caters for two on-board PWRs of the type on-board the Arihant. So, if the DAE is unable to come up with an indigenous 200mW PWR by 2020, then it is faced with the prospect of enlarging the Arihant’s 83mW PWR to some 100mW & installing two of them on board the S-5. The clearer picture will emerge only by 2016.

Anonymous said...

Whats going on with the Astra projest ? When is it entering the service ? Is there any plans to develop within visual range air-air missiles beacuse IAF has huge requirements and they spend alot of money to purchase these missiles from France and Israel ?

Is the Indo-Israel project for unmanned helicopter cancelled or its still going ?

DRDO chief recentl talked about next generation AWACS. Has the preliminary work started on this like Air Staff Requirement from IAF submitted or the platform is selected ?

SAAB was building an EW system for helicopters with HAL. Whats the status of that project ?

Anonymous said...

sir,
i am anon at June 28, 2012 1:20 AM..
i request u to please ans my ques..

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Anon@3.15AM: The Astra BVRAAM is still years away from service-induction, despite using a Russian terminal active radar. This is exactly what happens when all such projects are labeled as “technology Demonstration” programmes, & are not user-driven & consequently, the R & D cycle never enters the ‘mission mode. Presently, there’s no sanction for developing any within-visual-range AAM. The NRUAV project was terminated two years ago. Leave alone the next-generation ‘bigger’ AEW & C platform, let’s first await the arrival of the EMB-145 AEW & CS, which is a funded & approved programme for the DRDO. Let’s see for how long the ‘tamasha’ about its IOC & FOC lasts. Saab has already supplied its laser warning system for the Rudra/Dhruv Mk4. Now it’s up to DARE to integrate it with the Tarang RWR & MILDS missile approach warning system.

Anonymous said...

dear sir,

what are the implications of putin's visit to pakistan. where does it leave India, as we keep talking about strategic indepdence..

regards
venkat

Anonymous said...

I am Anon 10:16AM.

"For the nth time, therefore, let me state that I’m not a member of any media organisation/agency & I’m not accredited with any India-based news organisation/agency, nor do I gain entry to defence/aerospace expos by using media accredition identities."

Ok you are not a media person. But you do report defense related news so what can we professionally call you ? A Freelance reporter perhaps.....after all your articles are published in Tempur, till recently in the Force among others. You do visit lot of Defence expos held in different countries not on media accredition perhaps through contacts but then it begs the question these visits are on your personal expenditure ? There are quite a few expos held every year, not that I am complaining your articles are inter-myst-esting. Such visits are no doubt expensive, your are doing this out of hobby ?

For a NRI you do have a remarkable nag for gathering information about Indian Armed forces. Coming to S5 you have access to SSBN designers, they told you S5 design were given by Russia. Till here that's fine and its not that surprising given their assistance with Arihant. But they actually told you that out of 800 Million paid for the Gorshkov 530 Million was for the Delta 3-4 Designs ? Clearly they will be covered under "official secrets act". Unless you are best buddy with the rosoboronexport representative at some defence expo who shared this info then both of you won't come under the official secrets act.

You are a ex-service man, were you in Military Intelligence ? You did report about some RAW operations in older threads

Anonymous said...

Iam Anon 10:16 AM.

OK you are not a media person so what can we professionally call you....freelance reporter perhaps ? After all your articles are published in tempur and till recently Force among others. You visit to many defense expos not by using any media accreditation perhaps maybe by Contacts. So these trips are on personal expenditure "perhaps". There are quite a few defense expos you report about every year, not that I am complaining you reports are inter-mys-sting. So these visits are hobby ?

Coming to S5 you have access to SSBN designers they told you S5 is based on Delta 3-4. Till here its fine, considering the Russians already helped with Arihant this news in not surprising. But they actually mentioned that out 800 Mill paid for gosrhskov 530 Mill is for S5 designs ??? A bit hard to swallow as the Indian designers will be covered by Official Secrets act. Unless you are conveniently best buddy with rosoboronexport representative in some defense expo who shared this information then both of you will not be covered by the secrets act.

For a NRI you seem to have surprising grasp of Indian Armed force insider news. You are ex-service man, were you in Military Intelligence. You did report about some RAW operations in older threads.

dashu said...

Sir ,
I know it very well .My comment to that Anonymous was sarcastic in nature .

Anonymous said...

Prasunda,you hav referred Shaurya as a TBM. For the begginers,may i knw wat does T stands for in TBM.

Vikram Guha said...

Hello Prasun,

Did you get to see the MMRCA presentation of Lockheed or EADS for the F 16 and EF 2000 ? IS there any site where we can take a look at it .

Thanks,
Vikram

SK said...

Prasun
With reference to your reply to Shaurya the Chinese Jin Class also seems to be a derivative of Delta 3/4 so Russia first sold the designs to China and now they sold to India. Selling to both sides and its the same design !!!

Debo said...

@Anon June 28, 2012 1:33 PM -

TBM stands for Tactical Ballistic Missile. These are generally used in short range battlefield use. Though the payload of such missiles can be decreased to increase their range.

Regards,

Debo

Jimmy Joy said...

my first comment.

accidental loser said...

k prasun. So if HELINA's gonna be the radar guided armament of LCH then what u think, sud b the EO armament of LCH!!!!!! A modified HELINA or somethin else???? Also stated it can be able to carry ARMs. But doesn't it lacks a dedicated ESM/ELS for the purpose!!!!! The DIRCM suite MUSIC by Rafael is, according to some sources a civillian version based on an original military version. Does it anyhow degrades the actual features!!!!!! And if the pylons and engines are properly taken care of, how are the chances of the LCH being evolve into a premier MCH platform. Yes i agree that LCH has some flaws, but u cnt always b the best at a 1st approach. After all "failure's the pillar of success".

Nikhil K Mathur said...

Hi Prasun,

Thanks for your reply.

As far as I know IAI has not carried out any tests of the Barak 8 against a missile like the Iskander. Though they too claim that the Barak 8 can intercept any Ballistic missile.

In 2011 IAI was rejoicing after the first successful interception by Arrow II (a purposely designed ABM defence system with capabilities several order of magnitude greater than Barak-8 ) of a target simulating a ballistic missile immeasurably less capable than the export version of Iskander.

Thanks,
-Nikhil

Anonymous said...

Sir, a MAWS will give the bearing, heading, azimuth and range of any missile with respect to the aircraft being targetted. MAWS tracks the missile using the IR signature of the missile plume. It doesn't track the ac by seeing te missiles IR seeker. So a MAWS can track both radar and infrared guided AAM and SAM. When in the terminal phase, the solid rocket motor goes off, the incoming missile is tracked using the heat generated at the missile nose due to air resistance. This being done by a UV based MAWS. All modern MAWS are a combination of IR & UV based MAWS. 

What do you mean by the Sukhoi-30 doesn't carry the EL-8222 pod during every sortie? Who will then provide defensive RF jamming to the Sukhois. For instance, if the Sukhoi is flying an air superiority or CAP mission and it has been locked on by a hostile MMR , say the APG-69 and then an AIM-120 BVRAAM, AIM-7 Sparrow, who will jam the seekers of these missiles and the MMR? Modern MMRs and active radar seekers of AAMs have built in conter-counter measures and are impervious to chaff. 
What will happen then?

And is it always possible to get out of the tracking and engagement envelope of hostile MMR in open skies where the c can't resort to terrain masking. 

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Venkat: I can’t think of any negative implications, other than Russia trying to play some role in the proposed TAPI pipeline project. Beyond that, export of additional Mi-171s for the Pakistan Army could be on the pipeline.

To Dashu: VMT. By the way, do read this: http://www.frontlineonnet.com/stories/20120713291304400.htm

To Vikram Guha: About the F-16 you could go to: http://trishulgroup.blogspot.in/2009/10/f-16-block-5052-explained.html
On the EF-2000, this should be a good read: http://www.eurofighter.com/fileadmin/web_data/downloads/efworld/ef_world_2-2011.pdf

To SK: You may be surprised to know that the PLA Navy’s HQ is the best repository of technical documentation concerning all Soviet/Russian SSBNs & SSGNs of 1980s & early 1990s vintage. All such documentation was acquired thanks to the cooperative efforts of the espionage agencies of China & North Korea since the mid-1980s & especially throughout the early 1990s, which were carried out in Russia’s Far East regions. The joke is if the Russians are unable to trace any kind of technical documentation pertaining to their own SSBNs & SSGNs of 1980s & early 1990s vintage, they would do better to request the PLA Navy’s HQ for copies of such documentation!

