Total Pageviews

Sunday, July 29, 2012

Arjun Mk1A During Mobility Trials

This is one of two Arjun Mk1A MBT prototypes that are presently being subjected to mobility-cum-firepower trials. This photo, which appears in a four-page DRDO corporate advertisement published in the latest issue of THE WEEK magazine, was taken at the CVRDE’s proving ground at Avadi earlier this year. The second Arjun Mk1A prototype comes outfitted with the new digital hunter-killer tank fire-control system, inclusive of a target auto-tracker and  a newly-designed commander’s panoramic day/night sight that incorporates an IRIS thermal imager (from France’s SAGEM Défense Sécurité) and an eyesafe laser rangefinder. These optronic sensors are the same as that installed on the IRDE-developed commander’s panoramic day/night sight which is presently undergoing user-trials on board an upgraded T-90S MBT.


bradshaw said...

U made my day Prasun Da, thanx for dis much awaited pic :))
But its luking like a Merakava mark 6 more than Arjun mk2. Seems the IMI has fixed the turret of Merkava on Arjun in the name of providing consultancy..... tats not sheer consultancy :D:P

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To BRADSHAW: Actually, IMI's consultancy for CVRDE was NOT related to developing the Arjun Mk1A, but had more to do with specifying the QA & QC standards for both the domestic industrial vendors & sub-contractors associated with the Arjun MBT family's production processes, & as well as for the HVF's Arjun final assembly line at Avadi. The design-n-development activities of the Arjun Mk1A were ALL homegrown, i.e. the CVRDE IRDE, ARDE, DMRL & HEMRL did all the work. The most significant force-multiplier (in terms of long-range target detection, identification & engagement) has been incorporation of the IRIS cooled thermal imager on the commander's panoramic sight & the MATIS-STD cooled thermal imager on the gunner's sight. On the upgraded T-90S, the panoramic sight uses the IRIS, while the gunner's sight uses the Catherine-FC thermal imager from THALES.

Anonymous said...

is there any update on russian R-95 aam ?

Mr. Ra 13 said...

Wow! With the sloping front on turret it had to be the Arjun Mk1A. Grand!

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Anon@12.40AM: None, but Raytheon is going ahead with the AMRAAM-ER & its SL-AMRAAM-ER variant.

To Mr.RA 13: But mind you, the sloped ERA tiles are only in the port side of the turret & not on the starboard side, since the starboard side houses the gunner's sight & the IR jammer. The IR jammer needs to be relocated to a location in the turret-top above the cannon & only then can the turret's starboard side also have sloped ERA tiles for sound & uniform frontal protection.

Shiva said...

Hi Prasun,

Given the fact that DRDO's BMD system program like many other programs has been a failure doesn't it make sense for India to purchase the S 400 from Russia ?

Mr. Ra 13 said...

Oh! Thanx for the information. Till the further modification is carried out, it may look somewhat asymmetric from the front and may have to behave something like a left-wing southpaw boxer. Lol...

Shaurya said...

Sorry for an off topic question! Given the currnet modernization of both PN& PLAN's submarine arm(stealthier ssk/ssn with newer gen high speed torpedo)dont you think IN should look for a replacement of the RBU 6000 anti submarine weapon system?! What can be IN's best choice as I cant see any equivalent western system available & it is not stealth compatible either(no VLS). Against the current high speed homing torpedoes how effective they are as a last ditch effort?! Your take on this?!

Thanks in advance. Also when we will see the pic of other prototype, the completeone?!

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To SHIVA: Let’s get the basics right from the outset. The entire R & D programme was conceived from the outset as a technology demonstration effort aimed at achieving the core technological competencies that could be utilised, if reqd at a later date, for developing a deployable theatre missile defence (TMD) network. This means, firstly in laymen’s terms, developing an end-to-end simulation protocol for TMD, which has since been achieved partially (i.e. only the ground-based components have been put in place so far), & will in future be more comprehensive when the space-based constellation of four ballistic missile early warning satellites will be put to orbit. Secondly, TMD will in the near future be expanded to CMD or cruise missile defence through technological spinoffs of the TMD-related R & D effort. Both TMD & CMD are far more complex than BMD, since TMD & CMD are meant to counter NLOS-BSMs (which do not adopt a pure ballistic trajectory, but a depressed cruise trajectory) & terrain-hugging cruise missiles, be they land-launched, air-launched or sea-launched. From an user’s operational perspective, therefore, TMD & CMD are far more urgently reqd since conventionally armed NLOS-BSMs & cruise missiles will be used in far greater numbers than ballistic missiles like conventionally armed TBMs & MRBMs. To cut a long story short, work on TMD & CMD is still underway, with only the first crucial baby-steps being taken so far by the DRDO, and therefore, it will be highly premature & downright malicious to label all this effort as being a failure. Where the DRDO went wrong was the labelling of its entire R & D effort in this area as being BMD-centric, when clearly it was never ever meant to be. That’s why the common man on the street & even so-called strategic analysts have never been able to join the dots between what the DRDO has been trying to achieve, & what the IAF on the other hand has already been implementing (under the IACCCS project) with regard to acquiring & deploying, for starters, various new-generation ground-based radars that are equally applicable for TMD & CMD as they are for traditional air defence operations. Thus, it is a strategic inevitability that the parallel efforts of the DRDO & IAF will at some stage converge to deliver a unified result/solution for continental air defence. It is this reality that ought to have been explained a decade ago by the MoD, DRDO HQ & IAF HQ, & all persisting doubts would consequently have been cleared a long time ago. But since this hasn’t happened (among many other things), the average person on the street remains as confused as ever about the aims, goals & objectives of the DRDO’s TMD- & CMD-based R & D activities.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

MR.RA 13: LooooooLZ!!!!

To SHAURYA: Actually, the IN has been well-seized of this issue & has therefore already begun installing the DRDO-developed Mareech active torpedo decoys on several of its principal surface combatants. Under development now is a hard-kill ‘dart-like weapon’ equipped with pre-programmed acoustic micro-sensors that travels underwater at high speeds towards an incoming torpedo—i.e. a hittile. RAFAEL of Israel has already developed a similar hard-kill torpedo interceptor.
Regarding the photo of the 2nd Arjun Mk1A prototype, it should be released within a month’s time. Let’s see which 12.7mm remote-controlled weapon system (RCWS) is eventually selected, since the earlier preferred solution--WAVE-300 from IMI--can’t go on board due to IMI’s blacklisting by the MoD. But there are several alternatives available from ELBIT Systems, RAFAEL, SaabTech, Mauser, OTOBreda, etc.

Unknown said...

Prasun, it has been reported tha Boeing has fitted the Universal Aerial Refueling Receptacle Slipway Installations (UARRSI) onto the P-8I, does this mean that the IN's a2a refualler it is hunting for will have to have both boom and probe refuleiing capability?

Also wrt the Arjun, overall would you rate the project a success given the knowledge and expeince now emparted to Indian defence scientists and engineers which really is invaluble and a foundation to beuild on in the future. Also have you been buoyed by recent initiatives for more pvt partners to enter the Indian aviation and espcailly defence sector especially the recent desion to have the Avro replacment have pvt partners as the players in India and not HAL and Reliance's $1BN investment in the sector.Not to mention TATA and Mahindras efforts on the F-ICV, is this a trend you see continuing?

Also when can we expect a LSV to be selected for the SFs and who are the competitiors in this race? And for the IA in general when will we see a LSV selected as trails seem to have taken a while back but nothing come of it, who will win? Mahindra AXE?

Unknown said...

+Prasun, the P-8s are destined to be incredibly competant survleince p[latforms. The US has already stated the P-8s will be used for more than just maritime patrol and given the P-8 is replacing the P-3C which was used heavily in Afghanistan and Iraq are surveillance platforms, is there any likelihood the IN will use theirs in a similar way? Or does the IN even desire this or are the IAF's own ongoing procurements of surveillance platforms solely intended to fill this role and P-8s purely for MP?

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To UNKNOWN: Yes, the P-8Is will have both probe-n-drogue & boom refueling facilities. Therefore, aerial refuellers based on the A310-300 or B.767-300ER will be ideal for the IN. The Arjun MBT is undoubtedly a success programme as far as product design is concerned. To convert the design into a mature industrial product is not the CVRDE’s or DRDO’s responsibility, but of the country’s military-industrial infrastructure. It is due to the failure of the latter that caused delays in the service induction of the Arjun Mk1 MBT & also gave rise to the reqmt for Arjun Mk1A MBT. Prospective private players like RELIANCE first & foremost are interested in becoming parts of the global supplier chain for the major aerospace OEMs. The next logical step should be that of attaining the status of sub-systems & systems developers, like what the TATA Group & L & T have achieved. LSVs of the types offered thus far have not been found to be suitable and hence the JLTV programme of the US is being closely monitored by India’s armed forces. The LRMR/ASW versions of the P-3C were never used for overland missions. Instead, specialised versions of the P-3C with mission-specific payloads were utilised. Similarly, the IN will never use its P-8Is for overland assignments. The IAF will be the sole deployer & operator of strategic manned battlespace surveillance aircraft. The P-8Is will be for maritime recce, ASW & as well as for over-the-horizon targetting & provision of mid-course guidance for ASCMs like the Harpoon, Kh-35 & BrahMos. That’s the reason why the Telephonics APS-143C(V)3 OceanEye aft-mounted multi-mode radar has been installed on the P-8I, so that interleaved operations can be carried out concurrently, a point that I can bet none of the ‘kambakht desi’ journalists participating in the now-underway Boeing-sponsored all-expenses-paid press-junket never even know about & therefore have never even bothered to ask about.

Anonymous said...

Dear Prasun da

I am new to this blog , but heard a lot abt u...We general public dont get to knw much abt defence.But kudos to u...for giving so much info:

Will very much appreciate if u can thro some light on the following:

1)Reg. MMRCA: Has India made the right decision in choosing the Rafale.When all countries are focusing on Fifth gen fighters...We will be giving out $15 Bn for 4th gen fighters.China has already tested J20 and another 5th gen fighter is in the making F60.(I would be glad to see F 35 in the tricolour)
2)Does Indian army posses sufficient quant. of thermal imagers.Does the IA purchase hand held thermal imagers from BEL or foreign vendor(BEL is known for substandard products)
3)If DRDO is not capable of making BMD. Is the Indian govt in discussion with US,Russia, isreal for BMD(Arrow, S 400, PAC-3).And is the S400 anti ballistic missile or anti aircraft missile or both?
4)Reg FINSAS:IA is considering trials of New carbines and multicaliber assault rifle. Which gun do u think will e best for IA.
5)Reg A Tender for IAF 9 special mission aircrafts. Can u thro some light abt the probable vendors

Anurag said...

