Total Pageviews

Monday, June 4, 2012

Games being Played Along India’s Eastern Seaboard

What else could one expect from a hyperventilating news broadcast channel last week (see: http://www.timesnow.tv/Debate-America-eyes-Bay-of-Bengal---1/videoshow/4403335.cms & http://www.timesnow.tv/Debate-America-eyes-Bay-of-Bengal---2/videoshow/4403336.cms) other than sheer ill-informed and misguided revelations about the US Navy’s 7th Fleet trying to gain a firm foothold in Bangladesh. That broadcast journalism has hit a new low is no longer in doubt, but what is far more worrisome is the attitude of certain self-styled India-based ‘strategic experts’ to justify the purpoted US presence-to-be inside Bangladesh’s territorial waters as being a counter-balance to an alleged military presence of the People’s Republic of China inside Myanmar. To say the least, the facts say otherwise. Here’s what the issue is all about.     
Given the need to demarcate the maritime boundaries of Bangladesh and Myanmar without any further delay, Dhaka in October 2009 brought the issue before the International Tribunal for Arbitration, having exhausted all attempts to reach a bilateral agreement with Yangon. Consequently, Bangladesh was recently awarded 111,000 square kilometres of exclusive economic zone (EEZ) waters in the Bay of Bengal, almost the same size of Bangladesh, which includes all sea-based resources currently available for exploitation (especially oil and gas) and all such resources that may be discovered in the future. The Tribunal also awarded Bangladesh a 12-mile territorial sea around St Martin's Island, overruling Myanmar’s argument that it should be divided in half. The judgment is final and without appeal, with Bangladesh winning by 21 votes to 1. The biggest advantage for Bangladesh that is likely to stem from this judgment is that it will now be able to utilise the area that had been in dispute for the last 38 years. But in the absence of any bilateral agreement between the two countries clearly delimiting their maritime boundaries, what factors pushed the two governments toward a judicial solution? It was the strong likelihood of newly accessible gas and heightening demand in both countries that eventually motivated Bangladesh and Myanmar to pursue a solution through international arbitration, since the demand for natural gas in Bangladesh is immense, and the country’s acute power crisis has also emerged as a burning political issue. For Myanmar, demand for gas in the export markets has motivated the government to export more gas in order to gain greater foreign reserves.
Bangladesh has also gained several other important economic benefits from this verdict. Firstly, the government can now start drilling for oil and gas 200 nautical miles out to sea. The discovery of new oil and gas may help the country meet its domestic power demands, and the government could also generate capital by allocating blocks to international companies (especially US-, UK- and China-based) for further exploration. Secondly, Bangladesh will now be able to access different types of perishable marine and mineral resources, which should help strengthen its economy. Dhaka is also expected to find various types of minerals, including cobalt, manganese, copper, nickel and sulfite. Thirdly, this verdict will help increase the number of skilled workers capable of extracting much-needed resources from the sea. This issue has already been discussed between Bangladesh’s Foreign and Education ministries, which have agreed to open oceanography departments at Dhaka and Chittagong Universities. Fourthly, these developments could also help Bangladesh win the maritime dispute with India, which concerns the western side of the Bay of Bengal. India is insisting on the principle of equidistance instead of equality in demarcating the maritime boundary. The verdict on this dispute is expected to be handed down by 2014 through international arbitration.
Set against this background, what could the US possibly stand to gain from Bangladesh, apart from the expected lucrative offshore hydrocarbons exploration contracts? For one, the US is well aware that in the years to come the Bay of Bengal will indeed witness a naval arms race of sorts between India and China. India is already on record for having specified that its eastern seaboard will house the naval establishments required for supporting her survivable nuclear deterrent, i.e. the fleet of SSBNs and associated SSNs. For both the US and China, therefore, logic demands that the navies of both countries seek and develop suitable shore-based naval logistics infrastructure aimed at monitoring the envisaged growth of India’s nuclear-powered undersea warfare platforms. Between the US and China, it was the latter that took the first logical step forward, when in August 2011 saw Myanmar officially inviting China to develop logistics facilities for visiting PLA Navy (PLAN) flotillas at the existing port in in Kyaukpyu in the Bay of Bengal. The ultimate intention behind the creation of such naval logistics infrastructure is to provide support for the PLAN’s warships, ballistic missile tracking vessels and oceanographic survey vessels, that will be engaged in persistently monitoring India’s sea trials for its SSBNs, SSNs and SLBMs along the Bay of Bengal and southern Indian Ocean, and also for  providing protection for Beijing’s expanding offshore oil-and-gas exploration facilities in the Bay of Bengal. This was reportedly the main topic of discussion between Myanmar’s recently-elected President Thein Sein and his Chinese counterpart Hu Jintao when the former visited Beijing between May 26 and 28 last year on his first official overseas visit. The strategic port of Kyaukpyu, a multi-billion dollar project totally financed by China, will house a network of pipelines which, after being commissioned in 2013, will have the capacity to transfer to Yunnan Province more than 80% of China’s imported oil from the Middle East and Africa, as well as natural gas from the Shwe Gas Field--currently Myanmar’s largest gas reserve with an estimated 7.0 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. It may be recalled that Yangon chose to sell the natural gas from Shwe to China over India in 2007, a move that consolidated Myanmar’s position as a valued ally of Beijing. The Kyaukpyu project includes upgrading the existing airport on Ramree Island where Kyaukpyu is located.
It is also believed that the PLAN will also make use of Kyaukpyu for providing logistics support for a new generation of ocean-going intelligence-gathering vessels. The first such vessel, the Uranus (No853), was last August commissioned into the PLAN’s South Sea Fleet. The PLAN also intends to deploy its new-build ocean surveillance catamarans being built at Guangzhou’s Huangpu Shipyard. The first three such vessels (991, 992 and 993) are presently in service with the North Sea Fleet, while the fourth vessel will be deployed with the South Sea Fleet. These vessels will lead the flotilla of marine exploration vessels which China will soon be dispatching after having obtained a deep-sea mining licence in central Indian Ocean (Southwestern Indian Ridge) from the International Seabed Authority (ISA). The State-run China Ocean Mineral Resources Research and Development Association had applied for the licence in May 2010 to explore for polymetallic sulphides in the Southwest Indian Ridge. It would now be required to sign a contract with the ISA, allowing it to explore up to 10,000 sq km over the next 15 years in line with the new rules on polymetallic sulphides adopted by the ISA last year. China, which has ratified the 1982 Law of the Sea Convention and is an ISA member, has been active in deep sea exploration since 2002 when it launched a programme that included developing an active diving submersible—Jiaolong--designed for a maximum depth of 7,000 metres.

