Total Pageviews

Friday, July 6, 2012

How China Employs ‘Mis-Direction’ To Achieve Its Military-Industrial Objectives

Since the latter half of 1989, the US had imposed a prohibition on the export to China of all US-made military hardware and related technical data as a result of the conduct in June 1989 at Tiananmen Square by the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) of the People’s Republic of China (PRC). In addition, in February 1990, the US Congress imposed a prohibition upon licences or approvals for the export of military hardware to the PRC. In codifying the embargo, the US Congress had specifically named helicopters of all types for inclusion in the ban. Despite this, Pratt & Whitney Canada Corp (PWC), a Canadian subsidiary of the US-based United Technologies Corporation (UTC), and Hamilton Sundstrand Corp (HSC) the US-based subsidiary of PWC, knowingly and willfully consented to the export of 10 (ten) PWC PT6C-67C turboshaft engines (each rated at 1,679shp), which were delivered between 2001 and 2002 along with related HSC-developed dual-channel full authority digital electronic engine control (FADEC) software without obtaining an export licence from the US. Based on documents filed and evidence gathered for an on-going court case initiated by the US Departments of Commerce, Justice and State in the District of Connecticut, it has since emerged that PWC on June 28, 2012 pleaded guilty to violating the US Arms Export Control Act and making false statements in connection with its illegal export to the PRC of US-origin military software used in the development of the PLA’s new-generation attack helicopter, the 6.5-ton ZW-10, which has been under development since the mid-1990s at the Changhe Aircraft Industries Group (CAIG) and China Helicopter Research and Development Institute (CHRDI), both based in Jingdezhen, Jiangxi province. 
In addition, UTC, its US-based subsidiary Hamilton Sundstrand Corp (HSC) and PWC have all agreed to pay more than US$75 million as part of a global settlement with the US Justice and State Departments in connection with weapons export violations and for making false and belated disclosures to the US government about these illegal exports. While roughly $20.7 million is to be paid to the Justice Department, the remaining $55 million is payable to the State Department as part of a separate consent agreement to resolve outstanding export issues, including those related to the ZW-10. Up to $20 million of this penalty can be suspended if applied by UTC to remedial compliance measures. As part of the settlement, UTC and HSC have admitted conduct set forth in a stipulated and publicly filed statement of facts.
Although PWC knew since 1998 that the ZW-10 was destined to be an attack helicopter, it allegedly decided to ‘suppress’ this piece of information also failed to notify UTC or HSC about the actual application of their products. Instead, both UTC and HSC were reportedly told that their products were meant for a 7-ton civilian multi-role helicopter—the AC-352—that was apparently being developed by CAIG and CHRDI, and since the PRC’s own indigenous engine for the ZW-10, the WZ-16, had not yet been developed by the PRC’s China Helicopter Turbine Engine Corp (CHTEC), the PWC PT6C-67Cs and their FADEC software packages would be used only temporarily only for the ZW-10’s flight-test phase, and would later be removed for eventual and permanent application/fitment on board the AS-352. Furthermore, both UTC and HSC were reportedly given an assurance (first conveyed to PWC by the PRC) by UTC that their products would be exclusive to all civilian variants of the AC-352. Consequently, HSC began cooperating with CAIG and CHRDI, which lasted till early 2004. PWC remained involved in the ZW-10’s R & D efforts till June 2005.   
In a related development, as part of its efforts to keep UTC, PWC and HSC more than happy, the PRC’s Aviation Industry Corp (AVIC) decided to enlarge the financial cake by announcing on November 6, 2002 that PWC’s PT6B-67A engine (rated at 1,200shp) and HSC’s dual-channel FADEC had been selected on an exclusive basis to power the three-engined AC-313 civilian multi-role heavylift helicopter, while for the 7-ton EC-175 twin-engined civilian multi-role helicopter (which is being co-developed by AVIC and Eurocopter SA since December 2005), PWC’s PT6C-67E turboshaft, rated at 1,775shp, had been selected as the exclusive powerplant along with HSC’s dual-channel FADEC.