@Prasun Da,
See?That's why I had once asked whether or not the CVRDE would reposition the Gunner's Main Sight to the turret roof on MkIA from the turret front of MkI,because I had long foreseen the problem what the developers are facing now.Besides,GMS on front turret has several huge disadvantages like weakening of frontal turret armor and the very high chance of the sight getting destroyed by enemy tank fire. That's why the Germans repositioned the the GMS to turret roof on their Leopard 2A5.
Besides,many more weakspots are still kept unchanged,most importantly the huge gun mantlet and lack of composite armor panel on turret side.
Can't you or someone else tell the developers about these drawbacks of Arjun MBT and that it's still not too late to improve the otherwise GREAT design which can become the King of the battlefield in its own right if (a big IF) these basic issues are sorted out.

Sometimes I wonder that can't our developers use the google to take a note at the turret geometry of contemporary tanks like Leopard 2 or M1A2 and make necessary changes in the Arjun's turret??I mean that's the least they should be able to do. . . . . . . . . . .

rad said...

HI Prasun

Its heartening to see that the arjun tank has evolved maturely though late.Statistic figures show that the arjun is nearly 2 times the cost of the T-90. Even though the army pretty well knows for know that the Arjun is a better tank in all aspects why is the army hell bent on the t-90 ?.

Shaurya said...

Many thanks for the info! Can you share some more info about this DRDO developed sysfem, their performance parameter, if possible any photo, I mean how capable they are compare to the current system? Have they tested it against any live torpedo? I also wonder why USN or any other western navy doesnt have any equivalrnt system onboard? The SSKs/ SSNs becoming more and more quite and stealthier these days, shouldnt anything like this should be an integral part of any major surface combatants like DDGs, FFGs?

Regarding thr Arjun mk1a, ya, thats why I asked when we will see the final prototype, which gun system will go onboard instead of Wave-300, which APS suite it will include?

Also another question, why this MOD practise of blacklisting the company involved in corruption/bribery? Why they dont focus on recovering the money from the middle man/company and if possible penalise them. Going by this trend oneday MoD possibly will end in virtually every defense major in the world.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To ANURAG: There's no need to reposition or raise the gunner's sight, as this will only make it more vulnerable to top-attack PGMs like sensor-fuzed munitions & new-generation ATGMs. Instead, there's a need to do away with the sloped ERA tiles & adopt a modular add-on armour package (including an urban survival kit) for the turret & hull-sides as done by Germany's KMW for existing Leopard 2A4 MBT operators. Have a look at the photos I've just uploaded above. I will expand on the above-pasted narrative later tonight.

Anonymous said...
do u think this will give information what happen in 1962?

Anurag said...

Yes.ERA should be replaced by add on composite armor modules.That's why I mentioned Leopard 2A4.

But I still think that GMS should be fitted to the turret roof because GMS on the frontal turret reduces the effective LOS thickness
of main armor.Just look at the trends world wide.Only Arjun is using GMS fitted on frontal turret and the Germans wouldn't have repositioned the GMS to the turret roof if it was not problematic.And by the way,if a shaped charge HEAT warhead strikes the turret roof,the tank itself will be destroyed anyway.So GMS on roof should not be a problem.

Besides,the turret side on Arjun needs composite armor protection ASAP in place of those storage boxes and size of gun mantlet should be reduced by a good margin.Only then Arjun can come to the level of bests out there. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Purbayan Roy said...

Hi Prasun, why cant P-17 FFG engage maritime targets beyond 50 km with the Garun-Bal ,Klub-N combo? All these frigates are equipped with Fregat multi role radar with a range of 250 km? Whats the range of Garun-Bal radar ? Only 50 km.
Is it because the MRH helicopters are needed for mid course guidance & without them the ASHMs cant be guided properly to target.

How can Rawl be a new state of the art design? It is also fitted on the Godavari class frigate which were built in the early 80s.Means LW-08 is a vintage design.

Why isnt it having updated point defense sam such as RAM , VL-MICA & Palash, Palma. The vessels are new and these systems can be fitted easily. Has the IN subjected the Barak-1 missle system to Brahmos,Klub ,Moskit, Kh-35, Harpoon & Exocet Ashms? If not so, how can the Navy be sure that all its capital ships be adequately protected from threats emanating from them in a future conflict. Has IAI periodically updated the missile guidance and its various components to keep up with these threats?

Can DRDO develope a low speed version of Brahmos( Mach 1.2-1.4) hich will be terrain hugging, can navigate its way through complex terrain feature such as hills , mountains, valleys instead of following a high altitude flight profile & alert enemy air defenses to its presence.

Anonymous said...

Hey , Is the P-8 a viable replacement for P-3C. The latter had 4 turboprops while the former have 2 turbofans. If any of the engines on the P-3C malfunctions or goes out of service the aircraft would have no problem in returning to base. Whereas in P-8 the failure of a engine would result in the ac tilting to one side.The chances of returning to base would be very small.Also the weapons payload of P-3 was 9 t and it had hrdpoints versus 4 of P-8. Performance wise which acs radar and other sensors are the best-IL-38,P-8I, Tu-142 with Sea Dragon suite. Does the P-8I, C-130J have infrared jammers ?

Has the IA , IAF shown any interest to AH-6 Littlebird?

Anonymous said...

just got to say ... everytime i see an armoured vehicle (in real or photos) made by OFB or DRDO the fabrication quality is so appalling ... what can we expect from these agencies if they arent even able to pull of simple fabrication work without errors.

At Defexpo '12 the difference in fabrication quality of the OFB T90 and the Russian T90 was plain for all to see, that too when russian fabrication quilatiy aint the best around.

Anonymous said...

Prasun - Last photograph of your recent upload, the Tank Crew is Chinese. Is this photograph of Chinese MBT....please clarify

AK said...

Hi Prasun, I have a few queries regarding the Arjun mk1a:
1.What are the key areas in which the Arjun mk1a has improved upon the mk1?Has the overall armour protection increased.

2.Does the mk1a model uses the same Kanchan armour or it uses the Kanchan 2? Has the armour thickness on the turret,hull increased. The Arjun mk1 has a huge, rectangular slab-like turret. It looks almost indestructible. On the contrary, the mk1a turret looks similar. Has it been downsized ? Is the armour thickness on the frontal section of the hull, rear section increased? Are new exotic materials incorporated into the base armour( to increase ballistic tolerance level and reduce brittleness) construction such as ceramics, glass fibre, titanium or is the base armour just ordinary iron and steel?

3. Why arent there any thick composite armour blocks on the hull sides like the Leopard 2A4? The hull sides in its present form can even be penetrated with RPGs. The CVRDE engg should have a look at the Leopard 2. Why are the turret hatches have such small thickness. They should be made more thick in order to withstand attcks from top-attack PGMs. The present hatches will easily be penetrated by RPGs fired from top.

4.Why is CVRDE installing hugec ERA blocks on the turrent front? They can only take a single hit and after that they are useless. Moreover they can easily be defeated by today's tandem warhead equipped ATGM. What the DRDO should do is install composite armour slabs over the entire frontal hull. They are much better in taking HEAT, APFSDS rounds.

5. The pic of the Leopard 2A4 you have posted in the thread has an entire composite armour slab over the entire frontal hull over the base armour. That why it looks bulgeds. Also the upper and lower glacis also have such an addon armour package. Why dont do the CVRDE engineers do the same with mk1a. In this way it can become indestuctible.

6. Is there any improvement to the main gun?Does the mk1a feature the innovative independent power for each wheel just like the mk1 which enables it to move even with the tracks destroyed? Whats the Arjun mk1a's weight?

7.Does the Relikt ERA on the T-90AM offer any new advantages from previous gen era. Can it tak multiple hits at the same spot .

Anonymous said...

Hey, how does Kanchan compare to AMAP? Does the belly of mk1a have any protection from mines like the Leopard ?

There is a difference in the turret of the Leopard 2 pics in this thread. Are they two different models?

Will the IA place more orders of Arjun mk1a?

Anurag said...

To AK,I'll answer your last question.
The answer is NO.No ERA can take multiple hits. . . . . .

Anurag said...

And AK,no tank is indestructible.

For example,
1.if you are able to penetrate the forward hull roof of Leopard 2A6 (which is protected by just RHA plate),it's game over.Why-because there lies its secondary ammunition compartment which is not isolated from crew compartment.

2.For Russian and Ukrainian T series and Chinese Type series,any portion of the hull.Because in ordar to carry more ammo,they store ammo and propellant charges in each and every space available.Infact their Carousel autoloader is also not safe from ammo cook off.

a.But the Russian (and Chinese) carousels are somewhat safer than their Ukrainian counterparts because former design stores the ammo deep inside the hull floor horizontali but the ukrainian carousel stores the charges vertically making them extremely vulnerable incase of hull perforration.

3.For Arjun and K2 Black Panther,hits from a couple of RPG 7s at the turret side will most probably kill the crew but not the tank.

If you ask me,most complete and well designed tank is M1A series with almost 0 weak spots.Yet few of them (too few to be significant) has been destroyed by massive IEDs. . . . . . . . . . . .

Anonymous said...


Brahmos missile test ends in failure

Anonymous said...

Prasun da why can't we develop weapons like this one

Anonymous said...

Hi PRASUN, active decoys for torpedoes like Mareech are effective only against passive torpedoes and not the active ones that themselves have sonar . When will the hard kill system enter service with the navy?

And isn't the IAF already making preparations for CMD systems under phase 2 of IACCCS. The CMD will also help to shoot down NLOS-BSM. What point defense systems is the airforce buying as part of this? What about the Skyranger system?

F said...


Excellent Arjun photos!

What are your thoughts about doing away with the gunner's hatch, as has been done on the Merkava 4, to strengthen the roof?

Will the Arjun have cameras on the rear hull for the driver?

In the past, was the IAF ever offered the Su-25 to perform the BAI and CAS roles?

I recall reading a 1988 0r 1989 article in ADJ that said the IAF had to fly its MiL-26s all the way to Rostov in southern Russian for overhauls. Is this still the case or are overhauls now performed by HAL?