The US strategy is plain and simple: it too, like China, has an overriding need to monitor India’s sea-based nuclear weapons-related developments, and what better than to do this under the guise of conducting perfectly legal offshore oil/gas exploration activities within Bangladesh’s EEZ. After all, all that the US will be required to deploy will be a fleet of no more than three non-militarised ocean surveillance vessels and two EP-3-type airborne ELINT aircraft, for which all that the US will require will be a ‘civilian’ shore-based logistics station that includes a runway, all of which can be built within a short span of time at Bangladesh’s St Martin’s Island. For tracking the sea-trials of India’s SSBNs and SSNs, both the US Navy and the Royal Navy will be able to deploy on short notice their SSNs from their bases in Diego Garcia, located 1,200 nautical miles (2,200km) south of the southern tip of India, and from The Maldives’ Gan Island.
 
In a related development, the DRDO’s Kochi-based Naval Physical & Oceanographic Laboratory (NPOL) has released the first definitive illustration of the next-generation S-5 SSBN, which externally bears a close resemblance to the Project 667BDRM Delta IV SSBN. The illustration, carried on a brochure of the NPOL-developed submarine sonar suite (SSS I-12), which is still under development for the S-5, which will carry twelve 6,500km-range SLBMs. Thus far, India’s MoD has sanctioned the fabrication of only three SSBNs: S-2 (Arihant), S-3 and S-4. Financial sanction for fabricating the S-5’s hull has yet to be obtained.   The double-hulled Project 667BDRM Delta IV SSBN has an operational diving depth of 320 metres and a maximum depth of 400 metres. The propulsion system allows speeds of 24 Knots (44kph) submerged while using two VM-4 pressurised water reactors rated at 180mW that drive two GT3A-365 turbines each rated at 27.5mW.

73 comments:

Anonymous said...

it is very surprising that the US needs supervision of Indian nuke subs by having a dedicated logistic facility at the Island.

1) It will seem as if the Indian project is extremely secretive (like china) that it is difficult for even US to gain information, and it is interested in gaining this info. if it is, we deserve a pat on the back.

2) the US having such a long history of surveillance even on highly secretive states and after having deigo garcia in near vicinity will need a much more detailed logistic base for a persistent surveillance

3)placing a surveillance hub in so close proximity of a nation it wants to woo to its side (and given that India is suspicious ally of the US a tag which US wants desperately to be removed) is definitely going to raise the suspicion levels higher.

4) Having china trying to gain access outside its local zone and the port facilities in myanmar is not going to be soothing to US.

5) Recent wooing by the US of a more democratic Myanmar, even upto level of defence coop. and snubbing of china by myanmar (though benign) coupled with the fact that US wants to show the south east nations that it is much more dependable than china.

All this indicate that if ever US wants to come to our backyard it will be definitely with the auspices of India seeing it as a counter balance (or even to inhibit china from entering bay of Bengal in the fear of getting spied by US) to China. India, it appears to have learnt the lessons that alone it cannot afford to tackle all the problematic south asian nations (like if we some how wean away Myanmar from hands of china an open srilanka or Bengladesh it will find) and to stalemate china. If US steps in no one else will go to china, fearing uncle sam. It is definitely not worrysome, but should be a concern if India were to hope for strategic independence (which cannot be afforded now)

Austin said...

The NPOL model of S-5 reminds me of a proposed early model of Borei class submarine that i saw many years back which was further evolution of Delta-4 model with a hump back design.

Wonder if Rubin has sold the design or is proposing it for S-5 SSBN design.

Austin said...

This is the one model found at warfare.ru

http://warfare.ru/0702ey70/update/jan2003/4/955.jpg

dashu said...

24 Knots (44kph) is way too low ...

dashu said...

but this design is not looking nice like the ones of US SSBN

SK said...

Prasun,
I never said the An-124-300 will be cheaper than C-17. I said the price will be in same ballpark.
My query was "IAF would have got nearly twice the payload then C-17 if they opted for AN-124-300 (With western engines & avionics) at similar prices"
Ofcourse deliveries will get delayed as the factory is yet to restart. So the present order of 10 C-17 should take care of immediate requirement and maybe IAF should look at An-124 instead of follow-on C-17. Its only a idea which occured to me...... probably not feasible.

Anonymous said...

" The propulsion system allows speeds of 24 Knots (44kph) submerged while using two VM-4 pressurised water reactors rated at 180mW that drive two GT3A-365 turbines each rated at 27.5mW"

Can you elaborate on the comment. I didn't know the reactor was finalized for the S-5.
Wasn't this the not so capable icebreaker reactor which need to refuled every 4-5 years, the same one used in the Arihant ?

Anonymous said...

http://idrw.org/?p=11861

Saying its ambitious is an under-statement.

Mr. Ra 13 said...

They should first go for the development of AMCA-1 (Semi Stealth) with the technologies in hand by then. Till then they should keep on developing the AMCA-2 (Full Stealth) in parallel.

Haven't they learned so far by their own experiences on Arjun Mk1-Mk1A-Mk2-FMBT and Tejas Mk1-Mk2-Mk3.

Anonymous said...

Sir, regarding the Jaguar I think u got me all wrong. Thats not what I want to say. The two are different bombing techniques. One is laser designated bombing techniques using LDPs and the other is utilizing real time imagery from RTP and Multi mode radars using SAR, ISAR techniques. In laser designated bombing , one laser designates a target , then drops a LGB which homes in on the target . If by chance, the homing gets obscured by smoke, fog , then the bomb will lose it's accuracy. Also as u said , LDPs are weather dependent, laser emission will not penetrate through any sort of cloud cover. Whereas RTPs will see through such cover and MMW being a type of radar utilizing micro waves such emissions will easily penetrate through any type of weather impediments . Infrared emissions can also do the same. Because greater the wavelength, smaller is the absorption of the wave in the medium and greater is the distance travelled since according to Rayleigh scattering theory, scattering proportional to Lamda^-4.
Pls , I have a few queries.
1.1.With the Litening LDP , it is possible to acquire, identify, track & engage ground targets from 50 km away and from an altitude of 45000 ft. Now,in what way does the LDP acquires the target? Does it take a photo of the target in the IR spectrum & tracks the target using the Flir. 
2. This means the Jag will remain outside the engagement envelope of AAA, point defense sam and most mrsam.
3. Will u pls give a brief description of the Litening LDP. From what i read in wiki, it consists of a 3rd gen FLIR, a laser range finder, a low light CCD, a laser designator. Just as the same way the Flir takes infrared imagery of the ground target and acquires the target, cant it be used for obtaining imagery of the terrain below . And if not, why.
4. Can all of the 5 pylons support multi ejector racks. These racks can nly support bombs , that too upto 500 lb. Can more than one air - surface missile be carried on a hardpoint using multiple ejector racks.
I know I have been pestering around for quote a few days. Am very eager to know. And u are the only one whom I can resort to.
Pls reply.