To Accidental Loser: Even IIR-guided ATGMs are of the fire-and-forget type (like the existing Nag & Javelin), one doesn’t need MMW radars for making ATGMs fire-and-forget. HELINA too will be IIR-guided. For firing ARMs, an on-board RWR will suffice. The C-MUSIC is the civilian variant of the DIRCM from ELBIT Systems, & NOT from RAFAEL. Both civilian & military variants have the same features. Gor the LCH to evolve/grown into a LAH or MCH, a thorough redesign of the existing forward nose/chin section & the main engine/gearbox-housing areas is required, at the very minimum. One can always be the best in the very first approach PROVIDED the R & D project is directed & driven by the end-user. That is what distinguishes the Shaurya TBM, for instance, from the Agni-1.

To Nikhil K Mathur: So far, the Barak-2 MR-SAM has been test-fired only against ‘electronic’ targets, and not actual physical targets. The Barak-8 LR-SAM hasn’t even entered that phase as yet. The Arrow-2/3 & the DRDO’s projected PDV/AAD-1/2 are hypervelocity missile interceptors optimised for neutralising threats posed by TBMs & IRBMs like the R-17 (& its extended-range North Korean clones like Ghauri-1), Tochka, Ghaznavi, Shaheen-1 and Shaheen-2. The Barak-8 LR-SAM, on the other hand, will be optimised for use against NLOS-BSMs like the Abdali, P-20/Nasr, Iskander-E & B-611M, & BP-12A.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Anon@1.18AM: Advance warning about a BVRAAM acquiring target lock-on will be received by the targetted aircraft’s on-board RWR long before the MAWS can visually acquire the inbound BVRAAM. Therefore, the MAWS, which was developed jointly by THALES & MATRA SA as far back as the late 1980s & was known as DDM, will always be employed against inbound IIR-guided AAMs/SAMs & laser-guided SAMs. Didn’t you know that all Su-30MKIs & even existing MiG-29B-12s have on-board internal jammers for jamming CW/PW emissions??? Dispensable countermeasures like flares & chaff are as advanced & relevant today as are present-day AAMs. Ands one can always manoeuvre out of the tracking and engagement envelope of hostile MMRs. That’s where supermanoeuvrability plays a big role.

SK said...

Thats very embarrassing for the Russia. The Chinese did manange to lay their hands on American W88 warhead and more so comparatively Russia would have been a walk in the park.
Wonder why India doesn't even try.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To SK: In Russia's Far East (which is so neglected by Moscow that even Russian submarine crews had been known to have gone on 'strike' several times throughout the 1990s & also in the previous decade), both the Chinese & North Koreans have a distinct geographic advantage, unlike India. The Chinese, helped by the North Koreans had befriended & hired the local timber-logging & caviar-exporting mafias located in Russia's Far East to act as their proxies, and as they say, money talks!

Anonymous said...

"8 Regiments of QR-SAM haven’t been cleared for procurement, only three."
I am your huge fan but now even Jane defence weekly is also saying that the procurement of 8 regiments of QRSAM is cleared in when CCS cleared purchase of 2.2 billion $ worth of contract. Now if its between you and Jane, i am sorry i will have to go with Jane, the are on eof the best in the world.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

Then by all means do ask Jane's to give you the breakdown of Regiments to be ORDERED during the 12th Defence Plan (2013-2017) & 13th Defence Plan (2018-2022) & then ask yourself whether India has ever spent or ever allocated any funds in a planned manner beyond five years. If no, then there's only one option: 3 Regiments will be acquired between 2013 and 2017, while the remaining five Regiments are PLANNED for procurement between 2018 and 2022, since no authority in India can confirm or guarantee sanctioned funds beyond a five-year period. There's a huge difference between "clearing the procurement" and placing "actual orders". I can give you several examples of the CCNS clearing the procurement of military hardware, by the actual orders or production indents being placed years later. As I've said so often, the devil always lurks within the details, which of course magazines like Jane's Defence Weekly, published thousands of miles away from Indian shores, won't ever bother to go into. And who's the India-based correspondent for Janes's? Rahul Bedi, who has consistently been rewriting those articles originally drafted by me that were published by FORCE between January 2004 & February 2012. Jan'es may be one of the best in the world, but when it comes to reportage on India, it's definitely not even within the Top 10.

Anonymous said...

Sir, I am anon at June 29, 2012 1:18 AM. I didnt know that there are internal CW/PW jammers on board the MiG-29B-12 & Sukhoi-30 mki. Becuse in wiki and bharat rakshak, i read about the Tarang mk2 , chaff and flare dispensers on board the Su-30mki and a Soviet RWR and the chaff,flare dispensers on board the MiG-29. Up till today i believed that the MiG-29 and Su-30 mki will have their on board RF jammers after their respective UPG upgrades.So, does the Mirage 2000 also sports an internal CW/PW jammer.
Its great news.

Also in wiki i read that the MiG-29 purchased from USSR were downgraded versions of the ac in VVS service.Is this true?

As for the MiG-27,MiG-21,Jaguar IS do they possess such internal RF jammers. ISomewhere i read that the MiG-27 are equipped with Hot Brick IR jammers.Has these IR jammers been upgraded to current threat standards?

Pierre Zorin said...

Has anyone noticed this stupid and irksome thing? Anonymous says, "Sir I am the Anon of 2:20". I mean for goodness sake choose a name or a handle!It's like locating pee in the pool!

accidental loser said...

yep. U'r ryt. I missd tht point. Actually i had only accounted SACLOS typs and not the IIR typs. So thanx fr the info. And for the ARMs what r the kinds u do expect to be onboard. Also about the ABMs don't u think DEW sud be pretty gud for the purpose as they easily provides a far greater standoff distance as well as multi-threats handling ranging from ICBMs to NLOS-BMs or even Rockets. And the best thing is it's cost effectiveness. I had once read about a DRDO program for this on pipeline from wikipedia.

Vikram Guha said...

Prasun , thanks a lot for the links.

Regards,
Vikram

Chintan said...

@Pierre Zorin,
Hahahahahaha. Couldn't agree more.

Chintan said...

@Pierre Zorin,
Recently saw a sign that read "Welcome to John's Swimming ool. Notice there is no 'P' in there. Lets keep it that way."

SK said...

Prasun

1) Why wouldn't army need Standoff manned battlespace surveillance platforms looking 250 Km into enemy territory. Then how will they use the Brahmos or even Prahaar missiles ? GPS/INS can only guide for static targets but not for mobile targets. Can army make use of RISAT then ? Can the satellite provide real time live images which are accurate enough. But to provide 24 hour coverage with backup we will need at least a dozen satellites.

2) For CBG compliment escort ships will it have a fleet replenishment ship ? Also is it possible to replenish a SSK at sea ?

KSK said...

http://www.frontlineonnet.com/stories/20120713291304400.htm

Good read.
I think our foreign policy not military was the main culprit for debacle of 1962 war.
Those idiots let chini and pak come close...cas of that pak now has nukes...the circumstances that led to it were completely avoidable.
pak getting nukes is such a big blow for us,i dont think even if we win a future war with pak we should claim victory because we had the opportunity to kill the conflict in the past .

Do u think it is still possible to make Indo-chini relations better than chini-pak ?

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Accidental Loser: Any ARM on-board the LCH will have to be lightweight, something like the AGM-88A or ALARM. The latter will be more feasible as it is already selected for the Rafale, although to date there’s been no photo of any Rafale being armed with any kind of ARM. As for BMD, DEWs can be considered for protecting only fixed sites and that too if power-generation is not a problem. DEWs consume a lot of electrical power & therefore cannot be considered for deployment as land-mobile systems for protecting land formations that are on the move. Both MBDA & China have already demonstrated the use of laser-based DEWs for anti-ship cruise missile defence. In the Indian context, however, I find the entire debate & DRDO pronouncements rather amusing. For instance, why only protect Delhi & Mumbai? Why not Jamnagar, Jodhpur, Bareilly, Gwalior, Chennai, Kolkata, or Bengaluru? Secondly, isn’t it obvious that the existence of a IRBM-specific BMD network is highly destabilising, as it tends to dilute the deterrence doctrine of mutually assured destruction? Instead, why not concentrate more resources on developing a BMD early warning network aimed at further sharpening India’s nuclear retaliatory strike capabilities & for enhancing India’s air-defence against cruise missiles & NLOS-BSMs?