Based on my interactions with several PRC-centric industry officials since 1996 at the biennial Airshow China aerospace expos held in Zhuhai, it can now be confirmed with certainty that the CAIG and CHRDI were mandated by the PLA sometime in mid-1998 to develop four types of new-generation helicopters—attack helicopter, multi-role heavylift helicopter, single-engined 2-ton multi-role helicopter meant for use as a LOH/LUH (this being the AC-301) and a medium twin-engined helicopter—all three of which were required to be capable of undertaking ‘hot-n-high’ flight operations throughout the Tibet Autonomous Region (TAR) and other high-altitude regions of China.
Two flight-test prototypes of the ZW-10 were built in 2003 and two more in 2004. The first flight of Prototype No2 took place on April 29, 2003. The latter two prototypes were evaluated by the PLA Army by 2007. Originally designed by the 602nd Research Institute, 608th Research Institute, and the 613th Research Institute since the mid-1990s, the ZW-10 makes use of the indigenous GJV289A digital flight-control data bus, and is equipped with a fly-by-wire flight control system. The auxiliary power unit is centered on a brushless DC electric motor designed by Huafeng Avionics Co, a subsidiary of Guizhou Aviation Industries Group. The weapons package includes eight NORINCO-built 7km-range Lan Jian 7 (Blue Arrow 7/AKD-10) laser-guided anti-armour guided-missiles in box launchers under the stub wings, and a 30mm cannon mounted under the chin, aimed via a gunner’s helmet-mounted sight. Furthermore, TY-90 AAMs can be carried for use against hostile helicopters and slow-moving fixed-wing aircraft. The ZW-10’s mission avionics suite is integrated via a MIL-STD-1553B digital data bus, while its integrated EW suite—called YH-96—is the first of its type developed by the PRC that integrates the millimetre-wave fire-control radar, radar warning receivers, laser warning receivers, and countermeasures dispenser suite together. A large nose turret, developed by the 218th Factory of China North Industries Corp’s (NORINCO) Opticals Science & Technology Ltd subsidiary, houses the FLIR, TV camera, laser rangefinder and target designator. The pilots’ helmet-mounted sight was developed by the 613th Research Institute, while the 69.5kg millimetre-wave target acquisition radar has been built by China Northern Electronic Co, a subsidiary of NORINCO. Twin missile approach warning system (MAWS) sensors are installed on both sides of the fuselage behind the nose turret. The ZW-10 is also fitted with an integrated communications suite, four-axis automatic flight control system, and a ring laser gyro-based inertial navigation system. The ultimate powerplant for the ZW-10 will be the CHTEC-developed and built WZ-16 engines.
The first prototype of the AC-313 multi-role heavylift helicopter made its maiden flight on March 19, 2010 and on September 2, 2010 one of the AC-313 prototypes set an altitude record for PRC-built helicopters by exceeding an altitude of 8,000 metres (26,250 feet) in a flight aimed at proving the on-board fuel, lubrication and hydraulic systems. The helicopter performed the feat at a mass of 9.2 tons (20,300 lb), compared with a MTOW of 13.8 tons. The Civil Aviation Administration of China (CAAC) issued a certification of airworthiness for the AC-313 on January 9, 2012. The AC-313’s main and tail rotor blades are made of composites, while its ball-shaped main rotor hub is built with titanium. Up to 50% of the airframe is built with composites, while titanium has been used for the remainder. The avionics suite, integrated via a ARINC-429 digital data bus, includes an all-glass cockpit, nose-mounted search radar, and a four-axis automatic flight control system. The AC-313 can carry either 27 passengers or a 4-ton internal load, or a 5-ton load on external slings.
The AC-352 medium twin-engined multi-role helicopter, which was first showcased at the Airshow China expo in Zhuhai in late 2010, bears a strong resemblance to the EC-175, and its military variant will be known as the Z-15. The Z-15’s powerplant too, like the ZW-10, will comprise CHTEC-developed and built WZ-16 engines. What remains unexplained to this day is why the AC-352, whose existence was known since 1998, has yet to make an appearance, let alone its maiden flight. Was it because CAIG and CHRDI were awaiting the transfer of the EC-175’s design packages from Eurocopter SA via AVIC—something that was possible only by 2008? Only time will tell.—Prasun K. Sengupta