Anonymous said...

Hi Prasun, the IAC-2 would be big enough to accommodate 40 PAK-FA and 4 E-2 Hawkeye. And as u said, " A nuclear-powered IAC-2 hosting some 40 M-MRCAs or FGFAs & four E-2D Hawkeye 2000s will give India the decisive air supremacy that’s required for neutralising the PAF’s air superiority/airborne maritime strike capabilities ". And what will be the complement of the IAC-1. Can it accommodate 40 Rafales considering it's small deck footprint. What is the status of the Vikrant now?

I recently went through Airpower Australia's technical analysis of the Sukhoi PAK-FA .
1. There Carlo Kopp has said that the VLO shaping and performance is similar to the F-35 only from the front quarter. From the rest it is not even close . And when compared to the F-22 , it is eons behind . It will not provide the user with the critical all aspect stealth performance required to break modern IADS. And as such , Dr C.Kopp has said the current prototype is not the definitive production variant. Much will change . Many structural and airframe changes will go aboard.
2. The PAK-FA is currently behind all stealth acs , F-22,F-35, & Pla J-XX.
3. I want to know something. The PAK-FA has a very long forward fuselage . It has a long nose assembly. Why the cockpit is so close to the radome . The radome is not so large. In all the Sukhoi predecessors, the cockpit assembly is well behind leaving a well spaced and large radome. Whereas , in the PAK-FA, there is lots of space behind the cockpit.
4. Ofcourse it will feature a distributed AESA but a large nose is always beneficial.
5. And who knows what the production variant will look like? The current design places more emphasis on high agility.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Anon@7.05AM: All that one can say is that friendly countries spy much more against one another than on their ‘enemies’. Not only the US, but even the other declared nuclear weapons states do have an obligation to conduct as aggressively as possible any quantum of information-gathering regarding the emergence of new nuclear weapons states. What the US is doing us therefore nothing ‘evil’, & the US certainly is not eyeing the Bay of Bengal to monitor Chinese activities inside Myanmar, that’s a given.

To AUSTIN: That SSBN design/scale-model from Rubin Central Marine Engineering Design Bureau of mid-1990s vintage was developed specifically for India, since the Russians were never expected to induct into service a SSBN with only 12 SLBM silos.

To SK: Is the An-124-300’s increased payload capacity reqd to take precedence over the STOL capabilities of the C-17A, which was a prime prerequisite for the IAF’s strategic airlifter competition?

To Anon@1.27PM: The S-5 will have an all-new design PWR. When the S-5’s design has already been finalised (it was in the late 1990s itself), then how come that of the PWR isn’t? It would therefore be logical to conclude that the entire n-power generation/propulsion system’s design too was finalised by the late 1990s. For more info on the Arihant’s R & D timelines & milestones, do go to: http://officialsite.my/tempur/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=883&Itemid=2

To Anon@11.25PM: IAC-1’s aircraft complement will be more or less the same as that of INS Vikramaditya. No matter how advanced the VLO-shaping of the F/A-22, it can still be detected & tracked by an IRST sensor in the tail-chase mode. All-aspect stealth is not possible & not reqd against IADS since the IADS network will always be degraded by LACMs & loitering PGMs. Large nose is not reqd for the FGFA since the avionics bulkheads will be distributed between the nose-section & the section aft of the cockpit. One therefore cannot compare the design philosophies of the FGFA with those of legacy Sukhoi combat aircraft models.

Anonymous said...

But isnt the first rule of spying is never to publish it open. what is the point of declaring that yes we have something at an island and we are going to spy on you, so beware!

except that it is a pressure tactic to say 'you guys dont think everything goes unnoticed'. Why are you saying that it is worrysome, i beleive it is a discomfort we will have to live with at worse. After all do we beleive that in a 50 years timescale we will ever question uncle sam and try to coerce it by show of force. Impractical!.
I think a even bad US is 100 times better than many of our good neighbours. After all it is among few countries worth calling a nation.

Anonymous said...

Hi Prasun, in the PAK-FA, the nose assembly is  small and there is less space available for the radome. This is because the avionics is distributed between the nose bay and the one aft of the cockpit. But because the cockpit is so close to the radome, isnt there less space available for the radar subassembly. Also what is evident from the small radome is that the AESA radar aperture wont be big. Infact it seems to be smaller than the F-22 let alone the Sukhoi-30 mki.  
Pls go through the analysis of Sukhoi PAK-FA, J-XX in ausairpower site.

Why do the Pak fa have lesser than intended speed and greater empty weight?

Why does Russia plan to sell this aircraft to countries other than India? Why sell such high tech and advanced stuff when Uncle Sam has refused to sell the F-22 raptor even to its close allies. Whats the use of stealth when u want everyone to have it.

SK said...

Prasun sometimes you do take a statement out of context. When I mentioned the An-124-300 with Western Engines. I clearly stated more powerful Western Alternates the PW4000 & GE CF6.

The stock D-18T have 229KN output.
Where as the PW4000-112 family have a 386 to 441 kN output range. They have a higher fan diameter of 112 inch so some re-designing would be required.

There were recent statements from the Antonov Buerau that they have come up with new improved brakes which reduce landing distance by 30%.

What I have been trying to say with some effort & investment An-124 can be improved a lot then the present state and can maybe used in Tactical Airfields. I don't have access to exact specifications but on available info it seems doable.

If pure STOL is IAF requirement the why didn't it go for the proposed C-17B which when ready will be true tactical air lifter. It incorporates the following eight upgrades to current C-17. The upgrade includes higher thrust engines and double-slotted flaps for "extreme" short-field landings adding a centre main landing gear with tyre inflation and deflation an engine-out control system (EOCS) a precision landing augmentation system (PLAS) an all-weather, autonomous landing system (AALG) an opportune landing site (OLS) system and the advanced situational awareness and countermeasures system (ASACMS)

Shaurya said...