To SK: Firstly, the Indian Army’s BrahMos & Prahaar missile artillery assets will be positioned at pre-surveyed launch-pads not at the very edge of the border, but in the Army’s rear-areas at least 100km away from the border inside Indian territory where they can be accorded air-defence in-depth. Therefore, effectively speaking, the targets for the BrahMos & Prahaar will be located between 50km and 150km inside hostile territory. Secondly, such targets will be of the fixed-type (like bridges, transportation nodes, ammunition storage depots, etc) & not mobile, meaning that adequate time will be available for the IAF to conduct precise aerial reconnaissance & pass on the target coordinates to the missile regiments. Consequently, what is reqd is not real-time intelligence or persistent battlespace surveillance, which will be more useful to those manoeuvring Army formations engaged in fitting a series of contact & deep battles in a fluid & rapidly changing environment out to a depth of only 40km inside enemy territory. And for conducting such persistent surveillance, MALE-UAVs, LOHs & land-mobile surveillance-and-target-acquisition (SATA) hardware like the LORROS/Stentor radar combination & weapons-locating radars will more than suffice.
For CBGs, of course replenishment vessels will be accompanying the battle group. It is possible to replenish the SSK at sea, although it is not a recommended option since the SSK even at top speed cannot keep up with an underway battle group and therefore, an escorting SSGN with top cruise speeds of at least 32 Knots & which can stay submerged for extended periods will be far more appropriate.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To KSK: You’re absolutely right, for it was the ruling civilian elite that screwed=up and that that’s precisely why the Henderson-Brooks Report was classified as TOP SECRET, again by the civilians, when in the first place the Report had not even been drafted for civilian consumption, but in fact it was an Indian Army HQ-sanctioned analysis of when, how & what went wrong in 1962. In that Report, it is very clearly written & catalogues in chronological how since 1949 warnings were being issued by both the IB & Military Intelligence Directorate about the potential military threats emanating from China and what was reqd to be done to combat this threat. But most importantly, the Report also gave details about an Indian Army-initiated appreciation conducted in the very early 1960s of when exactly the threat would denegerate into a full-blown war, & the predictions were highly precise. And it was despite the availability of all this well-intentioned brainstorming that the then Govt of India screwed-up. It seems the then PM Jawaharlal Nehru got wind of all this only after he had met & spoken to the then Lt Gen Thorat, because although Army HQ had forwarded its appreciation to the MoD by 1961, it seems the then RM Krishna Menon had never even briefed Nehru about it. All these details have been recorded in the Report, and that’s the very reason why the Report has not been declassified till this day.
Is it still possible to make India-China relations better than China-Pakistan relations? Well, in reality, India-China relations are far better & can get even better for as long as India single-mindedly pursues an ambition of becoming an economic & military power of global standing, since Beijing highly respects the dictum of “strength only respects strength”.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Anon@10.27AM: The Mirage 2000s too have an internal jammer as part of the ICMS-2000 suite, which will now be replaced with the newer Spectra suite. The USSR during the Cold war era never exported its latest or state-of-the-art weapons to anyone. MiG-21s, MiG-23BNs, MiG-27Ms & Jaguars never had & still don’t have any internal jamming suite or IR jammers.

accidental loser said...

look prasun, for battle machinery electricity requirement is persistent and there's never a shortage of APUs fr the purpose. so U can't jst let it go fr such silly reasons. Also for strategic deterrence no ground based bt only aircraft based high energy LASER sud be required. So ground area electricity unavailablity/poor-availability cud be neglected.
yeah i agree that there's dying need of surveillance systems to be put into wrk before deploying the BMDS, but ain't those slow seps taken towards a creating a robust early warning system gonna get any fruition. i mean, yep they are slow,but takin into account the comatic goverment and it's treacherous defence policies combined, u can nevr ask fr anythng bettr.
Also do't u think there sud be a requirement of space based IR monitoring sats for extreme accurate threat detections!!!!!!!!
Those deployments(if at all real) are n't an end to the project either . So why don't u expect the protection umbrella to be extended to other cities in 2nd phase.?????

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Accidental Loser: If APUs were the obvious solution then by now such hard-kill DEWs would have proliferated worldwide. Instead, that hasn’t happened, and only shipborne laser-based DEWs are being developed. Why? Because a mobile platform like a principal surface combatant has far greater captive electricity generation capacity than a corresponding land-mobile platform. Airborne lasers have been abandoned by even the US due to their impracticality. Space-based IIR-imaging satellites are planned for procurement under the DRDO’s Missile Monitoring System project. As for BMD protection being extended to other Indian cities, how can someone expect a country like India to achieve this when even the US & former USSR never went beyond protecting just a single city in each country? It is a financial impossibility to provide credible BMD protection for a cluster of cities. And there are no phases for deployment, only for attaining R & D milestones. Under Phase-1 the PAD & AAD were development and under the now underway Phase-2, the PDV & AAD-1/2 interceptors are being developed. The entire programme is still in R & D mode for technology demonstration purposes & has certainly not reached any kind of deployment mode.

KSingh said...

Prasun, a recent news article I read stated that a RFP for 75 helos for the IN would be going out at the end of summer 2012 for which MH-60R would participate. Is this the same procurement programme that has been ongoing for some time now? Is it possible we are only at the RFP stage? As I had heard that trails had already been carried out by IN and we were at a point where the winner would be announced, relatively, soon. As it stands surely we aren't likely to see a new helo in IN for atleast another 3-5 years right!!!!!!!!!

This is absurd- inducting platforms as advanced as P-17 and P-15A which cost HUGE amounts of money and yet equipping them with ancient rotatary wing assets to fly off??


Also can you give a run down of exactly the on going helo procurement plans of the IN as there seems to be so many for SAR/ASW/Spec op support/utility etc tht overlap and all reports seem to contradict one another.

Anonymous said...

In deterrance, the MAD will work for only sovereign nations (who stand to lose in case of nuke war). It will not work for the few nukes acquired by a rogue general and starting a standalone attack. BMD protection may be used for such standalone attacks. Saturation level of attacks by possible MIRVed warheads may never be neutralized what ever technology it be. It is good in that terms that BMD for a few cities of massive population or strategic assets. Also the guarantee that an attack below saturation doing harm is lost with even a rudimentary BMD/ capable air defence of adversary. Only way the agressor can overcome this is to increase the number of arsenal in their stock with a good delivery mechanism, which will add up the cost and potential interantional scrutiny. So Pakistan will have serious trouble if it were to invest even more in attack capability. Of course BMD is a pro proliferator, that every one will try to gain more weapons. But if you have a 'no first use policy' then you ought to try for a BMD.

Sreenivas

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To KSingh: The figure of 75 or 77 is the total number of twin-engined MRH helicopters in the 10-tonne category that is required. Of this, 16 will only be the first tranche. The shortlisted candidates are Sikorsky’s S-70B2 & Eurocopter’s AS.365M Panther (and not the NH-90). The P-17 FFGs & P-15A DDGs will in all probability house the Ka-28PLs & Sea King Mk42Bs that are STILL to be upgraded (this project should have been completed at least two years ago!). The IN will also be acquiring about 50 single-engined LUHs to replace the existing SA.316B Chetaks m& these helicopters will also be employed for SAR. No special-ops capable helicopters are sought, because the MRHs will fulfill this role as well.

To Sreenivas: By a “rogue General and starting a standalone attack”, are you by any chance referring to a neighbouring country? If so, then it will indeed be a very serious mistake to underestimate India’s adversary by labeling the Generals sitting at Army House & GHQ as being ‘rogue’. Pakistan began making additional investments in greater n-attack capabilities as far back as 2007, so far without any adverse reactions from the international community.

Anonymous said...

No not any current 'rogue' element (it could come from anywhere, why not China? but current level of suspicion only limited to Pakistan), but could be the would be rogue elements. It may not be the COAS but it could well be a fanatic person in the top level. The higher levels of nuclear arsenal recently undertaken by Pakistan is already understood. But continuing it over a certain level, even their all weather friend China will not wish, for todays friends can become tomorrows enemies.So there will be a cap at a certain threshold.
Srinivas

accidental loser said...

K. It's true that large scale proliferation of DEWs isn't that easy and yes USAF scrapped the boeing YAL project too, bt if u go thru the disadvantages shown by MDA to absorb the tech u can easily guess it tht a li'l different approach cud simply got it operational. It's always impractical to fly a big boeing only hoping sometime it's gonna catch a missile and destroy it, but instead an aerostat/HALE-UAV platform on standby duty makes a gud sense. And for the tech complexity and high initial costs there's a gud saying "kuchh pane k liye kuchh khona padta h." Coz the demonstrated best protection provided by the DEWs cud nt come handy always.
There's also EMV based platforms.in development by Boeing fr US Army to provide protection against rocket/artillery attacks.
For the extension of BMDS i mean the defence mechanism transition from point based to theater based and further to extended area based. this can easily take other strategic locations within it's protection envelop.

Anurag said...

I got chance to meet some HAL officials, They were very Angry the DRDO handled LCA project. The HAL wants to go alone for further projects.

I assume Major part of AMCA project will be under HAL control now. HAL wants DRDO to work for only subsystem.

Source: http://www.defence.pk/forums/indian-defence/16686-indias-light-combat-helicopter-lch-45.html#ixzz1zFg6o1PY

What would you say about this????Is this even remotely possible for HAL to develop AMCA alone????