Heberian said...

Hello Prasun-
Thank you for yet another article that compiles facts that are dispersed in an attempt to stay under the radar, and also for asking pertinent questions.

I am sure you will agree that this is probably the tip of the ice-berg when it comes to the PRC acquiring US and European technology for military and other purposes.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Heberian: Hi! VMT. I'm sure you'll agree that it is always necessary to add context to the text. That's what I've endeavoured to do above, as I had in my possession all the reqd reference materials & databases I have been collecting since 1996 from the past Zhuhai Airshows. Do rest assured that there are several more examples of successful operations of this nature, especially those carried out in Germany & Sweden, apart from the former CIS, Baltic & Central Asian Republics (like the restoration of the aircraft carrier Varyag & successful fabrication in Shenyang of the Su-33 carrier-borne heavy MRCA).

Heberian said...

Dear Prasun-
Oh I did not mean to disparage the article at all. Quite on the contrary. I would call it excellent humint compilation from open sources.

I absolutely love the context you have provided... and I liked the fact that you have made it easy to connect the dots for many readers who might not be professionals and might have seen pieces of the this huge procurement jigsaw in different places.

At some point, would you please shed some light on the successes the PRC has had in Sweden and Germany and Italy..?

What saddens me is that we have the same capabilities the PRC harnesses, but a complete and absolute lack of political will to harness our capabilities.

As I often say to some friends, so much for us to learn from the PRC way of getting things done... Just look at their requirement that any global mergers require ant-trust approvals from China as well, if those merged entities are to do business in China. I just love the way they do things and so wish we (our younger generation of leaders at least) would start..

Again, thanks for a great read.. and really hope to see some stuff about the European scene.

joydeep ghosh said...

@prasun da'

In addition, UTC,...


Although PWC knew since....

both have been repeated twice


joydeep Ghosh

SK said...

Fly-by-wire controls for ZW-10, that too way back in mid 90's. HAL has lot to learn and even more lot to catch-up with LCH and Dhruv

Sujoy Majumdar said...

Prasun Da ,

I have started a company and am designing radar jamming devices . Will you please take a minute of your time to let me know ho I should approach in MoD to figure out if they are interested.

Best reagrds,

Anonymous said...

Does this give India any strategic Advantage ? Can India base a refueling cum replenishment port for its Naval Ships in these islands.

Mr. Ra 13 said...

You were in the forefront of those who have advocated more and more of the judicious application and utilization of the attack helicopters. I hope now your stand gets more and more vindicated.

Please provide a practical comparison between this Chinese attack helicopter Vs its Indian counterpart.

Also how the Sino-US relations are affected by this piracy event.

spanky's Blog said...

Hey Prasun,
Have u seen this regarding Rustom-2

what do u think abt it? another wet dream or feasible?


F said...


I was looking at photos on the placement of the panoramic sight on the PT-91M. Would you agree that though this provides the commander with a 360 degree view, that the view is still very obstructed by objects such as the 12.7mm HMG?

Would agree that a key vulnerability of MBTs is the potential damage that can be caused to the commander and gunners sight by 12.7mm and 14.5mm HMGs?

Equipped with KE rounds from PRENTIS - which is a copy of a 1980's Soviet round- can the PT-91M defeat a Leopard 2A4 with a frontal shot? i've been told that an unidentified company has delivered KE rounds to supplement the ones from PRENTIS.

Is there enough power supply on the PT-91M if a decision was made to install an OWS and an APS?

If you have the time you you please explain again why and how a decision was made by the Malaysian cabinet to get a Russian, rather than a Western, MBT. You already did so about a year ago, but I can't remember which post it is in.

F said...


Do you recall an MOU signed between SME and a Bosnian company to supply the M-87 Okan MLRS? Do you know why this deal fell through and what led to the ASTROS being selected? Wasn't there also interest shown in the SMERCH?

Came across this video of the Thai long range MLRS from China and the 106mm ones.

Assuming the Pakistani army wanted to upgrade their MBT fleet, and that an export license could be obtained and the Pakistanis were willing to deal with the commonality issues, getting the ex-Dutch army Leopard 2A4s would be a perfect move?

Any idea why the Pakistanis have not decided to upgrade their T-80s? Is it due to a lack of funding or a lack of priorities?

What are your thoughts on converting hulls of T-54/55s into 'heavy' APCs, like the Namur and Azcharit, as opposed to buying existing designs like the CV-90 and Adnan, which offer much less protection but are lighter?

What is the shelf life for ERAs before they have to be replaced?