Prasun,
If the design of S-5 is already finalised, then Barracuda proposal is shot down? Great. Probabaly no nEURON too. So, the Rafale deal will bring only screw-driver technology.

dashu said...

I guess S-5 is SSGN and Barracuda derivative would be SSN . I may be wrong .But still I would say Russia is not giving best technologies to india hence we are 20-30 yrs behind China . like beggars cannot be choosers India should be happy whatever she is getting from Russia . I sincerely hope some miracle to overhaul this MOD. Cannot we get Los Angeles-class design from US by paying huge money . looks wise which is very good

Anonymous said...

sir what is latest news on the Javelin purchase contract? it is heard that the USA plans to cut the number of missile to half that india wanted? was there any transfer of technology in the deal.

thanks

Anonymous said...

sir can you post in detail about the recently tested haftVII missile of pakistan, about the origin, quantity pakistan has and what are the counter measures taken by india.

thanks

dashu said...

It seems the "Can Siachen Spring the Next Surprise?" of FORCE News magazine
and former Chief of Army's PhD thesis on
“Fundamentalism in Afghanistan and the Geo Strategic Significance of the Wakhan Corridor”
has some similarities as he is also talking about the physical linking by blocking/bypassing India.
So India already got Fucked up by Pak-china strategy

Anonymous said...

Your articles seems to have vanished from "Force" lately. Any particular reason ?

KSingh said...

Prasun,

What truth is there in the reports the US is unwilling to sell the full amount of Javelins to the IA and as such the GoI is cancelling the deal? Does this mean the Spike is a given now?

And does this news have any bearing on the reports that during Panetta's visit to India atm he will not be signing any defence deals and so not the AH-46D bLK.III deal as was reported a few weeks ago would be signed today (6th) during his visit.


When can we expect to see this deal sighned then? And when will we see the CH-47F deal being signed and the LOH/LUH deal aswell?


Is there any truth the IA SF already operates a few Javelins?

Unknown said...

Prasun,


At this stage is there any chance of the MMRCA being cancelled and the EFT being selected? When will we see a definite signing of MMRCA contract?


When exactly will F-INSAS be complete and trailed on an active IA unit? Especially the new gear like rifle, modular body armour, personal computers, new helmets etc?

Is the IAF doing anything to address the issues you have highlighted regarding the MKI inabilty to carry out offensive air ops and the such?

KSK said...

Hey wats the deal with US not wanting to sell India Javelin ATMs in quantities required by India??

Is it a clever strategy(By US defense firms) to make Indian media blow it out of proportion and let US take away a large order to buy these expensive ATMs??

Anonymous said...

IAF will take Delivery of the 10 C-17 aircraft from 2013 and end in 2015.
WOW 10 C-17 2 years thats damn impressive.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Anon@7.16AM: Yes, that’s true, and the US has never breached that rule. The US has never declared anything about how it intends to make use of St Martin’s island. It was ME who made that revelation. Won’t it be extremely worrisome, considering that in the history of nuclear-powered submarines the US has so far lost two of its n-subs, while the USSR/Russia has lost five, & just imagine an Indian n-sub based on Russian technologies being involved in an accidental collision with a prowling n-sub of either the UK or US at a time when the Indian Navy does not even have a decent submarine tender or DSRV?

To Anon@9.47AM: The true performance characteristics of the PAK-FA will only become known AFTER it has been equipped with its definitive powerplant & its integrated avionics suite. Until then, all analysis/assessments about the PAK-FA’s performance parameters is pure speculation that is not worthy of any serious reading. PAK-FA being a Russian product, Russia has every right to export it in the way it deems fit. The FGFA will be totally different in terms of its network-centric avionics content. Like the FGFA, the F/A-22 Raptor works best in a network-centric environment with the help of airborne & spaceborne network-centric platforms/tools, which few other countries can afford to acquire or deploy.

To SK: ‘Can & ‘Will’ are two different things. An OEM can always claim to have a lot of enhancements in the pipeline, but whether or not they will see the light of day is a totally different matter. Air forces like the IAF therefore do not plan on the basis of suppositions, but rather on finite developments. If Russia cannot as yet produce the IL-476 despite almost a decade of pronouncements, one shudders to think how it can pull off something like an upgraded An-124-300 with an estranged partner like Ukraine. The enhancements found on the C-17B are all modular block upgrade items that can be easily incorporated into any existing C-17 airframe during depot-level maintenance schedules.

To Shaurya & Dashu: The S-5 will be a SSBN, while the Barracuda is a SSN, totally different platforms. Therefore, the issue of “either or” doesn’t arise.

To Anon@2.20PM: It’s all there at: http://trishulgroup.blogspot.in/2008/12/babur-lacm-raad-alcm-detailed.html

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Dashu: They say opportunity knocks at your doorstep only once. In India’s case, the knock came twice. First was in April 1984 when OP Meghdoot should have seen the Indian Army perching itself at Dansum, insyead of the Saltoro Ridge. The second opportunity came in mid-1999 when OP Vijay should have be implemented in a way that did a reverse-Kargil in both POK & the Northern Areas. It was the perfect opportunity to do so, since the Pakistan Army was in a total denial mode about its involvement & would consequently have been extremely hardpressed to fully mobilise in order to counter any offensive moves by the Indian Army in the J & K theatre. But, as fate would have it, India’s then political decision-makers blinked, instead of seizing the initiative. In conclusion, India did not get fucked up by any China-Pakistan grand strategy, but by India’s then ruling political elite that had their blinkers on.

TO Anon@12.12PM, KSK & KSingh: Which arsehole is making such outrageous claims about reduced FGM-148 Javelin sales offers? Is it an ex-Indian Army officer who does not even know how many infantry battalions the Indian Army has (350-odd infantry battalions is all that he can come up with!)? This is a typical disinformation story by ‘desi’ journalists based on “someone meeting up somewhere & telling someone else something”. For those who don’t know, there are 359 Indian Army infantry battalions & 66 Rashtriya Rifles battalions, for which an initial consignment of 1,600 Javelin launchers & 5,000 missile rounds have been sought. For such a minimal quantity, no one in their right mind will ever ask for a licence for producing them in-country. Therefore, industrial ToT is a non-subject from the very outset. These ‘desi’ journalists just can’t get down to the bottom of the issues, can they? Just the other day this same entity was claiming that the 2A46M-2 gun barrel for the T-90S MBT was indigenised by a central ammunition storage depot! His unsubstantiated revelations just get more & more outrageous with every passing day.