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Anon@9.03AM: The Rafale is a perfect choice for the IAF. There are many countries that are still procuring F-15s, EF-2000s, Gripen C/Ds. China’s J-20 is just a technology demonstrator that will take at least a decade to mature. Till today in China there’s not even an airborne PESA-MMR, leaver alone AESA-MMRs of the type on board the Rafale. The IA now has sufficient nos of HHTIs, PLDRs produced not just by BEDL, but also like Alpha Technologies Pvt Ltd. Only the CAPFs don’t have sufficient nos of HHTIs. India does not require BMD systems & nobody asked the DRDO to develop such systems. What the DRDO is engaged in is in R &D for developing theatre missile defence (TMD) systems. S-400 is a dual-role anti-aircraft & anti-NLOS-BSM defence system. I have no personal favourites for any type of small arms. For the special mission aircraft reqmt of the IAF, Bombardier Aerospace’s Global 5000 has already been selected as the winner.

To RAD: The Arjun family of MBTs cost more simply because they have been produced in far lesser numbers than the T-90S. The larger the production order, the shorter the R & D programme’s self-amortisation timeframe. Had the IA from the outset confirmed a production order for 700 MBTs of the Arjun family, then the procurement costs would have been halved, & by now a far more refined product would have emerged. The folks responsible for promoting & thrusting the T-90S on to the IA’s shoulders was the NDA government that was in power between 1998 & 2004. It is this government that has created this enormous mess.

To SHAURYA: Will try to upload data & photos of the Mareech active expendable acoustic decoy in the near future. Most European navies & the US Navy already operate similar systems. These are all similar to the C-303/C-310 expendable active acoustic decoys that are already on the Class 209/Type 1500 SSKs & will also be on the Scorpenes.
Regarding the Arjun Mk1A MBT, I will be the first one to admit that the photo of one of the two Arjunj Mk1A prototypes made public through the DRDO advertorial in THE WEEK magazine SHOULD NOT have been released in this manner, which only shows a badly configured & engineered MBT. In fact, this is a classic case of the DRDO’s Directorate of Public Interface NOT PERFORMING the way it ought to. Regarding the RCWS, it will most probably be the mini-SAMSON, instead of the WAVE-300.
Regarding the blacklisting of foreign OEMs, I agree that the best way to resolve such issues should be to impose financial penalties by way of liquidated damages on existing contracts (or just encashing the bank guarantees of these OEMs), thereby wrapping them firmly on their knuckles & this alone will serve as a deterrent & prevent these OEMs from repeating their mistakes. There is no need whatsoever to blacklist these OEMs or prevent them from entering the Indian market for extended periods, as this only makes India the nett loser.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Anon@1.37PM: This will have no impact on declassifying the Henderson-Brooks report, since the report was commissioned by the IA, and not the IB, and the MoD has prevented the IA HQ from declassifying it.

To ANURAG: The only reason why the Arjun Mk1A’s gunner’s sight & commander’s panoramic sight cannot be repositioned is financial, & not technical. Krauss-Maffei Wegmann Maschinenbau could reposition the gunner’s sight on the Leopard 2A5/6/7/PSO variants because it had already recovered the sunken costs of developing the Leopard 2 after thousands of such MBTs had been built & exported. Re-designing & re-engineering a turret is a highly expensive exercise that no one in the world can do after receiving confirmed orders for only 248 MBTs of a particular model. In case of the Arjun Mk1A, therefore, the way forward would have been to develop a package of add-on armour module options similar to what Krauss-Maffei Wegmann Maschinenbau has developed for in-service Leopard 2A4s, and also slat armour modules for the MBT’s rear. The LeClerc MBT also features a frontal gunner’s sight, as do the gunner’s sights of several light tanks. For the Arjun Mk1A, the slat armour kit has already been developed & fitted as part of the urban survival kit. But side-track skirts haven’t been developed.
The chances of shaped-charge HEAT warheads hitting the Arjun Mk1A’s turret roof or for that matter any other MBT’s turret roof during manoeuvre warfare in flat terrain are extremely slim.

To PURBAYAN ROY: The Garpun Bal-E is a customised fire-control radar responsible for target acquisition & engagement. The Fregat radars are multi-role only for air and surface volume search. RAWL may not be state-of-the-art, but it is reliable and proven, & continues to be in service worldwide. The Barak-1 or for that matter cannot offer a guaranteed hard-kill of existing subsonic sea-skimming anti-ship cruise missiles. It is not effective against any type of supersonic anti-ship cruise missile. That’s why all principal surface combatants have been equipped with the ELLORA EW suite for jamming the data-links & terminal seekers of present-day sea-skimming ASCMs. Terrain-hugging cruise missiles can never be supersonic.

To Anon@4.37PM: What makes you think a twin-engined jetliner with a single-engine failure will tilt to one side? Haven’t you heard about thrust compensation? The P-8I has the best mission sensor suite to date. Neither the P-8I nor the C-130J-30s of the IAF have IR jammers. AH-6 Little Bird is being proposed for the LOH reqmt.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Anon@7.26PM: That is the Leopard 2SG of the Singapore Army. The tank crew is Chinese, but Singaporean Chinese, and not from Mainland China.

To AK: I’ve already explained above to BRADSHAW the main facets of the improved hunter-killer tank fire-control system for Arjun Mk1A. Overall armour protection has increased, but in a piecemeal manner. Overall, the up-armouring leaves a lot to be desired. CVRDE should have come up with a package of add-on armour module options for the frontal hull, hull-sides, turret sides & turret-roof, similar to what Krauss-Maffei Wegmann Maschinenbau has come up with for existing Leopard 2A4s. Instead, by coming up with only ERA tiles for the frontal glacis & partially for the turret front & sides, the CVRDE has come up with a poorly-devised solution.

To Anon@7.51PM: AMAP is supposed to supplement Kanchan. Both are reqd.

To Anon@9.59PM: Exactly what part of the test-firing failed? The SGH terminal guidance seeker, inertial navigation system, propulsion system? Unless & until such questions are answered by the INDIAN EXPRESS, one can only conclude that the news report was drafted with malicious intent.

To Anon@11.10PM: Mareech is NOT a torpedo. It is an expendable active torpedo decoy that is capable of neutralising both active/passive torpedo guidance systems. It is only ineffective against heavy-duty wire-guided torpedoes IF AND ONLY IF the submarine manages to visually sight its target and maintain visual contact. And what about the Skyranger system? If the blacklisting of Rheinmetall Air Defence continues for a period of 10 years, then you can look forward to seeing it in use in India only the following decade.

To FARIS: If the gunner’s hatch is done away with, how do you expect the gunner to enter & exit the MBT? The Merkava 4 has rear-doors & that’s why it does not need two hatches. Why are rear-mounted cameras reqd, when rear-view mirrors will suffice? I’m pretty sure MBTs like the Arjun will not find it necessary to secure urban parking lots during peak traffic hours. The Su-25 was never offered to the IAF. The IAF’s Mi-26Ts are overhauled locally at a Base Repair Depot, but for service life-extension they are reqd to fly to Rostov-on-Don. HAL was never involved with any MRO activity concerning the Mi-26T.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Anon@10.21PM: Yes, We Can! I will relay your query to Mr.Vivek Lall oif the RELIANCE Group & let’s hope he answers your prayers.

To FARIS: Check out the TNI-AU Su-27s & Su-30s at Ex Pitch Black 12 at:

KSingh said...


Are new doctrines being drawn up by military planners given the new capabilities the C-17 can bring ie ability to transport 1 MBT, 2 T-90s, mulitple howitzers etc. Is the significance of this new capabilty lost on military planners or are they aware of these capabilities and ready and willing to take advantage of them?

Also can you give an outline of what kind of upgrades the 3 SOFs are undertaking right now wrt kit and equipment such as SMGs, AR, helmets, comm gear etc And by say 2017/20 will these SOFs be as well equipped as their Western counterparts? And would you agree that post-26/11 their has been a mindset change amongst politicans in the sense that we have seen that SOFs have got much better gear in the years after 26/11 and it seems more has been done on this front post 26/11 than before hand. Equally many police forces are raising specilised CT units that look to be reasonalby well equipped and trained.

Also recent pics of INS Shadhuri's induction last Sat showed men in US UCP camo with Tavors that have been idenitfied as MARCOs but I find it hard to belive that the IN would employ their premier SOF as security guards and be as exposed to such media attention as this. I can't imagine US SEALS being used in a similar manner. And aren't the MARCOs already strectheced thin given their modest size? Using them in this manner seems unnecessary and pointless.

Also would you happen to know if the NSG is procuring weapons to replace their MP5s given this is the trend worldwide and it is surely reckless in this day and age to have the nation's premier CT unit equipped with low penetration 9mm weapons.

Also when are we likely to see the F-INSAS Assault rifle in active service with IA or atleast announced? And it seems it will be sourced from abroad afterall given recent RFI/P? What sort of timescale are we looking at from today to see the full implemntation of F-INSAS for all infantry units?

+ Mr Shiv Aroor is reporting that Boeing officials are briefing Indian military later this year on the AH-6I helo,is the Military really interested in this helo and if so what capacity would it be used in given LUH deals are close to completion and under development (HAL) so as a LUH it is a no-go but armed it could be useful but then India would have a ridiculous amount of armed helo assets- LCH, Rudra,Apache, LUH (is supposed to be able to be armed right?) and AH-6I.

Mr Aroor also says Boeing forecasts for eventual P-8I orders are as high as 30, how accurate is this figure and by what year can we expect such follow-ons to be signed/delivered?

+ when will we see follow-on orders over and above the 159 ALHs on order to be placed? And when will the orginial 159 order for ALH be complete?

Thanks a bunch in advance.

rad said...

HI Prasun

There is a report in another blog that the OFB produced bofors clone 155mm has been successful in the desert trial and that the army is satisfied , is it true or another foolish statement , was it so easy to produced one in a short time?.Did they achieve this without the present collaborators .

F said...


Cameras mounted to the rear of the hull provide a much better image than side view mirrors. In addition to aiding the driver when reversing the vehicle, they also provide better SA as a view of the area directly behind the vehicle can be seen. There is always the possibility that side view mirrors will be shot off by small arms fire or shrapnel. Apart from the Merkava 4 and Leopard 2A4/6, I can't think of any other MBTS that have them but strangely enough the Pars has been fitted with rear mounted cameras.