Nikhil K Mathur said...

Hello Prasun,
As always appreciate your answers . However, I am still not convinced that the Barak 2/8 can intercept an Iskander.


The intercepting element in an engagement react to the trajectory's variations proposed by the offensive element and ,therefore, only the element's aerodynamic/structural limits, G-pull thresholds and -for the offensive one- the cycles of the pseudo-random speed's variations will have a role in deciding the chances of successuful interception ;the inverse process is simply
not possible(the intercepting element simply follow its proportional closed-loop
homing and missile-target correlation guidance).

The SS-26 Iskander, the Chinese M9, M600 missiles fly in the atmosphere below 60 to 70 km, and
when they return to the dense layers of the atmosphere, at 25 or 30 kilometers, they acquire a
capacity manoeuvrable making them almost impossible to intercept.
Intercepting such missiles should be between 25/30 and 60/70 miles.
None of U.S. / Israeli programs meet this requirement. The THAAD does not drop below 50 km.
The Patriot does not rise above 20 to 25 kilometers. As for the SM-3, it evolves in space exoatmospheric.

Thanks,

Nikhil K Mathur

Sk said...

http://idrw.org/?p=12447

1) Can Brahmos be launched horizontally from a torpedo tube like the Klub ? You have inferred in the past that VLS on Armur 1650 never crossed beyond scale models at exhibition. Is this a ploy to lure IN to Armur 1650. Since the Russians have refused to arm non-Russian platforms with Brahmos be it the Scorpene SSK or the Rafale MRCA.

2) There are some reports on Internet saying Pak Navy is looking for submarine launched nukes. Its given Pak doesn't have the economic strength to afford Nuclear Subs, can they succeed in taking the Israeli route. Launching missiles through SSK torpedo tubes ? I feel they can come with a sub launched nuke tipped cruise missile with Chinese help. The question is will China help in such a Pak endeavor.

3) If Prahaar is to be positioned 100 from the border then won't it be prudent to ask DRDO to develop atleast 250 Km range instead of 150 Km. Also the army would have better reach with the 550 Km Brahmos MK3. Any idea when they will be inducted and in what numbers.

4) I still feel Army would benefit with Standoff manned battlespace surveillance platforms be it the likes of JSTAR, ASTOR or Israeli versions.(By platform I mean a comprehensive system consisting of ground based sensors,UAVs & Manned aircrafts).They can be jointly operated by IA and IAF just like the Astor jointly operated by British Army and Airforce. These comprehensive system will aid not just for targeting information but to guide & position ground forces in the highly fluid battles.

5) Any info about the Indo-Israeli Hypersonic ALCM.When will it be ready to reach the testing phase.

Anonymous said...

Prasun the present mid-air refuelers with IAF use the drogue mechanism to refuel planes. The C-130 and C-17 which IAF is acquiring use boom. Which aircraft will the IAF choose for the MRTT. Presently the A330 can use 2 drogues mounted in wings and boom mounted on fuselage. The IL-76-476 has a rear door which will obstruct mounting the boom on fuselage. Then IAF only has to choose from A330 or 767 MRTT

bradshaw said...

Hi Prasun Sir,

Some curious Questions for you as usual :)

1. What radar is there on the LCA.Is it a LRDE developed or a ELTA 2032 hybrid , the same one as on Sea harriers and what are its specs ??

2. Which is the primary BVR for LCA , derby or R-77 or Astra ? Till now it has only been tested with short range R-73.

3. One of my friend works in L&T and he told that the fabricated hull of 2nd and 3rd Arihant class subs is quite large as compared with the 1st sub. Does that mean they are modifies to carry K-4 SLBM's and will may have a bigger PWR producing some more MW's ?

4. What is the progress on the tender for another 6 conventional subs for 50,000 crores ? The RFI was issued long back in 2010. And whats your take on the smaller S-1000 submarine , i think its small , stealthy , with proven fuel cell AIP and pretty much cheap.

5. Lastly, IAF has recently acquired hundreds of multipurpose Mi-17 V5 helicopters which are armed. Pleaselet us know what weapons package has been ordered with them and what is the primary anti -armour missiles they use. Also , so they also carry a radar etc for guided weapons ??

F said...

Prasun, have you seen this videos taken in 1971 in East Pakistan? Lot of interesting footage.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xQb6mhgBVmE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wDIDUZ1HNRo

On a different topic, would you agree that closest equivalent to a general staff and a strategic level/threatre command the Malaysian army has is the Army Field HQ and the Corps HQ? And that the largest operational level commands are the 4 divisions, with the brigades and battlions being the largest units of maneuver?

If an aircraft was not fitted with a MAWS and the pilot did not visually spot the launch of an IR MANPADS what other ways would he have to provide him with warning that he has been fired upon?

What about warnings against IR air to air missiles, is the MAWS the only means of alerting the pilot?

What is the reason that the bulk of fighters operated worldwide are still not provided means of alerting and defending themselves against laser guided MANPADs like RBS-70 and Starstreak? Is it solely due to costs?

Would you agree the main limitation of laser guided MANPADs like RBS-70 and Starstreak is the need for gunners to keep the sights on the target until missile impact, which could be difficult due to terrain or buildings.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Anurag: Any logically thinking person would have realised as far back as the 1980s that if there was any institution with the reqd amount of skills & expertise needed for developing a fourth-generation MRCA in India, it was HAL. And yet, logic failed & heightened chauvinism & misplaced overconfidence took over in those days & as a result the DRDO got to eat the cake & keep it too when it came to the Integrated Guided-Missile Development Programme (IGMDP), ATV Project & the LCA project. And in the absence of any operational inputs from the armed forces (there were asked for only GSQRs & ASQRs), failures & disasters were bound to happen. Thus began the R & D process of liquid-fuelled ballistic missiles like Prithvi & Agni with gyro-based strapdown inertial reference systems (if the Army & IAF were consulted, they would then have clearly mentored the DRDO’s scientists & engineers on the merits of RLG-INS & solid-fuel propellants, but alas, they weren’t consulted); which was followed by the ADA being created instead of reinforcing HAL’s Aircraft R & D Centre (ARDC); while for the ATV project, the then Secretary DRDO Dr V S Arunachalam back in 1986 set a trap for ret’d IN Capt B K Subbarao, whose only fault was that he was insisting on a fail-safe pressurised water n-reactor to power the then projected SSN which the Indian Navy had then sought. All such fundamental mistakes tend to have a cascading effect (like unnecessary institutional turf wars & needless cost-prohibitive industrial R & D duplication), and consequently, today there’s HAL’s ARDC, which will now stand to learn a lot more & far quicker from its involvement with the FGFA project, while ADA, which is still struggling to complete the redesign of the air intakes for the Tejas Mk2, also wants to stay afloat after completing R & D work on the Tejas Mk2 by proposing grandiose plans for the AMCA. And like I said before many a time, there’s no convincing argument thus far from anyone about what exactly is it that the AMCA will be able to do which the FGFA will be able to.
By the way, if you’re interested in the fate that befell the Iraqi T-72M1s in February 1991 during OP Desert Storm, then do watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kv9Adb3EuVE&feature=related