To Anon@5.04PM: Didn’t you know? Kindly read my first comment at: http://trishul-trident.blogspot.in/2012/03/chinas-latest-mr-sam.html

To Unknown: The Rafale deal will proceed as planned, & the EFT will be seen only overflying Indian airspace whenever in future an RAF Typhoon detachment either goes to Southeast Asia for FPDA exercises, or goes to Kalaikunda or Gwalior for the Indradhanush series of bilateral air exercises. As for F-INSAS, even its Phase-1 is still in the RFDP stage. The entire project will be completed only by 2022. As for the operational proficiency of Su-30MKI squadrons, things cannot improve unless & until the IAF receives sufficient numbers of cockpit procedures trainers & weapons part-task trainers, plus supersonic LIFT platforms like the tandem-seat Tejas Mk1.

Anonymous said...

Hi I am Anon@5.04PM. I assumed the so called ban was only for the China specific series articles you did.

With the current change of guard (COAS). Does this egoistic "HQ" still hold a grudge against you for setting the records straight. Its very annoying to say the least.

Your articles are sorely missed.

Unknown said...

Prasun,
Are here any plans to make an electronic warfare fighter like the Growler in the form of a MKI/LCA/Mig-29K? Fitted with ECM Pods,jammers etc? This is surely need by the forces?

Unknown said...

+


When will we see the Apache deal signed and when will we see the Chinook deal signed? And when will delivers of both tart?


Was the non signing of the Apache deal during Panetta's visit because of the recent reports about the Jvelin order being cut and the like.

Anonymous said...

Prasun you have stated
"One must understand that the Russian military-industrial complex has been in a steady decline, not because of financial difficulties, but due to brain drain. Russia’s population is declining in numbers, and the best technocrats are no longer joining the military-industrial complex"

If this is the case then won't PAK-FA also fall victim. The complete development will take decades. It looks like IAF has only become partner to prevent the Chinese.

With the current state of things in Russia can you predict how capable would be PAK-FA.

Anonymous said...

Light Combat Helicopter, of which 179 are on order (IAF 65; army 114).
If Army is the majority stake holder why is it being developed as per IAF specs?

Anonymous said...

Hi PRASUN, I think u haven't gone through the article on PAK-FA on ausairpower Australia cox there Dr C.Kopp has repeatedly mentioned that the analysis and the estimates are all based on the high red images and videos of the prototypes of the PAK-FA. He has also said repeatedly that various aerodynamic, structural enhancements will go no board to make it at par with the Raptor. And many R&d work are still left.

Anonymous said...

is it possible that the US team visiting Arunachal Pradesh to search for the remains of the US pilots is disguises for spying on china or check for suitable base for USA for military purpose offered by India like soviet submarine offered Indian port during Indra regime.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Anon@10.30AM: The ban was/is on the usage of my byline and my editorial contributions, irrespective of their type. Mindsets take a long time to change and a mere change of guard will not improve matters for anyone. The new COAS will require at least 90 days to take stock of matters in his office. And talking about mindsets, let me give you two examples. The first concerned the visit 48 hours ago of the US SECDEF & his delegation. Now, this is what the MoD’s civilian-led DPR said about the composition of the Indian delegation: “The Indian delegation included the Defence Secretary Mr. Shashikant Sharma, Secretary (Defence Production) Mr. Shekhar Agarwal and the Scientific Advisor to the Defence Minister, Dr. V K Saraswat”. The most glaring omission in this statement was the DPR’s refusal to include the name of the Chairman of HQ IDS, Vice Admiral Shekhar Sinha, especially when he was clearly shown in all TV broadcast channels and even on the PIB-issued photos as being a member of the Indian delegation for engaging in deliberations with the visiting Deputy C-in-C of the US PACOM, a three-star USMC Lt Gen. Now, what does this omission indicate to you about the so-called cordiality that prevails within the MoD between the military top brass & their civilian counterparts? The second example is that of Dr Saraswat taking a joyride on a Gripen D when he has not even extended the same courtesy to the ADA-developed/HAL-built Tejas Mk1 tandem-seat OCU trainer or the Naval LCA Mk1 TD. Now, what do we make of such officials? Certainly not role-models or model citizens, for sure!
In any case, regarding my FOC editorial contributions to FORCE magazine, I reckon that almost seven years of charity is long enough & I will be totally disinclined to continue to engage in such charities in future. Fortunately, my existing aviation MRO business in Myanmar is booming & I logically am investing more time & effort in that area of business. Like I said earlier, discontinuance of my editorial contributions isn’t a loss for me at all in any manner, for I’ve only gained from such timely providence. But VMT for your sentiments & POV.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Unknown: Are you kidding? Before Growler-type platforms are employed for SEAD, the DEAD missions have to be undertaken first with the help of ITALD-type decoys & air-/ground-launched LACMs. Have you ever seen any of this being undertaken by the IAF or IN in various firepower demonstrations between 1971 and now? The IAF & IN are decades behind contemporary trends when it comes to DEAD & SEAD capabilities. Even till this day, one will see no more than four airborne platforms being employed for offensive air strikes, as evidenced by airpower displays of the recent past. Had the IAF been serious about DEAD, then by now it would have already acquired inventories of DRDO-developed ITALD-type decoys or CALCMs powered by HAL-built PTAE-7 turbojets. The mere fact that this has not happened, & the PAF on the other hand has successfully invested heavily in CALCMs since the mid-1990s shows trhat the IAF has a lot of catching up to do. Is it engaged in doing so? The evidence so far suggests a firm NO. All other pending IAF procurement contracts will be inked only after the M-MRCA deal is inked.

To Anon@6.37PM: The PAK-FA is already a victim, & that’s why the FGFA came into being. I’m not aware of the PAK-FA’s desired capabilities, since within Russia itself there’s no firm consensus on how to employ airpower and & against whom and for what type of conflicts envisaged.

To Anon@10.54PM: The only LCHs that have been ordered to date are the three TDs. No one in India places an order for even LSPs until the TDs fully prove the design/performance concepts. All that one has committed on paper is an INTENT by the IAF to procure 65 LCHs, while the Indian Army has NEVER so far said anything in either verbal form or writing about ordering even a single LCH, leave alone 114! And why should it, when the LCH is clearly being optimised for usage by only the IAF? To date, no INDENT has been placed with HAL by the MoD’s Dept of Defence Production & Supplies for asny series-production LCHs, a fact that one can easily cross-check with HAL’s financial performance data & existing order books. Lastly, there’s no such requirement for 50 naval twin-engined helicopters as alleged by a ‘desi’ reporter, leave alone from AgustaWestland. What is reqd for the IN & ICGS are single-engined LUHs to replace the existing SA./316B Chetak/Alouette IIIs. Therefore, the total no of LUH/LOHs to be acquired are 50 + 197 + 187.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Anon@11PM: You’re absolutely right, for it is a sheer waste of time reading an analysis that is full of false assumptions & suppositions, all of which lead to only ill-conceived & half-baked conclusions.