Were you aware that the Denel LCT-30 2 man turret has a full 360 degree panoramic sight? I've just noticed this.

dashu said...

dashu said...

from the above url see the below para --
Referring to Akash surface-to-air missile system, he said the next aim was to develop a 300 km range SAM. Besides, it was also planned to develop air-to-surface missile having a range of 400 km and air-to-air missile of 300 km range. Other world class systems, including underwater, cruise, sub-sonic and supersonic missiles would also be developed.

what is he talking about ? is the S-300 of Russia is on the table now

THINK TANK said...

Prasun Da
Rest Pics were not of Arjun but of Leopard A6 Modernised for Singapore Army. Y U Posted those pics...we all know CVRDE & OFD could not make good lookin TANK like Leopard or Lecrec.
Thing is that is the TANK beat New Paki & Chinese Tank?

Black Hawk said...

Why cant the CVRDE simply attach a periscope like device to the cavity in turret in front of the gunner's sight. The periscope can be made to protrude a few inches above the turret and then the frontal turret can be completely covered with add-on armor or ERA bricks. In battle, even if the periscope suffers damage, it can be replaced with no difficulty. Since periscopes are just a few lenses in a metallic frame, they are not too expensive. Also no redesigning is required as the periscope is just going to be an add-on that can be fixed to the turret cavity housing the gunner's sight.

Anonymous said...

Hi Prasun da(from Anon @ 9.03 AM)

You have mentioned the platform i.e Bombardier 5000 for IAF 9 Spl. misiion aircrafts, But what about the EW package.IAF wants 2 aicrafts for SIGINT and remaining for ELINT ,Survey and target towing as per mentioned in the tender. I didnt understand the meaning of target towing and survey?Is this IAF project similar to the raytheon Astor for UK whicg is used for ground survilience.Can you enlighten me on the above please. Heard that Raytheon and IAI will participlate in the tender
2)Reg machine guns for the Indian army.Tragedey is that IA still uses 2nd world war Bren machine guns. Is there any project going for replacing those machine guns with new ones?
3)Reg. Indian navy MRMR for which there are 8 vendors (C295,IAI,LM etc.).Which do u think is likely to win
4)There was a media report recently that sikorsky has made official presentation for advanced Black hawk helicopters to india. Is it true?How many helicopters Indian navy wants to procure after the follow on for 16 maritime helicopetrs,There wre reoptrs abt 76 more

Anonymous said...

1. what is the difference between air superiority and air dominance? I googled it but found only air supremacy.

2. I trust the your info. That’s why am so busy to ask you.Is the PLAAF J-11 a license produced version of the Su-30 or it is a reverse engineered one?Also read in 3rd party sources that J-11 are powerd by WS-10 or some indigenous turbofan, not Al-31? So if this is true, then the actual no of aircrafts cannot be determined fron engine orders. Can you pls give the total Su-330,27 and J-11 Flanker orders by PLAAF. A great news thet PLAAF don’t have 450 Flankers.

3. Pls have a look at these:

4."What is clear is that the T-50 prototypes are
intended to prove aerodynamics and systems, and
we will not see full application of stealth materials
and detail component design until we see later
prototypes. This is a risk minimisation strategy."
Will F-22 type turbofans go on board with flat nozzels? The PAK-FA 's aft hemisphere RCS is very similar to F-35. The present PAK-FA is not optimised for critical all level aspect but optimised for X-band and upper S-band. So are the Russians going for a refined version with substantial changes to the airframe to match its nemesis, F-22 in all-aspect stealth.

AK said...

Hi Prasun , will u pls answer my queries regarding Arjun mk1a :
1.You said that the armour improvements were done in a piecemeal manner. HAS THE OVERALL ARMOUR LOS THICKNESS ON THE HULL BEEN INCREASED?

2..Does the mk1a model USES THE SAME KANCHAN ARMOUR OR KANCHAN 2?Has the armour thickness on the hull increased.

The Arjun mk1 has a huge, rectangular slab-like turret. It looks almost indestructible. On the contrary, the mk1a turret looks similar. HAS THE TURRET BEEN DOWNSIZED AND THE ARMOUR DECREASEDV?Are new exotic materials incorporated into the base armour( to increase ballistic tolerance level and reduce brittleness) construction such as ceramics, glass fibre, titanium or is the base armour just ordinary iron and steel?

3.Why arent there any thick composite armour blocks on the hull sides like the Leopard 2A4? The hull sides in its present form can even be penetrated with RPGs. The CVRDE engg should have a look at the Leopard 2. Why are the turret hatches have such small thickness. They should be made more thick in order to withstand attcks from top-attack PGMs. The present hatches will easily be penetrated by RPGs fired from top.AND ONE SHOULD NOT MAKE ANY ASSUMPTIONS WHILE DESIGNING A MBT THAT IT WILL FIGHT IN OPEN AREAS WHERE NONE WILL ATTCK FROM TOP.IT SHOULD ALSO BE ABLE TO FIGHT IN URBAN AREAS. IF THE HATCHES ARE SO THIN, THEY WILL BE VULNERABLE FROM STRAFING ATTCKS BY HELOS AND AIRCRAFTS. MODERN 30 AND 23 MM SHELLS CAN EASILY PENETRATE SUCH ARMOUR.

4..Why is CVRDE installing hugec ERA blocks on the turrent front? They can only take a single hit and after that they are useless. Moreover they can easily be defeated by today's tandem warhead equipped ATGM. What the DRDO should do is install composite armour slabs over the entire frontal hull. They are much better in taking HEAT, APFSDS rounds.

5.Is the Improved protection with add-on ballistic armour modules a DRDO poster or a Rheinmetall one? Wont CVRDE adopt heavy track skirts, gun manlet protection and underbelly mine and armour protection. U CAN REQUEST THE CVRDE ENGG TO DO SO.Whwn would CVRDE come up with a package of add-on armour module options for the frontal hull, hull-sides, turret sides & turret-roof, similar to what Krauss-Maffei Wegmann Maschinenbau has come up with for existing Leopard 2A4s.

6. Is there any improvement to the main gun?Does the mk1a feature the innovative independent power for each wheel just like the mk1 which enables it to move even with the tracks destroyed?WHATS THE MK1A'S WEIGHT?

7.Does the Relikt ERA on the T-90AM offer any new advantages from previous gen era. Can it tak multiple hits at the same spot

Pls ans them.

Purbayan Roy said...

Hi Prasun, " The Barak-1 or for that matter cannot offer a guaranteed hard-kill of existing subsonic sea-skimming anti-ship cruise missiles. It is not effective against any type of supersonic anti-ship cruise missile. That’s why all principal surface combatants have been equipped with the ELLORA EW suite for jamming the data-links & terminal seekers of present-day sea-skimming ASCMs ."

Pls tell me something. Why is the Navy only contented with soft-kill systems like ELLORA. Even after knowing everything why isnt the Navy going for a replacement of Barak-1? Or the IN is conteneted with the limited hard-kill capabilty it has against low speed subsonic cruise missiles such as Styx? Has it tested the Ellora against all the subsonic & supersonic ASHMs the navy has in service? OR THE NAVY WILL INSTALL THEM AFTER ONE IT SHIPS GET STRUCK BE A MOSKIT OR A HARPOON ? THE NAVY SHOULD DO SOMETHING AT ONCE.

Anonymous said...

Hey PRASUN , I am anon at July 30, 2012 11:10 PM .Can you pls go into little details about thrust compensation? Can you pls compare P-3C Orion,s weapons payload with that of P-8I Poseidon . Will the P-8 carry any long-range - 10 km air launched torpedo ?

Will the AMAP be fitted on Arjun mk1a coz u said it will supplement Kanchan .And the improved protection with add-on armour modules poster from CVRDE ?

Hindu said...

You know Prasun I really never understood DRDO's & the Indian Army's facination for tanks . If this Arjun tank takes a hit from a Javelin ATM or an AGM 114 Hellfire (that Pakistan) already has will it survive ? Certainly not . We should spend our limited resources in fast tracking the purchase of Artillery guns.

accidental loser said...

To Hindu
First of all dear, who says pakis got hellfires!!!!!! They dnt hv 1 @ present. Secondly The modern ERAs on MBTs can tak direct hits of tandem chargd ATGMs. Only thng tht has to b completed is it's fitment to d machine. Once cleverly done dey can easily defeat ATGMs. Moreover Arjun has an APS integration in d pipeline. Once done ths cud multiply d protection levels. BTW an army has to provide firepowers to it's soldiers on d move & artillery cnt respond to such a situation mostly. So u cnt jst deny d needs fr mechanized forces.

accidental loser said...

Do u see a tym whr the IA sud feel Arjun mor potent thn thr ruskie counterparts & order thm @ a higher nos in near future?
Also isn't d 1500 HP engine missing in ths proto!!!!!! There's also no APS as well. Any ansrs???

Anonymous said...

Did you listened to the Dr.Avinash Chander's recent interation with media ? He talks about what DRDO is working on...

1. The Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) is also aiming to increase the range of air-to-surface missiles up to 400 km and air-to-air missiles up to 300 km, according to Avinash Chander

2.Avinash Chander said the focus was now on having the entire avionics on a chip. "A nano missile with low cost and low weight is what we are aiming for," he said.

Can you tell us anything about these two claims ?

Other than this i have couple of more questions...
1. We know drdo is working on nanotechnology and so is alot of countries. Have they been able to build something that could be used in weaponry ?

2, What is the deal with reusable missiles ? Dr. Chander told about it last year or early this year that they purchased a re-entry vehicle and tested it.

3. According to DRDO report since the 12th plan drdo will be building SRSAM. Which one is it building SRSAM (Maetri)?

Anonymous said...

Hi Prasun da/ALL

Did anyone notice recent DRDO media interaction:

1)They are developing new SAM of 300Km range?Jolly they took years to develop Akash with 25 km range and with little success.Then How 300km range SAM?????
2)This year milestones:
1)Nirbhay and 5000KM range anti missile
2)Launch SRSAM project(maybe MAITRI)

But I did not find anything regarding the Barak 8 SAM.It was tested in Isreal a year ago and earlier media reports indicated test launch in india in mid 2012.What hapened??Did Mr. AKA again do any nuts by blacklisting..?