To Nikhil K Mathur: When it comes to NLOS-BSMs like the Iskander-E, BP-12A or B-611M, what matters more is not the hittile-probably of the interceptor missile’s kill vehicle, but the ability to track such NLOS-BSMs since they will be adopting a depressed flight trajectory for low-observability. On the other hand, being single-stage missiles, they will have highly restricted manoeuvrability due to their depressed flight trajectories—something that can be taken advantage of by hypervelocity interceptor SAMs PROVIDED accurate real-time targetting cues are available from radars like the EL/M-2084 MMR. SAMs like THAAD, Arrow-2/3, S-300V or even Patriot PAC-3 were never originally optimised for intercepting NLOS-BSMs, but are instead to be used against solid-/liquid-fuelled ballistic missiles (both single-stage & two-stage) that fly a pure ballistic flight-path & NOT a depressed trajectory flight-path. It remains to be seen how effective the kill vehicles of Barak-8 LR-SAM & the MEADS will be & what will be the degree of sophistication of their sensor-fusion technologies.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To SK: All the video presentations from both BrahMos Aerospace & NPOM that I’ve seen to date on the BrahMos & Yakhont ASCMs show them being vertically-launched from SSGNs. Actually, the proposal for the Amur 1650 for the IN since 2001 came from the Russians for a totally different reason & had nothing to do with BrahMos. What the Ruskies were hoping for was that since L & T as lead industrial contractor for the ATV Project had already in place several ToT tie-ups with all those Russian companies that were in the submarine construction business, it would seem logical from a financial & technological standpoint that the second line of six SSKs (the Amur 1650 design) to be acquired for IN should be built by L & T as well. Thus, the Ruskies were desperately hoping that India would make the same disastrous mistake that she made in the 1980s when it acquired both the Class 209/Type 1500 & Type 877EKM SSKs. But this time, given the economic realities in the post-Cold war era, the IN stood firm on its ground & has successfully resisted all kinds of pressure, following which a degree of pragmatism has emerged. In today’s world where a SSK’s lifecycle costs take pre-eminence, the IN has therefore stated clearly to the MoD that it would like to order additional Scorpenes powered by Stirling engine AIP modules that are proven, risk-free & therefore much cheaper than all the fuel cell-based technologies that both the Russians & DRDO are tinkering with.
I had already stated in a thread last year that the Pakistan Navy will acquire between 6 and 8 Type 043 Qing-class SSKs (equipped with Stirling engine AIP) that will be able to fire (from modified torpedo tubes) a variant of the Babur cruise missile that’s armed with a unitary nuclear warhead. This is a confirmed deal as of last year.
Regarding Prahaar, its targets will be located within a depth of 50km inside enemy territory & therefore it won’t be a deep-strike weapon. Instead, it will be used as a fire-support weapon against massed mobile targets (mostly mechanised formations engaged in waging the deep battles) as a long-range artillery weapon capable of precision strikes, something which MBRLs like the Smerch-M are incapable of as of now. For targetting cues, therefore, MALE-UAVs equipped with SAR-type radars capable of ground moving target indication will more than suffice. For persistent surveillance in aid of the contact battles, the LOH is the best option. JSTAR-type & ASTOR-type platforms are required for persistent surveillance of transportation nodes inside hostile territory (i.e. both exterior & interior lines of communication like roads, highways & railway junctions) so that an accurate picture of the enemy’s battlefield logistics/resupply capacities can emerge. And if the IAF has command-and-control of such airborne surveillance platforms, then it will be all the more easier for the IAF to conduct sustained offensive air interdiction campaigns against such transportation nodes by drastically reducing the sensor-to-shooter gap.
The ALCM will be supersonic, much like the ASMP from MBDA. It should enter the flight-test phase by early 2014.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Anon@9.01PM: The IAF has not mandated that its MRTT be equipped with a boom. C-17As can use boom but C-130J-30s don’t.

To Bradshaw: The Tejas Mk1’s LSP-7 uses the EL/M-2032 MMR. There’s no hybrid of this radar. Its brochure can be downloaded from IAI’s website. Primary BVRAAM for both the Tejas Mk1 & LCA (Navy) Mk1 is the Derby, since the missile is already integrated with the EL/M-2032’s fire-control system. The Astra is still six years away from service induction. What your friend is stating about the S-3 & S-4 is that L & T is prefabricating larger sub-sections of the SSBN’s superstructure for ferrying on-board barges to the SBC in Vizag for final-assembly. This is logical and is to be expected, since L & T has already gained much valued expertise in full fabrication over the years. In fact, the time taken for hull fabrication for S-3 has been reduced by 20% (compared to the time taken for S-2/Arihant), while the time to be taken for gull fabrication for S-4 will be further reduced by 20%, meaning 40% less than what it took for the Arihant. Regarding the follow-on six SSKs fitted with AIP, the by-now firm choice of the IN is for the S-80 Super Scorpene (proposed by Navantia) that can easily incorporate the Stirling engine-based AIP module (designed & built by Kockums of Sweden).
For the IAF’s Mi-17V-5s, the standard weapons fit of unguided rockets & Shturm/Vikhr ATGMs can be easily identified visually from the weapons launch pylons. There’s no on-board fire-control radars, but only a nose-mounted weather radar + an externally mounted laser ranger/illuminator on the helicopter’s portside stub-wing.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To FARIS: Your obsession with the past wars of the subcontinent amazes me (LoLz)! In reality, of the 93,000 POWs, only some 64,000 were soldiers, while the rest were civilian officials/bureaucrats from West Pakistan.
In the Malaysian context, the closest to an integrated theatre command is the tri-services joint forces HQ that was tried out back in 2005 in which the Army Filed Command is represented, but depending on the threat scenario (i.e. which of the three armed services will play the pivotal role), the three-star operational commander of the integrated theatre command will be selected.
In the absence of MAWS, the only other early warning provider is the Mk1 eyeball of the targetted aircraft’s wingman. Against IR-guided AAMs, yes, MAWS is the only existing piece of non-human kit available today. As the bulk of MANPADS threats worldwide are IR-based, the proliferation of MAWS incorporating laser illumination warning mode has not taken place. Only those air forces & armies that are faced with threats from laser-guided MANPADS or laser-guided anti-helicopter rounds (fired from MBTs) have bothered to induct MAWS (incorporating laser illumination warning mode) into service. Laser-guided MANPADS are not fire-and-forget systems unlike IR-guided MANPADS & are therefore reqd to keep the target illuminated until missile impact. This is not exactly a limitation since the time taken for missile impact is only a few seconds (between 5 & 7 seconds).

bradshaw said...

Hi Prasun,

What happened to the LRDE developed hybrid radar pictures of which were highly advertised in Media and if we have to select an israeli radar than why not the ELTA 2052 AESA which was formally offered ?

You said L&T is making on larger subsections of S-2 and S-3, so does that mean all Arihant class vessels will be of same size and capabilities and a bigger real sub S-5 will only come after 2020 ?

As Mi-17v5 , is LCH also not armed with FCR like the millimeter dome mounter redar on AH-64D ? Also what will be the anti-armour weapons for LCH as as helina is still far from production. Sometime back the IAF has evaluated PARS-3 and Spkite ATGM's.

Kannan,Kerala said...

"isn’t it obvious that the existence of a IRBM-specific BMD network is highly destabilising, as it tends to dilute the deterrence doctrine of mutually assured destruction?"

wrt to China,may be..but Pakistan does have a first use policy..and I believe an IRBM-threatre BMD will help us to have deterrence from
nuclear blackmail of Pak mil-jihadist complex.

SK said...

Many thanks for the replies. Missed the Babur in Qing SSK part in last years thread.

You missed a small part. its about the Brahmos Mk3. When will the 550Km range Mk3 version likely to be inducted and in what numbers. Presently Army is going for 3 regiments of Brahmos. Will the Mk3 be distributed among these 3 regiments or will the Army raise a new regiment separately.

What will be the range of the Indo-Israeli ALCM.

Anurag said...

Vary many THANX Prasun da.
But I have one doubt-earlier you had stated that ADA and Co has learned a lot more from LCA project than what HAL may learn from participating in FGFA.Does that mean you have learned more about the term of agreement between HAL and Sukhoi corp??Does that cooperation contact includes transfer of deep technology know how and know why??

By the way,no one here knows better than you why did the LCA project got delayed.The dismal state of Indian economy in the 90's,post 99 technology denial and moreover falure of the GTRE to deliver the Kaveri turbofan sealed the fate of LCA.But ADA did its part of job,don't you think so??

Do you have any update on the 4d AESA MPR in development by LRDE??Has it entered in testing phase??

Do you know what is the present estimated armor penetration value of Nag atgm on RHA scale??

And lastly,according to Mr V.K. Saraswat,the new 120mm unitary FSAPDS T round being developed for Arjun tanks will have a 780-800mm long and 8.4 kg Tu penetrator which will be fired at 1720 meter/sec velocity.Which means it will be longer and heavier than German DM 53 (740mm,8 kg) and have almost same mussel velocity yet he stated that it will have penetration value of just 600mm!!How is that possible??Don't you think it's a bit fishy??

By the way,Thanx For that great video.It shows us how crappy the Russian tanks are..

Anonymous said...

Please share more information about MBDA Direct energy weapons. Very little is available on net. Has any navy installed it on any ships. Has live intercepts testing done till now.

Anonymous said...

sir,according to you India has bought designs & documentation of delta 4 class submarines & that the indian s-5 ssbn will be based on it..don't u think that delta 4 is an old design..
these submarines entered service between 1985-1992..y is india going with this old design when russia itself is building borei class & usa too will start an ohio class replacement program..don't we need a new submarine..

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Bradshaw: I haven’t come across any pictures of any hybrid radar for the Tejas. All photos available so far have only shown since 2005 the HAL-developed MMR, which is only a laboratory model. The other illustrations released are computer-generated generic designs of an AESA-based MMR which LRDE is interested in developing with international cooperation. The EL/M-2052 or even the Vixen 500e could well follow on the Tejas Mk2, since by then all mechanically-scanned MMRs will become largely obsolete in another eight years. The Arihant-class SSBNs S-3 & S-4 will be of same size and capabilities and the bigger S-5 SSBN will only come after 2020. The LCH being an IAF-specific & IAF-mandated product, it cannot be expected to function as an attack helicopter unless it is radically redesigned. As for the LCH’s anti-armour guided-missiles, the PARS-3LR & Spike-ER are still in contention & if you were to compare the size of these two cannisterised ATGMs with that of the HELINA (which I did during DEFEXPO 2012), I can only say that a lot more work needs to be done on the HELINA since it is much bulkier than its imported counterparts.