To Anon@6.49PM: What can the US crash site recovery teams learn from AP while there which the US already doesn’t know about through its national technical means? No one in India awarded any base to facilities any other foreign country since 1947. What was on the cards was a trilateral cooperation since the mid-1970s involving France, India & Iran, under which France would provide the SIGINT hardware, India the physical infrastructure at its Embassies in Seychelles, Mauritius & Sri Lanka) & Iran the project financing, all aimed at monitoring US & USSR naval movements in the Indian Ocean & Arabian Sea. All this was only discussed between 1975 & 1980, but it never took off.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Unknown: Read this news item: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Top-Army-official-flies-in-GoAir-cockpit-DGCA-summons-pilots/articleshow/13910143.
What does this indicate? That the IAF does not possess all-weather IL-76MDs & An-32s, the latter even after being upgraded & therefore civilian airliners are being made use for emergencies? If so, then exactly what kind of mid-life upgrade was/is being carried out on the An-32s & on the ATC/airspace management sectors within J & K & Punjab? Is it not true that all the ALGs too are used only for fair weather daytime flights? Why aren’t the all-weather C-130J-30s not being utilised in Punjab & J & K? Are there any restrictions imposed by anyone on their employment/usage in such areas?
As I’ve stated above, leave alone SEAD/DEAD concepts, the IAF has not even managed to conquer the weather up north in India’s most sensitive border area. And predictably, there’s no living ‘desi’ investigative journalist to cover or analyse such issues. Chalta hai, so chalne do.

dashu said...

Why aren’t the all-weather C-130J-30s not being utilised in Punjab & J & K? Are there any restrictions imposed by anyone on their employment/usage in such areas? --- now what was that mean . is it true ?

Anonymous said...

wats the present status of HSTDV project
thanks in advance

Anonymous said...

is it a reality or a myth
INDIA'S LATEST LASER WEPONS DURGA AND KALI TO KILL THE ENEMY MISSILES AND AIRCRAFTS
if its a reality whats the current dvelopment of these mean machines

Anonymous said...

is drdo any were near in manufacturing the TD1 of ucav aura

Anonymous said...

whats the truth in india's secret anti-gravity technology
are these projects funded or some cooked up story by the media

An Indian said...

Prasun Da,

what do you say aout this news..
"Army chief Bikram Singh lifts discipline and vigilance ban on Lt General Dalbir Singh Suhag"

http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/army-chief-lifts-discipline-and-vigilance-ban-on-lt-general-dalbir-singh-suhag/1/199631.html

My Analysis is..as below.

Lt.Gen Suhag earlier was also involved with corruption case when he was IG of SFF under(RAW)along with some other TOP RAW officials in a Equipment Purchase and Kickback deal.....this complaint/issue was sent to Cabinet Secretariat by earlier Gen V K Singh for further probe and action. Cabinet Secretariat which works under PMO,did not probe this further and dumped under carpet as these RAW officials promised to help Congress Party remain in power and will also run different campaigns against it's opponent parties and peoples...also agreed work alongside CIA to carry it's operation in India....now Gen Bikram Singh cleared Lt. Gen Suhag again of his misdeeds ..paving way to make him next Army Chief....just continuation of the game started earlier by Congress and made worthless Gen Deepak Kapoor as army chief(also Adarsh Society Scam beneficiary)..later he picked Gen J J Singh as his successor..also played key cunning role in not correcting Gen V K Singh's Date of Birth..also instructed his own right hand Lt. Gen Avadesh Prakash who was then working as Military Secretary(Sukhna Land Scam Beneficiary) not to correct the DOB of Gen V K Singh so that ..Gen Bikram Singh(Congress needed a Ye Maam General and he is also a CIA pick studied in US Military college) becomes next chief of Army. Now Gen Vikram Singh is doing the same and paving the way to make Lt. Gen Suhag as next Army Chief as per Congress's and CIA wish.

What do you say...

Pawan said...

Sir

I am not able to understand why V K singh was alone. Is army and defense system is really so corrupt. Bikram singh cleared the name of suhag so easily and no body raised question.

After reading what is you mentioned about IAF capabilities i really feel sad. Now i can understand why IAF was not able to help army in kargil war.

Overall i now believe that IAF is largely a fancy force who want every expensive gadget but cannot be relied when needed by country, whether it was 1965, 1971 or 1999.

Mr. Ra 13 said...

I do not wish that the things start getting so much fishy that we have to fully befriend the USA at Indo-Pacific to halt the Chinese at the North and the North East. Anyhow the Sino-pak axis has to be halted first.

Mr. Ra 13 said...

Again I say that your revelations are so sensitive and heart rending that you are likely to be disliked by many. G_d give you strength.

Anonymous said...

Just out of curiosity.Where are you from Mr Ra13?It appears you use Christian symbol 666 in reference to Pakistan and now you are omitting O from God like our Jewish orthodox friends.then choosing a name RA after Egyptian god...you might make sense about military matters but seems all confused in the head about religious sentiments of others buddy!