Prasun da help...Barak 8 is a wonderful platform for our armed forces.Can u give update abt this project

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To KSINGH: The C-17As & C-130J-30s & any other future transport aircraft are being acquired by the IAF to facilitate the IA’s emergency inter-theatre logistics reqmts, nut that’s only 50% of the work done. The remaining 50% involves moving such airlifted equipment to the forward staging areas & storage sites, for which roads & railways are essential & without these, all the IAF’s aerial logistics facilitation efforts will go waste. Regarding smalls arms for military SOFs & CAPFs, I can’t say much since I’m bound by NCND regulations. The AH-6I helicopter will be of no use for India. Instead, the Indian Army & Indian Navy ought to think ‘out-of-the-box’ by exploring options like the modified OH-58D with co-axial rotors & ducted fans from US-based AVX Aircraft Company. The AH-6I model is still an experimental helicopter. Long before anyone else, including Boeing said anything about future P-8I orders & fleet strengths, I have been stating that the Indian Navy requires at least 24 P-8Is for LRMR/ASW patrols, plus at least 12 for the ICGS configured for EEZ patrolling & policing. For SAR, both the IN & ICGS ought to go for Shin Maywa’s SS-3 amphibian, with both the IN & ICGS operating 12 each. In today’s world, fleet standardisation is a must in order to greatly reduce operating & life-cycle costs. IF this is done, then the IN will be able to decommission from service the IL-38SDs & Tu-142Ms that are getting more expensive to be maintained in airworthy & serviceable condition with each passing year. Just look at the photos of the IN’s latest naval air station, INS Baaz at Campbell Bay. There was not a single IN-operated aircraft on sight, just a solitary IAF Mi-17 configured for over-water SAR. What’s the use of commissioning a naval air station sans any IN-operated aircraft or helicopter? The IN’s fleet air arm’s expansion can be undertaken on a war-footing only if fleet standardization is strictly adhered to.

To RAD: That’s the Bofors FH-77B fitted with a 45-cal/155mm barrel that was indigenously developed by OFB, which I had shown in my thread on EUROSATORY 2012.

To FARIS: MBTs equipped with rear-cameras are only useful when the MBTs are operating in build-up or urban terrain. The Indian Army is not one of those that will use MBTs in any manner over urban terrain, like how the IDF Army uses its Merkavas in the Gaza Strip. The Pars APCs have been fitted with such rear-cameras for only a single purpose: these APCs are likely to be used in urban areas for either crowd-control or for UN peacekeeping patrols in populated urban areas.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To DASHU: Firstly, the 300km-range range SAM is most likely the PDV exo-atmospheric interceptor vehicle. The air-to-surface missile having a range of 400km is the supersonic LRCM, and its air-to-air missile variant of 300km range will be an anti-radiation missile with dual-mode guidance. But here’s what beats me (this being a direct quote from Dr V K Saraswat yesterday): “maiden launch of India’s long-range strategic missile Agni 5, successful launch of Agni IV and Prahaar, and launch of the endo-atmospheric interceptor missiles.”----Why didn’t he use the word ‘successful’ when referring to the test-flight of the Agni-5 & endo-atmospheric interceptor missiles? More light was shed yesterday on the following straight from the horse’s mouth:
1) DIVYA DRISHTHI signal intelligence programme----this is a passive surveillance system (like the Vera-E & Kolchuga-M) that has been under development since 2002).
2) One of the variants of Nirbhay will indeed be a subsonic cruise missile, most likely air-launched by Su-30MKI & likely to have a range of 1,200km, I’m told.
3) The MoD has thus far failed to create Silicon and MEMS foundries & GaN foundries in-country, without which items like navigation-on-chip, telemetry-on-chip, seeker-on-chip, entire avionics on a single microprocessor-based board (like T/R modules for AESA-based radars) will still have to be imported, instead of being produced indigenously.

To THINK TANK: I posted those pictures just to give an idea of how exactly one ought to proceed when up-armouring rectangular turrets with conformal composite modular armoured tiles, instead of the evidently flawed practice of trying to squeeze in slanted ERA panels. That the CVRDE has failed to come up with a more mature up-armouring package for the Arjun Mk1A despite almost three years of effort is highly evident. The very least the CVRDE could have done was to invite tenders from Indian companies only like TATA Advanced Materials Ltd (TAML) & Ashok Leyland, asking them to bid for providing solutions centered around conformal composite modular armoured tiles. TAML, which already has a strategic partnership with RAFAEL, & Ashok Leyland, which has a similar partnership with Germany’s Krauss-Maffei Wegmann Maschinenbau, could have easily offered far better options/solutions. That the CVRDE has failed even in such a simple endeavour proves that when it comes to the last-mile delivery scheme of things, the DRDO’s top-brass have a long way to go.

To BLACK HAWK: There’s no need for all that at all. Just get rid of the ERA tiles on the hull & turret & instead install conformal composite modular armoured tiles. It is far less riskier & far more logical & far less laughable than the usage of ERA tiles on only one-half of the frontal turret portion.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Anon@7.53PM: The target-towing reqmt calls for underwing pylon-mounted EW jammers for simulating airborne EW. ELINT & SIGINT sensors will be conformally mounted around the aircraft’s fuselage. For high-altitude airborne photo-survey, a side-mounted LOROP camera (Condor from ELBIT Systems) will be fitted. For SAR-based surveillance a detachable belly-mounted radar installation (from IAI) will be mounted. That’s why ELBIT Systems has been selected as the prime contractor & systems integrator. These IAF platforms won’t be like the ASTOR but much more than that. MRMR/ASW aircraft bidders include Boeing/Raytheon, Airbus Military Aircraft/IAI, Alenia Aeronautica/THALES, Embraer/Raytheon, Dassault Aviation/THALES, Saab Aircraft/Selex Airborne Sensors, Bombardier Aerospace/IAI & Lockheed Martin/Northrop Grumman. Total reqmt for shipborne MRH helicopters is 76, of which 16 is only the first tranche to be ordered.

To Anon@10.19PM: Air Superiority in the classical sense of the term refers to the grounding of a hostile air force due to unacceptable losses incurred during dissimilar air combat/beyond-visual-range air combat & due to unavailability of functional air bases as a result of their runways being destroyed. This means that the enemy’s air force has been overwhelmed & rendered useless by relentless counter-air & counter-base air campaigns. Air Dominance is inclusive of all this (air superiority) as well as the ability to undertake all-weather precision strikes throughout the enemy’s hinterland in a manner that’s unhindered by the enemy’s functional ground-based air defences. Air Supremacy refers to the situation in which the enemy’s entire fleet of combat aircraft & almost all forms of air-defence artillery (like cannons & SAMs) have been rendered totally inoperable.
The J-11A is a licence-built version of the Su-27SK. The J-11B uses WS-10 turbofans & cockpit avionics of the J-10. Flat engine nozzles were developed by Russia in the mid-1990s itself. The T-50 & FGFA will both eventually have them. The situation will get a lot more clearer by 2014 when a far more refined T-50 airframe will become visible.

To AK: RHA thickness of the Arjun Mk1A has NOT increased. The Mk1A uses the same Kanchan armour. No structural changes have been made to the Arjun Mk1A’s turret, since it is a cost-prohibitive exercise. The overall base armour remains the same. The main gun can now fire the LAHAT laser-guided anti-helicopter/anti-arnour missile. The Arjun Mk1A with mine-ploughs fitted weighs 66 tonnes. No ERA tile can sustain multiple hits.

To PURBAYAN ROY: The ELLORA is a tried and tested system. But the Barak-1 is not yet, especially against sea-skimming high-subsonic/supersonic anti-ship cruise missiles. For vessels like the P-15A/P-15B DDGs & P-17/P-17A FFGs, the Barak-1 will be more of an underperforming asset. For intercepting present-generation supersonic/high-subsonic sea-skimming cruise missiles, one requires 18km-range IIR-guided interceptors like the VL-MICA or Sea Ceptor—both from MBDA, or the IRIS-T-SLS from Germany’s Diehl-BGT Defence. Both the Barak-1 & RAM don’t have such engagement ranges. Unfortunately, mindsets take time to change, often after disasters, like the ones faced by the Royal Navy in 1982 when its warships were destroyed by AM-39 Exocets. In case of the INS Vikramaditya & IAC-1 aircraft carriers, the VL-MICA, Sea Ceptor & IRIS-T-SLS are being looked into by the IN. Let’s hope better sense prevails this time.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Anon@11.01PM: Just Google ‘single-engine operations of multi-turbofan aircraft’ for thrust compensation. Thus far, no-long-range torpedoes have been specified for the P-8I. And the CVRDE has not developed any AMAP-type package for Arjun Mk1A, just the ERA tiles & slat-armour modules for the rear portion of the MBT.

To HINDU: Firstly, the Arjun Mk1A has a laser warning system that enables the MBT to take evasive action the moment it is illuminated by a laser beam. Secondly, the APS is on the pipeline. Javelin or even TOW or Baktar Shikan ATGMs will never be employed over open flat or even undulating terrain against MBTs, APCs & AIFVs. That’s why the IA employs LOHs & helicopter-gunships flying ahead of an armoured column so that they can detect & destroy dug-in infantry forces equipped with shoulder-fired or man-portable ATGMs, or direct the AIFVs to engage such ATGM ambushes with 4km-range Konkurs-M ATGMs. You will never ever come across an Indian armoured thrust in future that is not preceded by LOHs & helicopter-gunships. Those days are long gone.

To ACCIDENTAL LOSER: The existing Arjun Mk1 is already far more potent than the T-90S. The Arjun Mk1A will be even better in terms of first-round hit capability due to its superior optronics (as I have explained above to Bradshaw). The Arjun Mk1A can now engage in ‘fire as you manoeuvre’, whereas the T-90S & T-72Ms can only engage in ‘fire & then manoeuvre’. The only Russia-origin MBT that can come closest to the Arjun Mk1A in terms of firepower lethality’accuracy is the T-90AM. Mu only wish is that the CVRDE discards the add-on ERA tiles in favour of solutions centered around conformal composite modular armoured tiles. TATA, which already has a strategic partnership with RAFAEL, & Ashok Leyland, which has a similar partnership with Germany’s Krauss-Maffei Wegmann Maschinenbau, could have easily offered far better options/solutions. 1,500hp powerpack is for the Arjun 1 Mk2, which is still in the prototype development stage. APS from either Israel or Sweden will definitely go on board the Arjun Mk1A.