To Kannan: Like Pakistan, China too has a first-use policy against nuclear weapons-capable states. China’s no-first-use policy only applies to those countries that don’t have WMDs.

To SK: The Brahmos-1’s Mk3 version is already under series-production and will equip a Regiment that will come under the jurisdiction of the Army’s HQ Eastern Command.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Anurag: Not ADA, but the DRDO as a whole has learnt a lot about developing various sub-systems & systems integration required for a fourth-generation MRCA, but when it comes to the fifth-generation MRCA, the DRDO again will have no choice but to seek an international partner like Dassault Aviation or Cassidian or Boeing for developing the AMCA, since any effort of this magnitude cannot be undertaken by a single R & D organisation that does not have its own captive aerospace industrial consortium. In comparison, HAL today is already partnered with Sukhoi Experimental Design Bureau (OKB) & airframe manufacturer IRKUT Corp, which means HAL is ahead of the DRDO in terms of having access to FGFA-related R & D efforts—both the know-how & know-why. Regarding the Tejas MRCA, it would have far better if the DRDO had retained Dassault Aviation as its principal strategic consultant (something that an aerospace manufacturer like HAL would have automatically done) throughout the duration of the MRCA’s R & D process, instead of terminating Dassault Aviation’s involvement after the project definition phase. Had that happened, then by today SNECMA Moteurs would have been far more involved in successfully developing the Kaveri, while Dassault Aviation & THALES would have ensured that all the cutting-edge technologies already developed for the Rafale would also have found their way into the Tejas, and all this effort would have been far more risk-free & also far more financially viable.
The LRDE’s S-band AESA-based MPR won’t be that different from the EL/M-2084 Arudhra MPR, rest assured. There will be significant similarities between the two, meaning this LRDE product will not be an entirely LRDE-developed product after all.
The DRDO has not yet released any verifiable performance figures relating to the armour penetration capabilities of Nag ATGM. The same goes for the new 120mm APFSDS round being developed by the DRDO. All that Dr V K Saraswat has publicly stated is that the 120mm round’s armour penetration capabilitirs are being improved in a two-phase manner, starting with development of the KE penetrator rod capable of piercing 500mm RHA, followed by 600mm RHA. Nothing else has been revealed about the weight or velocity of the KE penetrator rod.

To Anon@2.41PM: MBDA is still developing the anti-ASCM laser weapon & it has not yet entered production. But the Chinese are ahead in this area.

To Anon@8.44PM: I never said that the Delta 4-class SSBN’s design has been obtained by India. I had said that the S-5 SSBN’s hull design is a derivative of the Delta 3-class SSBN’s hull design, which will be tweaked as per the technology availability options, all of which depend on the DAE’s ability to develop newer-generation lifelong PWRs with lifelong reactor cores & greater power generation capabilities, & the DRDO’s ability to develop long-range SLBMs.

Anonymous said...

http://ibnlive.in.com/news/nsg-to-pull-out-900-commandos-from-vip-security/268822-3.html
see this link sir..something seems to be incorrect here..according to it..
there are 900 personnel in each of the 3 SRG units of the NSG..i.e 2700 commandos..& all of these units provide security to just 15 politicians..isn't it too high a no.
for just 15 people..even if 1 SRG unit is pulled out of vip duty there are still 2 units i.e 1800 commandos left..is this seriously true..i mean how can 3 elite units be earmarked for just 15 people.. ?

Anurag said...

@Prasun DA,VMT for your reply.

Can you please give a rough comparison between various performance parameters (like dimensions of radar antenna,Estimated numbers of T/R modules,tracking range against fighter sized targets,possible maximum power output and radar coverage angel etc) of Saab 2000 Ery Eye and Emb 145 AWACS????Will be grateful to you.

THANX in advance...................................................

Vikram Guha said...

Dear Prasun da,

What do you think are the technologies India need when it comes to fight a cyber war ?

China is repeatedly attacking our networks and stealing valuable information.

Thanks & Regards,
Vikram Guha

Anonymous said...

Sir, why does the MiG-29B-12 possess internal jammers when it was purchased during the Soviet era and the Soviet always deleted crucial avionics and supplied downgraded equipment to the IAF and IA. When the MiG-27/23 didn't have one how can the MiG-29 possess one?
As u said the internal jammers on board both the Sukhoi-30 MKI and MiG-29 is capable of CW,PW jamming. Can they jam hostile MMRs, active and semi-active seekers of SAM and AAM and datalinks associated with mid course update? Are they capable of cross eye jamming? At the present moment the MiG-29 and Sukhoi-30 lacks a MAWS. So, does the pilot dispense chaff and flares and engage in active manuveraing upon visual detection by eye? What happens to this when there is poor visibility.

The Jaguar was born out of an Anglo-French cooperation. It is a product of the West. So why does it lack jammers? Here there was no USSR type restriction in play.

Has attrition replacements been sought of the single Sukhoi-30 MKI, 2 MiG-29 and 2 Mirage-2000 that has crashed ?

hoods said...

can you please give us an update on project 17a frigates.have their design been finalized?what about their combat management system?when will their construction start?

for how long is the IA planning on keeping the t-72s as the backbone of our armored corps?

Anonymous said...

The IA has now got full ownership over the fleet of attack choppers. What does this translate to? Now, can it be expected that the IA greatly reduce the no of LCH it intends to buy and instead go for anti-armour and attack choppers like the Apache in far greater nos.
What is the total no of Mil Mi-24/35 gunships in service with the IA and the IAF? Are the fleet of 22 AH-64 Meant to replace or complement them? Will all the AH-64 block 3 feature the Longbow radar? Because I read an article in the Telegraph that only12 will feature the Longbow radar.

Anonymous said...

Prasun is this news about approval of attack helicopters for Indian army true ?

Anonymous said...

IAF is procuring 5 more Su-30 simulators to supplement the current 3 and also of PC-7 to improve the quality of the cadets. Baby steps in the right direction.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To ANURAG: You can find all the information you need in the Part-2 thread of my DEFEXPO 2012 show report last April, which gives details of the LSTAR S-band radar being developed by LRDE, plus at the two following weblinks containing my earlier posts & articles on the Saab 2000 AEW & CS:
http://trishulgroup.blogspot.in/2008/11/saab-2000-aew-c-detailed.html
&
http://officialsite.my/tempur/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=797&Itemid=2

Am not aware of anything like the EMB-145 AWACS, since the term AWACS is associated with only the E-3 family of AEW & C platforms.

To Vikram Guha: More than technologies, what India needs is to train its human resource workforce to be disciplined & adhere to SOPs. Most of the hackings occur due to this reason, apart from the fact that Indian companies, especially the PSUs, don’t invest much in malware detection tools.

To Anon@9.39PM: Why? Simply because the MiG-29B, Su-25 & Su-27 all belong to a different generation of combat aircraft. The MiG-21s, MiG-23BNs, MiG-27Ms, Su-7s, Su-15s & Su-22s never had such on-board equipment. Existing Su-30MKIs & MiG-29Bs employ their internal jammers for only neutralising unbound semi-active & active radar seekers of BVRAAMs, & not SAMs. They dispense chaff based on warning cues from the RWR, while flares are dispensed AFTER the threats are visually acquired. Poor visibility always occurs at altitudes that are close to terrain, be it over flat land or over mountains. Air combat never takes place at such altitudes, but at much higher altitudes. The Jaguar belonged to the same generation as that of the MiG-27M & at that time internal jammers were not in vogue. In fact, the F-16 got its internal jammer from ITT Defense long after the MiG-29B. No extra attrition replacements have been sought.