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To An Indian: Firstly, never use the term RAW, for it is R & AW. It pisses off any employee of R & AW when the term RAW is used. Secondly, procurement of hardware for the SFF or ITBF is never finalised by any military officer, but by the civilian officials working out of R & AW’s office in Bikaner House, New Delhi. Thirdly, if your criteria of being a CIA agent says that every Indian military officer trained in US military institutions is a CIA spy, then all Indian Navy Chiefs since the 1980s are also CIA spies, since they are all graduates of the US Navy War College in Rhode Island. Is that even remotely possible? If you are really interested in the ‘mother of all Indian conspiracies’, then I suggest you read the 405-page Writ Petition No 2757/90 filed by a Mr. Misra Vishnu Kumar Sharma (officially known as Admiral Vishnu Bhagwat) in the Bombat High Court on September 12, 1990, in which he labels the then Indian PM V P Singh, the then Defence Secretary, the then Union Home Minister, the then Principal Secretary to the PM, the then CNS of IN, his immediate bosses at that time, & his four colleagues then immediately junior to him, all as traitors & alleged US spies. But strangely, the petition made no mention of the then FOC-in-C Eastern Command, Vice Admiral Ramdas, whose three daughters were green card holders and one of them, Kavita, was then married to a Pakistani called Zulfiqar Ahmed. VADM Ramdas flew to the US to April 28, 1990 to attend this marriage (after taking the permission of the then Minister of State for Defence Dr Raja Ramanna), but he did not report this issue—as is customary in the IN—prior to him being announced as the next CNS after Admiral J G Nadkarni. If I were to go on & on about this naval ‘Mahabharata’ that was enacted in the open in 1990, you will then only conclude that either 90% of the senior IN officers are either spies, or the top leadership is mentally deranged, mentally unbalanced & unfit to hold command. Is that the reality. Not so now, although this was the case between September 1996 & December 1998. It was during his tenure as CNS that the then CNS Admiral Bhagwat along with VADM Johny De Silva began devising a deep-selection template under which only those senior officers who were in a position to complete three years in office as CNS would be promoted so that in the coming years, the full 3-year tenure of of a CNS could be served. Had this happened, officers like ADM Madhavendra Singh & ADM Sushil Kumar would never have become CNS. So how does one look at this scenario? Is creating a succession order based on deep-selection a good idea, or is it regarded as being manipulative?

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Mr.RA 13: What harm is there if India is reqd to befriend the US? After all in the supreme national interest the India of late 1962 did junk the non-aligned & Panchsheel policies in favour of courting a full-fledged military alliance with the US & received plenty of US military & intelligence assistance, just as the India of August 1971, in pursuance of her supreme national interests, again junked the non-aligned & Panchsheel policies in favour of courting a full-fledged military alliance with the USSR.

To Pawan & Mr.RA 13: VMT. The IAF is not a fancy force, but the three armed services of India have become trunciated since the early 1990s by successive govts in power to such an extent that the element of conventional military deterrence has greatly diminished, and consequently a defensive mindset has set in. One saw this in glaring detail in the planning & execution processes of OP Vijay in 1999 & OP Parakram in 2002, & again in November 2008. On top of this, every service chief, especially from the Army, has lied to the country whenever they declare during the annual pre-Army Day press conference that the Army is always well-prepared to ward off external threats, when the truth is that since 1993 the exact has been the case. Therefore, it makes no sense for Gen V K Singh to on one hand state in an exaggerated manner in January 2012 that the Indian Army is a capable force, and then in March 2012 write a letter to the Indian PM stating that the Army is incapable of handling all threats arising out the conventional warfare spectrum. In my view, not only him, but every successive Army Chief since the mid-1990s has contradicted himself by hiding the truth from the citizens of India.

Regarding the IAF, despite all the hoo-haa-about seven Su-30MKI squadrons being in existence as of now, here’s what has avoided the public eye thus far: the first 50 Su-30MKIs making up the first two Su-30MKI sqns are non-combatworthy because the aircraft have already reached their 1,000-hour time-between-overhauls (TBO) schedule, meaning the airframes, engines, avionics & accessories have to undergo depot-level MRO & are therefore mandatorily grounded. Now, this depot-level inspection was due to be carried out in-country in a new MRO facility co-located with the IAF’s 11 Base repair Depot in Nashik. The bad news is that this MRO facility has yet to come up (god knows why!!!) & consequently all the TBO-destined Su-30MKIs have to go to Russia’s IRKUT Corp in Irkutsk for their mandatory MRO. So how do these Su-30MKIs make it to Russia? Well, they have to be knocked down & be flown on board An-124s to Irkutsk BY OVERFLYING Chinese airspace. And according to international airspace transit/navigation rules, any military cargo transiting a foreign country’s airspace should be declared in advance by law to the ATC authorities of the foreign country & only then does the foreign country (in this case) issues the authorisation for such overflights. So, you can rest assured that PLAAF & its PAF buddies are all well aware of the operational fleet strengths of the IAF’s Su-30MKI fleet (which is three squadrons, at best). These are by no means revelations, but conclusions derived from simple mathematical calculations.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Pawan: The show-cause notice was issued by former COAS V K Singh to the GOC III Corps NO for any wrong done by him, but by his subordinates responsible for the functioning of a rogue Army field intelligence unit under his command. Therefore, how can the Lt Gen he held directly responsible for someone else’s wrongdoing when this Lt Gen was not even remotely involved with any rogue operations?

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Dashu: I can only flag the issues. It is now up to the Chairman of the Standing Committee on Defence for the 15th Lok Sabha, Satpal Maharaj, to seek answers from the MoD’s RM.

To Anon@1.41PM: It is lumbering ahead, muddling along. ‘Chalta hai, so chalne do’ is the motto in vogue.

To Anon@1.58PM: Indian R & D institutions have been dabbling with directed-energy weapons since the mid-1980s. But aircraft-killers & missile-killers are faraway off.

To Anon@2.02PM: At least a decade away. And way before the 1:1 scale-model of AURA emerges, the Chinese would have produced its 1:72 scale-model in kit-form for commercial exploitation.

To Anon@2.07PM: FYI the India of 14,000 years ago had already acquired the core technological competencies reqd for developing & producing inter-planetary, inter-stellar & inter-gallactic transportation vehicles powered by symbiotic propulsion systems. It bis therefore a great pity that the DRDO of the 21st century isn’t delving into the past for answers, and is instead just muddling its way through ahead.

Anonymous said...

Prasun da, i always counted you a man of logic and reasoning. But your last answer related to India of 14000 years ago acquiring competency for intergalactic travel lets me think either it was high sarcasm or you are off your regular best moods. Now mythological (or atleast yet to be proven) aspects (or fantasies for some other) cannot be counted as core competency. Not to mention that the scientific evidence till so far says evidence of human civilization in India not before 6000 years.

Anonymous said...

"symbiotic propulsion systems !!!"

You lost me there completely. Could you give some more detailed info

Mr. Ra 13 said...