To Anon@12.40AM: I’ve already answered most of these above to DASHU. It is not a re-usable missile that the DRDO is working on, but on loitering drones powered possibly by electric motors that are RE-TARGETEABLE. Something similar to the Gladius & Caelus munitions being developed by MBDA, which can be carried in large numbers by unmanned autonomous airships. Let’s wait & see what kind of SR-SAM will eventually emerge, since even the Astra Mk1 BVRAAM has not yet emerged.

abs said...

its been a long time since i last posted a question, and i have got only 2 this time
1. Since the CERC people are pretty much clueless about the causes of the massive blackout caused in north and East INDIA, could it be a possibility, that Chinese hackers resorted to cyber operations to sabotage the grid?
2. What are the IA's and IAF's plans to counter the RRFs of the the PLA, especially given the fact that the Chinese can bring 300,000 PLA personnel to the border within a month?

sandeep said...


Mr. Ra 13 said...

"The main gun can now fire the LAHAT laser-guided anti-helicopter/anti-armour missile."

I think that was eagerly awaited.

Anonymous said...

Sir, I am anon at July 31, 2012 10:19 PM . Thanx a lot again for replying . A few more things to ask .

1.Sukhoi bureau must incorporate substantial changes to the present prototype mostly airframe changes. The RCS of PAK-FA is comparable to F-35 from the frontal aspect but from the aft it is inferior to it. To match F-22 in all- aspect stealth a lot have to be done. Ofcourse Sukhoi OKB will be up to the task. After all PAK-FA will be its Eastern counterpart .

2. Will not the Nirbhay be a GL LACM ? Drdo first announced that the Nirbhay would be a Tomahawk type long range cruise missile. Everybody thought that DRDO was referring to the supersonic air launched 400 km/600 km missile. But when it has come up with a 1200 km subsonic cruise missile , it is sure that there will be a ground launched version. It will be like Babur but with a longer range.

3. How many air-launched cruise missles is the DRDO developing. In your past blog u referred to the ADM cruise missile which is being developed with Israeli help . Is the Nirbhay that u wrote abot earlier in this blog, is it the 400 km supersonic cruise missile or a distinct one ?

4.Can u pls tell the total no Su-27/30, J-11 that PLAAF has ordered.

5.Whats the difference hetween AH-6I, MH-6, MD-500/550? Which has the best spped, endurance, service ceiling and greater accomodation . The IAF can procure them for its special forces. They are ideal for infil, exfil ,agent pickup. For recce roles, OH-58D Kiowa would be the best option for the IA.

Purbayan Roy said...

Hi Prasun , when you said that ELLORA is a tried and tested system, then it means that the Israelis has tested this EW system against all high speed subsonic and supersonic sea-skimming anti ship missiles and the Indian navy has also followed the same with all ASHM it has in its inventory including Brahmos and must have found the ASHM to deviate from course and miss its target.Is the ELLORA fitted on all of Navy's FFG,DDG, and corvettes?

It will be good it theres a change in the mindset of IN for the better. Or is the IN planning that after the missile's seker has been jammed and the missile bleeds off valuable energy, and even after this the weakened ASHM comes towars the warship, Barak-1 will provide with an effective intercept.

The PDV is afer all ready. In which AD system will it be employed?

Is IAF purchasing any new gen air to air missiles such as RVV-SD & the new variant of R-77 with 120 km range ?

AK said...

Hi Prasun , cant anyone influential like you approach CVRDE and ask them to correct the various shortcomings of Arjun mk1a especially the inclusion of conformal composite modular armoured tiles in place of ERA ? A lot was expected from mk1a. The base armour should have been changed. DRDO engg should have improved the composition of Kanchan armour for better tolerance . What they have been doing for 3 yeras with Arjun mk1a ? Whats its weight minus the mine plough ?

What jets in ARC's inventory will the 9 Bombardier Global 5000 replace? Isnt IAF also procuring 3 other jets for ARC in addition to this? I have read about this in Times of India a few months back.

Cant IAF directly approach Tashkent for life extension and zero-lifting of IL-76? Though Tashkent cant manufacture IL-476, it can manf IL-76. And why are they acting like class 5 babies over transfer of entire production facilty of IL-76? If Russia cant come up with a simple upgrade of IL-76 how can it go ahead with FGFA .

accidental loser said...

OMG.....!!!! Die hard 4 in INDIA, Tht's gud hallucination btw.:-P
Is there possibilities exist to redesign the nose section of su-30s & minimise thr RCS in an upgrade ??? I heard sukhoi's large nose alone creates a lot radar returns.
I certainly agree tht ARJUN's one hell of a machine, bt wht i askd indirectly is whn's ARJUN wud touch d production mark of four digits or atleast a high three digits one. Whn thr's a prblm with d sights placement, certainly a refined turret wud come to rescue. Bt wht cud b an initial expectation fr these thngs to come into trials given a healthy environment is insured fr d platform by d end user????

Mr. Ra 13 said...

I think any further modification not feasible on Arjun Mk1A may be either cost, technology or space prohibitive. So it has to be carried out on the Arjun Mk2 only. Till then the Army should purchase at least 500 Nos of Arjun Mk1A.

Anand said...

Hi Prasun,

We have heard about the commissioning of INS Baaz.What are IN plans to upgrade the capabilities in A&N islands?Are any frontline warships and fighter planes going to be stationed there in future?

Also does the US navy maintain any CBGs in Diego Garcia islands?



Anonymous said...

Sir , if you compare the T-90 AM with the T-90 M that us currently in service, you will find that with respect to armour protection there are not major changes. In fact the changes are small. What if DRDO discards the Russian up- armor package consisting of slats , Relikt Era , side skirts which are too thin and ask Tatal advanced systems or preferably ASHOK leyland to install the Rheinmetall modular composite armour package consisting of AMAP acids tue turret , hull , belly just like the Leopard 2A4. If additional protection is required then ERA tiles can be fitted. If composite modules are fitted on ERA tiles , then with little pressure on the modules, The ERA would explode and the whole thing would fall apart. This can also be done with T-72M1.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To ABS: It is a fairly well-established fact by now that the main reason for the two-day power blackout was the administrative indiscipline of the of the state-level electricity boards & there’s nothing more to it. The only way to teach these states (Haryana, Punjab, Rajasthan & UP) a befitting lesson is for all those affected by the power blackout to unite & collectively sue these four states for financial damages incurred & reduce these states to total financial bankruptsy! Only when their pockets are hit so badly will they learn the lesson of their lives.
The PRC can never bring to bear 300,000 personnel all along the LAC within a month. They can mobilise 300,000 personnel, but of these, less than 80,000 are actual acclimatised combat personnel deployed with the specialised India-centric Mechanised Highland warfare Divisions. The rest are all rear-area logistics personnel. Therefore, the PLA will never be able to muster the kind of overwhelming force necessary to defeat the Indian Army in a high-intensity limited war scenario. Where the PLA presently enjoys a distinct advantage over its Indian counterpart is in the area of field tube artillery & rocket artillery firepower, comprising towed & self-propelled howitzers, NLOS-BSMs & MBRLs. It is in this area that the Indian Army has a lot of catching up to do. The IAF will have very little role to play as far as offensive air campaigns go. Instead, it will be reqd to play a crucial role in facilitating inter- & intra-theatre aerial logistics support only, apart from conducting strategic reconnaissance & providing theatre-wide air defence all along the LAC.

To SANDEEP: That’s the K-15 Shaurya & the projected K-5 SLBM the DRDO was talking about.

To Anon@7.17PM: I have not come across any confirmed evidence of the Nirbhay being a GLCM. All that I have gathered & published so far indicates that it will be an ALCM. In future, it can also be developed as an SLCM. IF it is meant to be nuclear-armed, then it is best that it be developed in ALCM & SLCM configurations for reasons of survivability, since GLCMs are quite vulnerable to pre-emptive air-strikes. The supersonic ADM & LRCM are one & the same. There are several websites from where one can obtain the ORBAT of the PLAAF & PLA Naval Aviation. There is nothing that the AH-6i can do which the Dhruv ALH can’t. The Indian armed forces don’t conduct special operations like their US counterparts & therefore don’t need AH-6i-type helicopters.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To PURBAYAN ROY: Why should the Israelis test the Ellora EW system? They haven’t procured it. The Ellora suite is already operational with all principal surface combatants of the IN. The PDV is still under development & by no means is it ready. No new Russia-origin AAMs are being procured by the IAF.

AK: I’m getting the impression that you’ve terribly over-estimated my ‘influence’, if any, on the DRDO. I can therefore only hope that the concerned CVRDE technocrats read the writing on the wall & do what’s logically reqd of them. The Aejun Mk1A minues the mine-plough weighs 62 tonnes. It is the IAF, not the ARC, that’s acquiring the nine Bombardier Global 5000s. Of these, only two will go to the ARC, which will use them sparingly in support of their drafting of half-yearly appreciations on threat perceptions. The remaining seven Global 5000s will be dedicated IAF-centric platforms. The IAF’s IL-76MDs have already undergone SLEPs twice, and cannot undergo any more of them, since they’re not specified by the original designer of this aircraft, Ilyushin OKB.