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Heberian: Perhaps you may have misunderstood my earlier comment, for kindly do rest assured that I had never for a moment ever viewed any of your comments thus far as being disparaging in any way. Regarding similar efforts mounted by the PRC in Europe & Scandinavia, the following immediately come to my mind:
1) Since the early 1990s, the PRC has procured several dual-use COTS-standard hardware from Germany’s Rohde & Schwarz for all its guided-missile destroyers (DDG) & guided-missile frigates (FFG) of both foreign origin & locally built vessels. These include the warship’s air-conditioning & internal communications systems. Similarly, all new-build Type 054/54A Jinkai-class FFGs are powered by diesel engines supplied by SEMT Pielstick. The Type 022 Hobei-class catamarans are powered by Wartsila-built waterjets.
2) In an earlier thread titled ‘Alliance of Convenience’ last year, I had explained how & from where the PRC acquired access to the designs of Microturbo turbojets of French origin from South Africa & how they were reverse-engineered for powering air-/ground-launched cruise missiles. Similarly, when it comes to micro-electro-mechanical systems (MEMS) for NLOS-BSMs, China’s Kotel Micro Technique Co Ltd has obtained COTS-standard bibre-optic gyroscopes from Norwegian electronics manufacturer Sensonor. The set of components now manufactured by Kotel include up to three SAK01-03 acceleration switches that interactively operate with one another and provide pressure and acceleration data that are then fed into the flight-guidance system, FKZD-01 vibration sensor, and the INS-M100 MEMS, operating at an RS422 bit-rate, measuring only 120mm x 120mm x 120mm, and using GPS data for its targetting system. This same company also supplies optronic terminal guidance sensors for the Fei Teng (FT)-1 and FT-3 precision-guided bombs developed by the China Academy of Launch Vehicle Technology (CALT), and for the Leishi (LS)-6 extended-range glide bomb and the (Leiting) LT-2 laser-guided bomb developed by the Luoyang Optical-Electronic Technology Development Centre (LOEC). Sensonor’s STIM202 Butterfly gyro, being sold freely in China, is a 55-gram miniature module that replaces previous-generation fibre-optic, ring-laser and mechanical gyros. The STIM202 is based on single-crystal silicon technology, can be configured in one-, two- or three-axis capability, and offers 24-bit resolution plus an RS422 bit-rate. The STIM202 is so small and light that the designers of a missile system can use two of the modules to provide the weapon’s on-board guidance module with back-up redundancy, which was never a possibility with previous-generation guidance components.
3) From Pakistan’s Kamra-based Air Weapons Complex (AERO), the PRC has had access to two types of pulse-Doppler multi-mode fire-control radars developed by Italy’s Galileo Avionica (formerly FIAR)—the Grifo-7 (installed on PAF F-7P & F-7PGs) & Grifo-M3 (installed on the PAF’s upgraded Mirage IIIEAs). The Grifo-7 then morphed into the active radar for the C-602 ASCM), while the Grifo-M3 has morphed into the pulse-Doppler multi-mode fire-control radars produced by CETC for the JH-7A & JF-17 combat aircraft.
4) CATIC has always taken a deep interest in the JAS-39 Gripen MRCA since it wanted to develop the JF-17 as a low-cost counterpart of the Gripen. For this reason, CATIC allowed AERO to take the lead in seeking critical design inputs from Saab in areas like glass-cockpit design & ergonomics & data-linking technologies reqd for communicating with AEW & C platforms like the Saab 2000 AEW & CS. All such vital inputs were then supplied by AERO to CATIC for the JF-17’s R & D efforts.

Anonymous said...

sir ,
i have an totally surprising ques to ask..
have u read the books "inside the soviet military intelligence",
"aquarium", an ex soviet army officer who goes by the pen name viktor suvorov..if yes
what r ur views abt the books & the author ?

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Joydeep Ghosh: VMT. By the way, with regard to one of your earlier comments that there is joke going round that if the Russians don’t find the blueprints or tech documents of their defence products in Russia, they can well ask the Chinese to supply those original documents, the joke actually applies to only Russian naval equipment & MBT designs of the 1980s.

To SK: One of the DRDO labs based in Chandigarh had officially stated way back in 2005 that it was engaged in developing a fibre-optic-based fly-by-light flight control system for the Dhruv ALH. However, till to date, nothing concrete has emerged on this subject from either the DRDO or HAL.