To: Anon @ June 9, 2012 7:15 AM

Ra is the initials of my first name. My ancestors were the ancient priests from India who went to Egypt and returned back to India after many generations perhaps with exodus. So some kind of consideration for the Jews and even the Ra. The comedy is that my full name translates as ‘King of Gods and Prince of Egypt’. After long readings and thinking, I understand to have placed the 666, the red dragon and the big beast at their perfect pedestals for the first time in 1997 and had never been wrong so far since then, whether at Kargil, Kosovo, Chechen, WTC, Afghan or Iraq with the grace of G_d. BTW I was correct even at Vietnam in those olden days. But again scientifically it all can be a matter of shear coincidences.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Anon@2.30PM: Logical reasoning demands that astronomical calculations making use of planetarium software through now-available supercomputers revisit the astronomical calculations that were derived in the early 1970s. For it is only this that will enable one to prove the historicity of events now classified as ‘mythologies’. The same goes for the Vedic period as well, which scientific evidence, through debatable, that the Rig Veda was composed sometime in 26,500 BCE! Lastly, our perceptions of what constitutes science is rooted in the concepts of quantum physics & quantum mechanics, while that of the ‘parallel universe’ is still progressing through baby-steps being taken. Consequently, the very notion of what constitutes ‘scientific evidence’ is very much still under question.

To Anon@2.34PM: Read this: http://ufo.whipnet.org/area.51/david.adair/alien.technology.2.html
&
Watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M0wBXNAiOys

Anonymous said...

Hi PRASUN, I was reading a book on Bermuda Triangle by Charles Berlitz. There in a chapter , it was written a very long time ago, probably greater than 20000 years ago there lived a very scientifically and technologically advanced race. Our early ancestors had mastered the art of flying, they had built machines which didnot make any sound, defied gravity , and were VTOL in operation. They all used stealth tech. And most astonishing of all , this very thing is mentioned in the Rig Vedas and Upanishads .Also , it is mentioned that the Ramayana and Mahabharata were real tales. When Lanka kidnapped Sita, he didnt make use of any flying carpet but some highly advanced aircraft. Also , Brahmastra has been mentioned many times in the Mahabharata . It was in fact not a nagical weapon but a very high yield hydrogen bomb which brought about the mutual destruction of everyone. Also few days ago, I was reading , The Doctor from Lhasa , and there also similar things are mentioned .What i find most astonishing is that , it is mentioned that all the doomsday technology and some unused weapons from the past ages are hidden somewhere in Tibet and the Lamas are protecting them and keeping it from this world. If anyone has any doubt regarding what i just said, pls purchase a copy of this book and for once go through it.

Anonymous said...

Sorry, the book is not " The doctor from Lhasa" but ' Doctor from Lhasa' by T Lobsang Rampa.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Anon@11.28PM: Do read these:
http://www.ufoevidence.org/documents/doc173.htm

http://www.ufoevidence.org/documents/doc115.htm

http://www.vigyanprasar.gov.in/comcom/vimana.htm

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/fb/Vaimanika_Shastra_title_page.jpg

http://psychedelicadventure.blogspot.in/2008/11/vimanas-ancient-ufos-india.html

http://psychedelicadventure.blogspot.in/2008/09/ufos-sighted-in-himalayas.html

http://greyfalcon.us/Tibet.htm

Anonymous said...

sir , u said that an initial consignment of 1600 javelin launchers & 5000 missiles has been sought..
considering that 425 battalions have to be equipped isn't this a small no. ?
& isn't the missile to launcher ratio very low..it's like 3 missiles for every launcher..?
i happened to read somewhere that 300 launchers & 8000 missiles have been sought..
ur remarks sir..

Anonymous said...

prasunda,
I was wondering, do you have any latest pictures of arjun mk2?if you have any, please upload, I am very interested to see how it has evolved after all the modifications........ otherwise when do you think the pictures of the modified tank will be released in public domain?

regards
Dutta

Anand said...

Hi Prasun,

INS Vikramaditya has set for sea trials n is expected to be inducted into IN by Dec.I have heard that few trials will be done in India after it arrives here.So when will it be actually be commissioned and what will be the time duration of its journey from Russia to India?

Anand

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Anon@3.43AM: The Javelin ATGMs will NOT be for ALL Indian Army infantry battalions. It is, instead, a tri-services procurement programme aimed at equipping the special operations forces of all three armed services with such manportable ATGMs.

To Dutta: The Arjun Mk2 is still a ‘work in progress’, consequently, its final configuration is still not yet defined. Therefore, there are no photos of the definitive Mk2 MBT as of now, only artist’s conceptions that are still embargoed.

To Anand: Even after commissioning into service, a warship still has to undergo various types of user-trials during its warranty period. Only after all this has been achieved can the warship be declared an operational platform. The same goes for INS Vikramaditya. Its date of commissioning therefore does not matter at all. What matters more is its certification as an available operational platform, which will come only sometime by 2016. Its journey to India will take almost a month.

Anonymous said...

sir,
a. what is the status of barak8 development, when will it be inducted in service?
b. comparing to s-400 offered by russia, which system do you think should india opt for.
c. can india's anti missile system capable of intercepting haft8?

thanks.

Anonymous said...

watch this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K71W1vGZ1ME&feature=related

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

Am off to attend the Eurosatory 2012 expo in France.

THINK TANK said...

PrasunDa Busy in something else...no major coverage from U here...?
Now give us some news on Arjun MK2.

Anonymous said...

Indian Coast Guard commissioned Hovercrafts what is their operational requirements?
how r they useful for ICG?

aswin said...

Hi Prasun,we are waiting 4 ur article on Eurosatory 2012 expo
make it as good as def expo 2012
counting on u
regards

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Anon@10.56PM: This is nothing new, as the ICGS has been operating such hovercraft for more than a decade primarily for patrolling the swamps and marshlands that are not accessible to conventional patrol vessels. Pakistan too operates such hovercraft in and around Sir Creek.

To ASWIN: Will try my level best. VMT.

Rahul said...

Last paragraph is too interesting to read in less words. If possible please elaborate it here or preferably in upcoming blog-posts.

Thank You.

Anonymous said...

Will 22 Apaches and few mi 25,35 would be adequate to support the armored divisions?
Will LCH have 6 hard points or just 4?
If all the Mi 25/35 are deployed in the north east what would be left for the north west,east and the western sector?we won't be having any attack helicopters there.
Israeli air force has 60 + attack helicopters which is huge as compared to Indian air force.
Thank God General VK Singh's letter to the PM got leaked else Mr. Antony would have been sleeping.

Brendon said...

Very nice article.
The UNCLOS not prohibiting the passive personality principle w.r.t. crimes such as murder could seriously undermine the freedom of navigation in the high seas and tilt the balance completely in favour of coastal state rights.
Kindly also read more about 'exclusive economic zone' and UNCLOS at:
http://mowingthelaw.blogspot.in/2012/07/unclos-1982-and-new-regime-of-exclusive.html