To Hoods: The P-17A FFG’s detailed design is still being worked upon & could be finalised before the year’s end. The CMS will be the CMS-17A, a derivative of the one presently operational on the two P-17 FFGs. T-72M1s are no longer the backbone of the IA’s armoured corps. They ceased to be so in 2007, when the T-90S MBTs took over.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Anons@11.25PM & 11.28PM: Firstly, who from the Indian MoD or IA has officially stated the IA has now got full ownership over the fleet of attack helicopters? All that the RM stated yesterday was that “he asked the Army to prepare to induct more attack helicopters into the force” (see: http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/army-closer-to-getting-attack-helicopters-as-india-eyes-china-threat-238686?pfrom=home-lateststories)
What this means is that the RM has urged the IA to hasten the induction of HAL-built ‘Rudra/Dhruv Mk4’ helicopter gunships (& not attack helicopters) by finalising their armament fitments & make up its mind on which armed LOH/LUH it wants to acquire. Nowhere has the RM stated that the IA will get full ownership of the IAF’s existing or projected fleet of attack helicopters. This is what happens when ill-informed ‘desi’ reporters’ make bland ASSUMPTIONS, which, as I’ve stated several times before, BECOMES THE MOTHER OF ALL FUCK-UPs!!!
If only such entities knew what a big deal it is to transfer ownership of a helicopter fleet from one armed service to another! Firstly, IF this were to happen, then the IA would have to create from scratch its own network of air bases (which would also have to house all MRO facilities) where such attack helicopters would have to be homeported, since the IAF will not allow the use of its real estate for such purposes. Secondly, the IAF’s Air Warriors who were earlier trained to fly such machines would be immediately reassigned to fly other types of helicopters, since crossing over from one armed service to another will require adjustments of rank, pay-scales, perks, etc. In the rest of the world, whenever such crossovers have been attempted, the personnel were always given a choice: either stay in one’s existing service, or in case one desires to crossover, then there’s no guarantee of being absorbed by the new service with one’s existing rank & pay-scales. Which consequently means that the IA will have no choice but to raise its own pool of air warriors from scratch & this will require at least five years to have a dedicated pool of skilled & proficient manpower for flying & operating these machines. Thirdly, it was only last year that the RM had stated on record that the MoD wanted both the IA & IAF to reconcile their differences internally over this issue, & therefore, making an about-turn now will only make the RM, the MoD & its civilian bureaucracy look like a bunch of fools. Fourthly, if such a significant announcement (like the AAC getting ownership of the IAF’s attack helicopters) indeed was made by the RM yesterday, then the present COAS Gen Bikram Singh would surely have gone to town by making a grand announcement & loudly thumping his feet on the ground & claiming credit in front of all ‘desi’ broadcast TV channels for such a significant achievement within less than 30 days of becoming the COAS. Well, that didn’t happen yesterday. Lastly, the IAF is most unlikely to let go of an existing fleet/capability (like attack helicopters) unless it gets something back in return, like the authorisation for procuring a sizeable fleet of combat SAR helicopters. Since this too hasn’t happened, one can only conclude that the IA has only been authorised to raise its fleet of medium helicopter gunships & armed LOHs/LUHs.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Anon@12.14AM: That’s great, for the more the merrier. The induction processes now need to be accelerated, & the IAF should also engage in competitive bidding for acquiring at least two cockpit procedures trainers & two tactical flight simulators for its fleet of MiG-29UPGs, similar to what the Indian Navy did for its MiG-29Ks. Till to date, the IAF hasn’t made any move to acquire such simulators for its MiG-29UPGs.

Anonymous said...

sir ,
am the anon at 8;01 am july 2..
i agree that u r a busy man & can;t ans such ridiculous questions,,
but sir,,just have a look at the ques and atleast ans in YES or NO..

Anonymous said...

sir,
u said "IAF won't part with its combat helo fleet till it gets something in return like combat SAR helos"..
my ques is if the IAF requires such SAR helos..shouldn't it get it irrespective of whether is has combat helos or not.. ?
& sir , y can't in national interest the IAF share its MRO facilities with IA..till the latter build its own ?
& y can't IAF pilots man these flying machine till 5 yrs till IA trains its own work force fully ?
whats the harm if they do so in national interest..?
& is the IAF looking for SAR helos ?

SK said...

Prasun are anymore RISATs are planned for launch in near future. You mentioned once that atleast 3 Risat-1 and 7 RISAT 2 on low orbit are required for 24X7 coverage.

Is US or any other nation willing to give India the tech for IIR BMD Satellites ? I don't "feel" Indian establishments are capable of developing them with out help.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Anon@1.56AM: The report only states that 1 SRG battalion comprising 900 personnel is earmarked for VIP/VVIP protection tasks. Therefore, it is not 2,700. Secondly, the NSG is presently structured for counter-terror operations ONLY within the national capital Region. That was its original mandate when it was raised. And that is why it will be totally ineffective when its detachments are raised in other cities, since except at the NSG HQ, all other detachments will not have the same or reqd number of training facilities. Thirdly, why have only Army personnel for the two SAG units? The Army’s counter-terror or hostage-rescue SOF units should be deployed primarily for overseas contingencies, and only act as a back-up for domestic scenarios. By now the NSG should have replaced all Army personnel with personnel drawn from within all existing CAPFs. Fourthly, for providing proximate security for VIPs/VVIPs, the Special Protection Group (SPG) should be made use of & its strength increased, and not the NSG. Fifthly, counter-terror & hostage-rescue operations at the state-levels, be it in rural areas or in cities, should be carried out by the State Police’s SWAT units, with the NSG only rendering support since it is impossible for the NSG to respond in a timely manner in any part of India. After all, despite the presence of NSG in Haryana, the Delhi Police has gone ahead & rasied its own SWAT unit. So should the other states.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Anon@2.20AM: The IAF has for long had SAR helicopters like the SA.316B Alouette-3/Chetak, & will in future replace them with the yet-to-be-selected LUH. Combat SAR helicopters are in a totally different category & therefore constitute a different capability. One cannot share the existing MRO facilities or existing IAF air bases due to simple financial accounting reasons. One can either buy off the existing infrastructure or lease it for a limited period of time. In any case, the IA would want to position its helicopter gunships in locations that are close to the peacetime locations of various armoured corps formations, since helicopter gunships & armed LOHs always work together with MBTs & other mechanised/armoured assets and they therefore need to routinely train together, something which is not happening now as the IAF’s attack helicopters are too few & far away from the Army’s training areas. Therefore, in almost all joint Army-IAF exercises held to date after 2002, only the South-Western Command of IA from the IAF’s attack helicopters based in Jodhpur & Bhatinda. Lastly, the IAF is simply not attuned to the Army’s concept of waging combined arms warfare, since exercising only twice a year with different Army formations doesn’t result in synchronisation of operations. Then there’s the problem of communications between the two different services as the IAF isn’t hooked into the AREN network & therefore a separate IAF-deputed forward air controller is reqd. In other words, too many problems persist, all of which would disappear within a five-year period if the AAC were given full ownership of ALL IAF-owned attack helicopters. Therefore, my solution would be for the AAC to have its own fleet of heavy attack helicopters (taken permanently from the IAF) over a five-year period, get Army HQ to work with HAL to develop a LAH variant of the LCH, and allow the IAF to invest in a fleet of some 40 long-range combat SAR helicopters like the Eurocopter Cougar or AgustaWestland AW-101 or Sikorsky H-92 SuperHawk.

To SK: Further launches of RISAT 1-type satellites are planned for, but not yet finalised. There are no plans for acquiring any further RISAT 2-type satellites, although this could change in future. For the satellites of the projected ‘Missile Monitoring System’, talks are underway with the US for importing the optronic sensors, just as France is supplying the atomic clocks to ISRO for the IRNSS constellation of GPS navigation satellites.

Anonymous said...

sir ,
the report also mentions that in the near future 12 SRG unit could be moved out of VIP duty..giving an impression that more than unit is earmarked for VIP duty.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Anon@3.33AM: 11 SRG is for proximate security, whereas 12 SRG is employed for perimeter/installation security missions for official functions in built-up areas & around the NCR.

Anonymous said...

sir ,
also the report states that the personnel strength of each NSG unit is 900..that includes the 2 SAG units as well..i.e 1800 commandos in these 2 units..sir , then y on earth did the reports emerge that there were not enough commandos during mumbai attacks..when only around 400 commandos were inside the 3 buildings ?
& sir , y is the NSG's official strength pegged at 7500..when there must be 4500 people in the 5 units..?
does it imply 3000 people in support roles ?

& sir , given that the strength of NSG is being raised..NSG now is not based on GSG-9 or SAS..as these units have only a few hundered personnel..y do we then need thousands of commandos ?