To ACCIDENTAL LOSER: It’s not just the nose-section, but also the air intakes & entire fuselage geometry that contributes to the RCS. Therefore, modifications to the nose section alone will not reduce the RCS. For legacy designs like the Su-30MKI, only the large-scale application of radar-absorbent paint can play a meaningful role in RCS reduction. Regarding the Arjun MKk1A MBT, since turret-redesign is ruled out due to financial reasons, turret modification then remains the only other viable low-risk option and this is best carried out through the incorporation of conformal composite modular armoured tiles on the hull & turret sections, & SLAT armour for the engine compartment. There’s no problem at all with the existing position of the Arjun Mk1A’s gunner’s sight, just as there isn’t any identical problem with existing modified Leopard 2A4 MBTs.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Mr.RA 13: Regarding the Arjun MKk1A MBT, since turret-redesign is ruled out due to financial reasons, turret modification then remains the only other viable low-risk option and this is best carried out through the incorporation of conformal composite modular armoured tiles on the hull & turret sections, & SLAT armour for the engine compartment. There’s no problem at all with the existing position of the Arjun Mk1A’s gunner’s sight, just as there isn’t any identical problem with existing modified Leopard 2A4 MBTs. The present arrangement of having ERA tiles fixed only to the Arjun Mk1A’s turret portside is not only stupid, but an act of lunacy! Most importantly, it must be noted that just like in the upgraded Leopard 2EVO (shown at Eurosatory 2012) & Leopard 2SG variants, incorporation of add-on conformal composite modular armoured tiles—at least along the frontal turret section--also creates vital additional space for mounting new-generation countermeasures dispensers, IR/laser jammers & APS sensor, thereby not cluttering the turret-roof, where laser warning receivers are positioned along with the RCWS housing a .50-cal HMG, plus APS dispensers. And most importantly, such conformal composite modular armoured tiles ought to be designed in such a way that once they become available, they can be retrofitted on to new-build Arjun Mk1As at their respective regimental centre-based service workshops, instead of doing all this at HVF Avadi itself. In this way, sufficient time can be given to private players like TAML & Ashok Leyland to come up with viable solutions within a 9-month period, followed by selection of the winning solution, followed by user-trials over the following 12-month period. Therefore, all in all, by 2014, as the Arjun Mk1As start reaching their designated Regiments, they can be fitted on-site with the definitive conformal composite modular armoured tiles. In the meantime, let the currently underway user-trials carry on with regard to validating the Arjun Mk1A’s new hunter-killer TFCS, improved automotives, improved internal vehicular communications suite, & improved internal ergononmics.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To ANAND: At least two Project 1241RE guided-missile corvettes, one LST-L, four Do-228-212MPAs, two P-8Is and up to six X-FAC-Ms at the very least ought to be stationed in around NAS Baaz & INS Kardip. No combat aircraft or transportation aircraft will be permanently stationed anywhere in the A & C Islands. Instead, they will be deployed only on a temporary but periodic basis about three times a year for 2-week periods out of Kalaikunda air base, mostly during combined tri-services exercises.
As Diego Garcia hosts only naval and air force logistics support facilities for the US, no CBGs are homeported there.

To Anon@11.59PM: Add-on conformal composite modular armoured tiles are best applied on rectangular box-type turrets, which are absent on both the T-90S & T-72M1. Therefore, the only viable up-armouring options for these Russia-origin MBTs includes fitment of SLAT armour on the MBTs’ rear sections, & installation of APS suites.

Anonymous said...

"Therefore, all in all, by 2014, as the Arjun Mk1As start reaching their designated Regiments, they can be fitted on-site with the definitive conformal composite modular armoured tiles. In the meantime, let the currently underway user-trials carry on with regard to validating the Arjun Mk1A’s new hunter-killer TFCS, improved automotives, improved internal vehicular communications suite, & improved internal ergononmics."

Is this happening or this is what you suggest ?

HAL actuall had planned future projects for basic trainer, intermediate trainer (i mean sitara) and Advanced Jet Trainer and two helicopter projects LOH and IMRH. Are these projects still planned or they have been cancelled ?

What will happen to Kaveri project or any future engine project if drdo and snecma doesn't come to an understanding ?

Does any Indian company or drdo working on any missile with MBDA ?

Is drdo building x band aesa radar for future fighter jets on its own because thats what they are saying ?

A senior HDW official in an interview said that Kockums AB will be supplying the hull for the next batch of 8 ASW corvettes under 28A to be built by GRSE. Is it true ? Although why would he lie something like this.

Our air defence is weak. When can we expect deals like anti-aircraft gun (since Germans are out), QRSAM, VSHORAD and IA even issued RFI for MRSAM ? Also whats with Javelin deal and when the work on t72 upgrade and M-46 upgrades will start? When the follow on order for Pinaka will be placed ?

IA already ordered 4 regiments of brahmos with only 1 regiment in NE for now. How many more planned and when their orders will be placed ?

Anonymous said...

" I have not come across any confirmed evidence of the Nirbhay being a GLCM."
It is confirmed that it will have land variant and tata will be building the TEL and it will be the same TEL as used by Prahaar missile.

Anonymous said...

Who confirmed it? When & where? TATA’s TEL for Prahaar was only a mock-up & so was BEML-TATRA’s TEL mock-up shown in a poster at DEFEXPO-2012. No one has so far shown any functional TEL carrying cannister-mounted Prahaar, leave alone the Nirbhay. The only hermetically-sealed cannisters developed so far & publicly shown are those for BrahMos & Shaurya, not for those for Prahaar & Nirbhay.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Anon@2.56AM: That's what I'm suggesting. It's obvious, isn't it? And how can any shipbuilder confirm building hulls for a class of warships (P-28A) that has not yet been sanctioned by the MoD, leave alone being funded or ordered? A total of six regiments of BrahMos are planned for, & orders will be placed during the 12th & 13th Defence Plans. LRDE has so far fabricated only a 1/8th scale-model of a single X-band T/R module, & not the entire AESA-MMR.

Anonymous said...

Dear Prasun da
can u give soem info please

1)Reg the IAF tender for standoff missile for SU30MKI.Which companies are bidding apart form MBDA...Taurus Kepd350??
2)MBDA and also SAAB has said about another tender for land attack cruise missile.MBDA has pitched ground launched taurus kepd and SAAB RBS 15..Can u give some more update please

rad said...

Hi Prasun
you mentioned that the IAF has procured 7 global express ac but it is not mentioned in wiki. Are all the 7 ac going to be converted to special mission ac like the astor or some thing better. I read some where that the UK astor planes were on possible sale to India as cost cutting measures.Would it be prudent to go for such critical american systems . Is Israel capable of delivering such High performance surveilance ac.

Rahul said...

HI PRASUN, got some questions wrt to P-8I.
1. Way back in 2008 in your old blogspot, you said " The P-8I MMA will be equipped with a mission avionics/sensor suite comprising:
* Northrop Grumman’s electro-optical/infra-red (EO/IR) sensor, the directional IR countermeasures system, electronic support measures system, secure data link, and mission-planning support hardware.
* Raytheon’s upgraded APY-10 maritime surveillance radar and signals intelligence (SIGINT) solution; a GPS anti-jam, integrated friend or foe, and towed decoy self-protection suite; a broadcast information system (BIS); and secure UHF SATCOMS capability.
* Smiths Aerospace’s flight-management and stores-management systems.

Are the p-8 I fitted with electro-optical systems ? Coz none is visible on the airframe . They dont possess any DIRCM for sure. Do they possess any active towed radar decoy for self-protection ?

2.Again you were of the opinion that Seaspray 7000e were superior to APS-137 , 153. Is this true even today. How does Raytheon APS-137 fare against EL-2022VA3?

3. When comparing the P-8I with A-319 MPA, which is better in terms of ferry range, time on station , weapons payload? How does the sensor suite of P-8I fare aginst that of A319MPA? To which system would you give preference ? Which ac among them has better ESM - ECM suites .

4. Why doesnt P-8I have a belly mounted radar like all other maritime patrol aircraft? APS-137 can only scan the frontal sector of the aircraft whereas EL-2022 has a 360 field.

5. Which MMR offers better range and offer more survellience modes-EL-20022VA3, Seaspray 7000e , APS-137?

6. P-3C had more weapons payload than P-8I. It has 10 hrdpts whereas p-8 has just 4. Why dont Boeing increase the no of hrdpts ? A319MPA also has 10 weapons stations.

Pls reply them. I had gone through your articles concerning them in the previous blog. These articles are just awesome. In fact this blog also is.

Anonymous said...

Hi prasun da

Need a few clarications. Would greatly appreciate for..

Here u have mentioned that the Indian army has already inked deal with RAFAEL for 4 regiments of SPYDER QRSAM way back in 2009 after a deal for SPYDER for IAF.But 2 months back there were media reports that the MOD has cleared the aquisition of 8 regimnts of QRSAM for the army and a open tender will follow.
Please update whether these 8 regimnts are in addition to the 4 regiments of SPYDER deal.
OR the deal with RAFAEL for 4 regiemnts of SPYDER was never done and this tender for 8 QRSAM regiment is a fresh one.Kindly tell

(God knows what MR. AK Antony is doing in MOD.That guy is nuts.He is not at all suitable to be India s defence minister)

Anonymous said...

Sir, nothing imposible. Though add-on composite modules are best suited for rectangular type turrets, it can also be applied to T-90 and T-72M1. A moderate to thick moulded composite layer can be rivetted or glued over the turret , upeer and lower glacis armour like the Soviet Super Dolly Parton T-72B model. And after that thick side skirts can be fitted above the tracks like Leopard 2A4 and SG. Slat armour for engine compartment will not protect it from HEAT rounds. if IA and DRDO ask Leyland, then they will obviously come up with a customised variant of AMAP or applique composit armour. Or Rafale can also be contacted.Up till the Leopard 2's add-on armour is the best.

Why cant Russia come up with a better armour solution for T-90AM? Why are the side skirts so thin unlike the ones on Leopard 2 ? They will not be able to take a single HEAT round. And apart from better ERA what new armour has been incorporated ? After the Relikt ERA blocks on turret and frontal glacis, is there some new composie armour slabs or just the previous base armour? And the turret sides have now been thickened and flattened. Are these armour blocks or just storage space ? And if armour are they also ERA or something else ?

Anonymous said...

Sir, the only thing that is impossible is for CVRDE to install ERA blocks on just one side of turret and the piecemeal armour improvements after 3 yrs of R&D on ARJUN to give way to Arjun mk1A.

AK said...

Hi Prasun , Aren't transport aircrafts like Il-76 have a 40 TTSL . Fighter jets have such 30 years or so. Strategic cargo planes such as Il-76 have 100000 hours if service life . They were inducted in 1986. So 26 years have only passed. So why their life have been extended two times? If Il-476 comes eventually , then will the IAF IL-76 be upgraded to Il-476, means rebuilded to that standard or new IL-476 will be procured ?
Let's hope that some DRDO & CVRDE technocrats have a look at these comments and on your views.
When will IAF start procuring Sam systems such as MRSAM, QR-SAM, anti-air & anti-PGM SAM systems for CMD and BSM defense. The Pakis inventory of Baburs and Raads are day by day increasing and the Chinese have started stockpiling TBM,NLOS-BSM in various long underground tunnels in TAR .
Also let's hope that the MoD listens to your advice and induction large nos of NloS-bsm such as Prahaar for Army .

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Anon@9.19AM: The IAF hasn’t asked for any aircraft-centric ALCM. The selected ALCM will equip all types of combat aircraft. There’s been no tender for a LACM. RBS-15 is an anti-ship missile, not a LACM.