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To ANON@June 28, 2012 11:54AM
“What can we professionally call you? A Freelance reporter perhaps...............” No, even that doesn’t fit the bill. I’m just an editorial contributor engaged in charitable activities, since I don’t charge any money for my editorial contributions anywhere.
“You do visit lot of Defence expos held in different countries not on media accredition perhaps through contacts but then it begs the question these visits are on your personal expenditure?....................You bet. 100%.
“Your are doing this out of hobby?”…………………………………No. It’s a combination of passion & professional reqmt since I’m also involved in the aviation MRO business, which is my true profession.
“Clearly they will be covered under "official secrets act". Unless you are best buddy with the rosoboronexport representative at some defence expo who shared this info then both of you won't come under the official secrets act.”………………….That’s the closest you’ve come to the truth so far.
“You are a ex-service man, were you in Military Intelligence? You did report about some RAW operations in older threads”……………………………No, was never employed with any armed services. One can report/write about information-gathering operations/exercises (that’s not intelligence, for only a deductive appreciation & probable conclusions based on information available on hand constitutes intelligence) by simply being an observer or witness (and not an active actor) of events as they took place, & subsequently narrating them as anecdotes from the past. That’s the overall beauty of frequently travelling overseas for attending various aerospace/military expos & exercises, for it is there that one is exposed first-hand various persons/exhibits/events of interest, & informal exchanges of views/opinions/news take place, many of which require further follow-ups before the big picture (intelligence assessment) finally emerges. It is this big picture that I endeavour to upload my blog-threads. Then there’s the other kind of time-sensitive information in one’s possession that can only be revealed as anecdotes at a later date by folks like me, since I’m not in the business of 24-hour shelf-life broadcast/print journalism & therefore don’t dabble in FLASH, EXCLUSIVE, BREAKING NEWS, FIRST HERE, etc. But for the most part, I only try to upload materials & comments that appeal to any discerning individual’s common sense (which ain’t that common nowadays) & appetite for resorting to logical reasoning.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Anon@4.12AM: There were more than enough NSG personnel available during 26/11 in Mumbai, BUT they arrived too late to make a decisive difference. And they were ill-equipped. In fact, the most critical role was placed by the IN’s MARCOS, which succeeded in pinning down the terrorists in the three locations. But this unit of MARCOS was not trained or equipped for hostage-rescue & therefore lacked hardware like night-vision goggles, hand-held thermal imagers or Cornershot. Had all this been available to the MARCOS detachment stationed in Karanja off Mumbai, all the eight terrorists holed up in the buildings would have been eliminated in the first night itself hours before the arrival of the NSG in Mumbai the following day.

Anonymous said...

sir ,
u say that a particular marcos unit that arrived at the scene of action in mumbai first was not trained for hostage rescue..sir , but isn't hostage rescue one of the primary missions of marcos..since they are trained for countering maritime terrorism like aboard ships & oil rigs..& these activities could well involve hostages..like in gulf of aden marcos could be called to free a ship under pirate control..where the pirates might have held the crew as hostages ?
& sir , shouldn't equipment like NVGs & HHTI be standard fit for every infantry man..? more so the SF men ?

Vikram Guha said...

Prasun Da , as always Many Thanks

-Vikram

KSK said...

Read the news that Army will operate its own attack helicopter units.
Does that mean all the helos under IAF in present and future like Mil-35 and Apache,LCH will come under the Army....
I think it will take time as it is IAF personnel that operate attack helos.

KSK said...

dont bother read ur previous reply :)

F said...

Prasun,

Do you recall mention made in Tempur some years ago that the TNI-AL was interested in Kilos fitted with a VLS to fire the Brahmos? Was this just a proposal from the Russians or did the idea come from the TNI-AL?

Has there been any indication that the Vietnamese navy will fit its Kilos with Klub? If so, how will they do OTHT or will they just rely on the Kilos sensors?

Are you are aware that about a month ago the Chief of RMN disclosed that a request would be made to the USN for a transfer of 2 Perry class frigates? Would you agree that this is a bad idea due to the age of the Perry's and for commonality reasons? And that the request is because the RMN is facing an acute shortage ofhulls and badly needs low cost hulls that can be delivered within a short period?

Is there also a possibility that due to a lack of funding the RMN, will not get a scaled down version of the Dokdo as was planned but will get instead get former USN LSTs?

Is there any truth to various reports that the RMN is involved in a tussle with the Ministry of Finance as it is insistingon ESSM for the LCS but there is only enough funding for the cheaper, shorter range, less capable MICA? There was also a report that the RMN was also insisting on the TACTICO, which is being fitted to the Kasturi class, but that the French are proposing a CMS from Thales.

Also, did you see the model of the LCS that was displayed at DSA? It had 2 30mm guns fitted on the hangar. The perfect solution would be to fit RAM there - as insurance - wouldn't you agree?

Shankar SenGupta said...

Hello Prasun,

Of the 4 QR SAM that are likely to compete for India's QR SAM tender which one has your vote .

MBDA - Maitri
Rafael - IAI SpyDer
Raytheon - MIM 23 Hawk or modified SLAMRAAM
TOR M1 9M330

I would think that IAI spyder has a good chance .

Thanks,
Shankar

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Anon@6.38AM: Contrary to what many may like to believe, hostage-rescue is NOT one of the primary missions of all personnel of MARCOS, which was raised on lines similar to those of the US Navy’s SEAL teams, & therefore the MARCOS comprises various detachments each specialising in different kinds of special operations missions. Consequently, specialised equipment available to each such detachment will be tailored for the mission the detachment is trained for. As for the MARCOS being called to free a ship under pirate control where the pirates might have held the crew as hostages, this depends on the nature & location of the threat. In most cases, it is not MARCOS, but specially trained VBSS teams comprising naval seamen who undertake such counter-piracy tasks. Even if an India-flagged vessel is taken over by pirates inside any country’s territorial waters, the Indian Navy is most unlikely to launch any hostage-rescue operation during peacetime.

To FARIS: That proposal for VLS-equipped Type 636 SSKs came from BrahMos Aerospace. Vietnam people’s Navy will definitely equip its Type 636 SSKs with 3M-14E & 3M53E Klub-S LACMs and ASCMs. For OTHT, use will be made of Ka-28PLs. Regarding the acquisition of Perry-class FFGs, it depends on whether the FFGs are being sought on a permanent basis or whether a lease programme is being considered. As for LPDs, they won’t be scaled-down versions of the Dokdo (which is an LPH), but something similar to what the TNI-AL has acquired from South Korea. For the Gowind LCS, it is more a corvette than a FFG & has been designed from the outset to accommodate the THALES-developed SETIS combat management system (CMS) instead of the TACTICOS of an earlier generation. If the SETIS is rejected, then the RMN will be reqd to fork out extra funding to install & integrate the SETIS on board the Gowind. Regarding the SAM fit, for a corvette like GOWIND, VL-MICA as an E-SHORADS would be far better than the RIM-162 ESSM, which is more suited for FFGs. For close-in anti-ASCM defence, a single RIM-116 RAM launcher located aft would indeed be a good option.

To Shankar SenGupta: Of all the contenders, the Maitri is just a paper design and doesn’t exist in the real world, therefore MBDA ought to offer the VL-MICA. RAFAEL’s SpyDer-SR already has the advantage of being an in-service system & consequently, will be highly cost-competitive. Raytheon’s MIM-23 I-Hawk is a MR-SAM & not a SHORADS, while the SL-AMRAAM is a good E-SHORADS but is not vertically launched. The TOR-M1 is really a legacy system. My personal favourite would be the one which everyone seems to have forgotten about: Diehl BGT of Germany’s IRIS-T SL E-SHORADS. Do check out these two weblinks:
http://www.diehl.com/en/diehl-defence/products/air-defence-system.html
&
http://www.diehl.com/en/nc/diehl-defence/press/diehl-eroeffnet-liaison-office-india-in-neu-delhi/557.html

dashu said...

finally US said SORRY to Pak ... when our diplomats match the skills of their Pak counterparts ...

dashu said...

Day by day my admiration for PRC is increasing . recently they fooled the US companies for their Z-10 attack helicopter . and our noble leaders, leaders wont be apt rather politicians/ lawmakers are good for nothing .

An Indian said...

Dashu Ji,

>Finally US said SORRY to Pak ... when our diplomats match the skills of their Pak counterparts ...

But not before the Pak lifted the ban on re-opening NATO Supply routes.
It was hurting them(Pak) hugely..(Recent Capture and Handover of India born and Pak trained key witness alive by Saudis to India..under US pressure.
And TWO other are in the pipeline..to be deported to India).

US played a nice game with PAK..forced PAK so that PAK based terrorists are moved to Saudi Arabia. Saudis captured them..now they are slowly deporting to India (Under US pressure)...until PAK re-opens the NATO supply routes to Afganistan...(I heard! Even US did not actually requested PAK to do so...PAK itself pledged to US, that it will re-open the supply routes...provided US does not pressurize Saudis to hand over and deport high profile and key terror witnesses to India :-) I think the PAk military's Intelligence Agency actually forced PAK politicians/burocrats to do this agreement with US...else it's going to wide open them in front of the entire world.

Prasun Da ..what do you say ?

Mr. Ra 13 said...

So regarding the WZ-10, the Red Dragon succeeds with extra expenditure of a little more money. Obviously the amount fined by the big beast must have been included in the earlier cost and price calculations. Lol...

Shankar SenGupta said...

Prasun, thanks a bunch.

-Shankar

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 208   Newer› Newest»