To RAD: I never said that the IAF HAS PROCURED 7 Global 5000s. What I had said that the IAF WILL eventually procure 9 Global 5000s of which two will be used by the ARC. The ASTOR is tailored for UK-specific communications networks & therefore is totally unsuitable for India. Why shouldn’t it be prudent to go for critical US-origin systems? What’s wrong with that? If it’s prudent to go for higher education in the US & acquire cutting-edge hardware since the early 1980s for ISRO-designed satellites, what’s so imprudent about acquiring US-origin weaponry?

To RAHUL: Check out the topmost photo in the previous thread & there the optronic turret in the P-8I’s belly is clearly shown & captioned as well. Hard-wiring for DIRCMs is incorporated into the airframe, & DIRCM will be procured in future as an item for retrofit. No towed-decoys are needed as of now. The Seaspray 7000e is still superior to any mechanically-scanning radar, since the former permits the undertaking of concurrent interleaved operations. With mechanically scanned radars, this is not possible. The P-8I’s airframe is a generation ahead of that of the A319. As for mission management systems/sensors, both packages from the US & Europe are evenly matched. Belly-mounted radar is not reqd when flying racetrack patterns during routine ASW patrols between 20,000 feet ASL & 5,000 feet ASL. Belly-mounted radar is reqd only when the carrier-aircraft is reqd to fly at low altitudes, like coastal MPAs. Definitely & logically, an AESA-based multi-mode search radar will offer more versatility than all other existing mechanically scanning radars. P-8I has SIX external hardpoints & FOUR internal hardpoints.

To Anon@9.56PM: It is 4 SpyDer-SRs + 8 SHORADS for the Army. The SpyDer-SRs have ALREADY been delivered. The 8 WILL BE acquired between 2012 & 2022.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Anon@10.18PM: For India, the best solution for up-armouring existing T-72M1s is to completely do away with the existing turret & instead integrate the Arjun Mk1A’s turret (minus the stupid ERA tiles) with the hull of the T-72M1 (the TANK EX option), & upgrade the powerpack with a 1,000hp engine integrated with an automatic transmission. At the same time, incorporate SLAT armour in the MBT’s rear section, mount an APU in the rear section (& not on the turret-rear, which can then have the space for an air-conditioning system for the tank’s interiors), & install conformal composites-based side-skirt armour modules. Such a package (my personal proposal) will ensure high systems commonality with the Arjun Mk1A fleet & this will ensure greatly simplified battlefield logistics & reduce life-cycle costs. About 900 T-72M1s ought to be upgraded in this manner, plus another 800 Arjun Mk1As (upgraded along the lines I’ve suggested above) will be more than enough to take care of both fronts & at the same time also enable the CVRDE to acquire the necessary expertise reqd for modifying the existing 600+ T-90S MBTs in a near-identical manner. Then there will be no need for acquiring further T-90S or T-90AM MBTs. If all this is done, then India’s indigenous military-industrial facilities will get a huge boost, & due to increased production volumes, a high-level of indigenisation of both major sub-systems & components (in excess of 86%) can be realised over the next eight years.

To AK: If only the damned Ruskies can get their act together & be ready to offer the IL-476 upgrade package by 2014 for existing IAF IL-76MDs, will it make economic sense for the IAF to retain its fleet of IL-76MDs. On paper, the IL-476 package looks extremely enticing, even for the existing IL-78MKis that will require upgrading in future. The IAF has already begun inducting the SpyDer-SR SHORADS, & more QR-SAMs & VSHORADS/MANPADS will be procured over the next 10 years, as will Barak-2 MR-SAMs & Barak-8 LR-SAMs. For TMD & cruise missile defence, it’s all up to the DRDO now to come up with the PDV & AD-1/AD-2 interceptor missiles.

Unknown said...

Will F-INSAS empcompass a new camo unifrom for the IA? Somthing like a digi-cam or mulit-cam, or will IA stick to current camo?

Also when are we likely to see the F-INSAS Assault rifle in active service with IA or atleast announced? And it seems it will be sourced from abroad afterall given recent RFI/P? What sort of timescale are we looking at from today to see the full implemntation of F-INSAS for all infantry units?

Anonymous said...

Dear Prasun da(from anon @9.19 AM)

Thanks for your update on IAF tender for standoff missile.Could u please tell on which are the vendors participating in the tender? apart from MBDA taurus kepd...Thanks once again

Anonymous said...

Hi Prasun da

One small Question. 1 indian army air defence regiment=how many individual SAM units?

VJ said...

So we dont have any matured killer to counter babur like cruise missile?

AK said...

Hi Prasun, as far things stand now, the Il-76 fleet will be supplemented with 10 C-17 by 2014 to cope up with the growing logistics need of the ARmy. And if by that time , the Ruskies cant get their act together ,then IAF would have no option other than to go for entire replacement.

Aren't transport aircrafts like Il-76 have a 40 TTSL . Fighter jets have such 30 years or so. Strategic cargo planes such as Il-76 have 100000 hours if service life . They were inducted in 1986. So 26 years have only passed. So why their life have been extended two times?

The Army now possess 4 Spyder-Sr regiments. And the IAF has already begun inducting such SAM systems. Is this in addition to the 4 regiments? How many suadrons of Spyder is IAF procuring ? Each IA Spyder regiment has 4 batteries each having 3 TELs each of which has 4 missiles. Why the Spyder-Sr have 2 different missile systems? Are the Python,Derby used against different targets.
Whats the total no of mssiles rounds that AF, IA bough for the Spyder systems ?

Anonymous said...

sir you said that the turret cannot be redesigned cuz that wud be cost prohibitive but can be "modified"....

what sort of modification are you suggesting ??

why cant the amap be straightway procured and modified for use on arjun...

wud shifting the arjuns gunner sight alittle be prove to be alot cost prohibitive..??

in this very thread you posted a pic that shows that mk2 will have a IR JAMMER....which is certainly it for real or just some company ad stuff...

why just an ir jammer why not a laser jammer as well ??

how wud the tarang mk2 rwr fare against likes modern aesa radars like the ones on f 35 , f 18 , f22 ??

any updates on the tejas mk2 ??

i have heard that (not from media) that ada has still not decided whether to use the current but enlarged intakes or totally redesigned intakes that allow future airflow requirements of an even more powerful engine as well..

Anonymous said...

sir what good is an era panel that exists only one side !!!???

era protection only for half the front glacis !!!

this is simply ridiculous......cvrde has simply made us the laughing stock !!

lets just hope that they drive this lunacy to just prototype level...and somebody drills some sense into them so that they deal with this mess...

what are major differences between arjun mk2 and arjun mk-1-a ??

bradshaw said...

Hi Prsun da, I read the following reagarding the Magnetic Anamoly Detactor on Wiki:

"There is some misunderstanding of the mechanism of detection of submarines in water using the MAD boom system. Magnetic moment displacement is ostensibly the main disturbance, yet submarines are detectable even when oriented parallel to the Earth's magnetic field, despite construction with non-ferromagnetic hulls. For example, the Soviet-Russian Alfa class submarine, whose hull is constructed out of titanium to give dramatic submerged performance and protection from detection by MAD sensors, is still detectable[citation needed].

This is due in part to the fact that even submarines with titanium hull will still have a substantial content of ferromagnetic materials as the nuclear reactor, steam turbines, auxiliary diesel engines and numerous other systems will be manufactured from steel and nickel alloys."

Now it says " The P-8A will use a new hydrocarbon sensor to detect fuel vapors from diesel submarines and other conventionally powered ships.[14]"

The US navy P8's will not have MAD.So how will the US Navy P 8A's will detect the russian or chinese nuclear subs which in a way is possible through the use of MAD ???? Now since P 3C orions were equipped with the MAD , dnt you think the P 8 would be at a great disadvantage ?

AK said...

Hi Prasun, can you pls tell the composition of IAF'S Spyder-SR squadron .
Are there enough Spyder regiments with IA to protect its main bases in North-West, its logistics facilties, supply depots .And is there enough such SAM for mobile defense of the three strike corps.
Does IAF have all of its major airbases in NW, N, and West protected from cruise missile strikes ?

Anonymous said...

Is it super MKI program you were talking???

Anonymous said...

1. Are there any plans of the Army & Airforce ti procure PAC-3 for NLOS-BSM defense ?
2. If IAI has been blacklisted then has the procurement of IAI APFSDS been stopped ?
3.Are there any plans if MoD & IAF to expand HAL's production facilities .
4. How does the Army plan to counter PLA 's rapid reaction force in TAR , Ladakh in case of hostilities ?
5. When will the Army heliborne assault brigades be formed ?

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To UNKNOWN: New uniforms with pixilated camouflage will be introduced in the near future much before the F-INSAS network is introduced. New assault-rifles will make their debut not before 2016. The entire Indian Army will be covered by F-INSAS by 2024.

To Anon@12.47AM: MBDA with Taurus KEPD-350 & Boeing with SLAM-ER are taking part.

To Anon@2.26AM: I AD Regiment generically comprises 3 Batteries & each Battery has six Firing Units. More Firing Units & more Batteries can be added, if reqd.

To VJ: The SpyDer-SRs can easily neutralise subsonic GLCMs & ALCMs.

To Anon@4.10PM: Arjun Mk2 will incorporate a 1,500hp powerpack with automatic transmission, along with an autoloader.

To BRADSHAW: The US has at its disposal several kinds of still-classified space-based sensors that can generically termed ocean surveillance satellites. In addition, it has a continental SOSUS network of embedded seabed sonar transducers at critical chokepoints throughout the Atlantic Ocean. It has also begun deploying unmanned autonomous surface vessels equipped with variable-=depth dipping sonars of the ultra low-frequency kind.

To AK: The IAF & IA have only now begun inducting into service the SpyDer-SRs & only by 2022 will the desired quantities of such motorised SHORADS be available.

To Anon@6.40PM: Yes, that’s the Super Su-30MKI programme being referred to.

To Anon@11.22PM: If the DRDO is unable to develop the planned AD-1/AD-2 endo-atmospheric interceptors, then the only other viable option will be the PAC-3. If the PDV exo-atmospheric interceptor too is unavailable, then there’s no other choice but to go for the THAAD. Yes, all imports of IMI-built 125mm APFSDS rounds have been stopped. There are always all kinds of plans, that’s not the issue. The issue is how soon will decisions be taken for restructuring the DPSUs. The only way to counter the PLA’s RRFs is to raise one’s own air-assault RRFs & improve the border road/rail transportation infrastructure, which has remained unchanged since the 1970s. The IA is not planning to raise any air-assault brigade, instead it has earmarked its 54th Infantry Division for transformation into an Air-Assault Division.