To Sujoy Majumdar: The best authority to be approached should be the HQ Integrated Defence Staff, as it is responsible for long-term integrated tri-services perspective planning for all force modernisation efforts for the three armed services. It is only HQ IDS that will give you a panoramic grand-stand perspective of what’s reqd. If you directly approach either the MoD or DRDO HQ, then chances are that either you will driven around in circles, or your ideas/concepts will be hijacked or stolen by either the DRDO or DPSUs like BEL or even private-sector entities that already have close military-industrial partnerships with the MoD-owned DPSUs. Therefore, the only institution that can give you impartial advice is HQ IDS.

To Anon@5.13PM: What is being offered is a long-term lease similar to how Diego Garcia has been leased to the US via the UK. The northern island can definitely be used for fleet replenishment purposes as well as for housing a SIGINT station & an airfield capable of accommodating at least one Do-228MPA or P-8I LRMR/ASW aircraft, while the southern island ought to be developed as an overseas island resort.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Mr.RA 13: The ZE-10 is actually heavier than the LCH since the former was from the outset developed as a dedicated attack helicopter. The LCH, on the other hand, is primarily meant to shoot down MALE-UAVs, & ground attack is only its secondary capability. In order to convert the LCH into a LAH with potent anti-armour/ground attack capabilities, the LCH’s existing nose-section needs to be modified (like that of the ZW-10) to accommodate an AESA-based target acquisition radar + the existing COMPASS turret containing a laser rangefinder, thermal imager & low-light-level TV camera. In addition, the stub-wings on either side need strengthening & enlargement so that each wing can carry at least four HELINA or PARS-3LR or Spike-ER ATGMs, or a total of eight ATGMs. If all this is done, then the LAH is likely to be favourably considered for acquisition by the Indian Army’s Aviation Corps, since the LCH’s present configuration precludes it from being able to carry sufficient ordnance reqd for attack helicopter operations. My suggested modifications are doable within a fixed timeframe & with minimal R & D risks.
Regarding the ‘piracy’ incident, Sino-US relations won’t take a mortal blow since the PRC has already officially stated that the PT6C-67C engines were only to serve as ‘interim’ powerplants pending the arrival of the WZ-16 engine. And as per US laws, PWC officials will be reqd to visually certify that these PT6C-67C engines are permanently taken out of the ZW-10 & installed on the originally destined recipient, the AC-352 helicopter. But the PRC has definitely benefitted from the transfer of HSC’s FADEC software (which is now being applied & made use of on the WZ-16 engine) & has already more than compensated UTC for the loss of $75 million (in punitive fines that UTC & its subsidiaries are now reqd to pay to the US govt) by agreeing to give PWC & HSC guaranteed business worth some $2 billion by agreeing to exclusively use PWC-made engines for the AC-352, AC-313 & EC-175 helicopters. So, at the end of the day, money talks & dictates!

By the way, INS Sayhadri, the third MDL-built Project 17 FFG, is likely to be commissioned on July 21, 2012.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Spanky’s Blog/Swarop: Everything’s possible, provided the R & D effort is carried out in ‘mission mode’. Thus far, I haven’t come across any photos showing the Rustom-2 MALE-UAV’s scale-model being subjected to any kind of wind tunnel tests. Therefore, the targetted maiden flight date of February 2014 seems far-fetched to me. Let’s first wait & see whether or not the ADE succeeds in delivering the all-singing-n-dancing Rustom-1 MALE-UAV to the Indian Army for user trials before the year’s end (as was promised by the DRDO) & whether or not the service induction schedule is a staggered one (like that of the Tejas Mk1) involving god-knows-how–many IOC & FOC phases. In any case, the IAF-specific Rustom-2’s sensor payloads (like turret-mounted optronics, AESA-based SAR/ground moving target indication radar, signals repeater payload & digital autopilot) will in all probability be imported from ELBIT Systems (COMPASS turret), IAI/MALAT (EL/M-2054, signals repeater payload & digital autopilot) & ORBIT Technologies (encrypted SATCOM data-links). The big question now is whether the IAF will be able to acquire its own dedicated telecommunications satellite by February 2014, for without this capability, it will be impossible to conduct the Rustom-2’s flight-trials, unless the Indian Navy agrees to lease some transponders on a temporary basis from its own dedicated GSAT-7 fleet telecommunications satellite, due for launch later this year.

F said...

Viktor Suvorov was a GRU agent who defected to the West. The book that made him famous was 'Spetsnaz', in which he potrayed Spetsnaz agents as being super 'uber' commandos. He claimed that all Soviet Olympic atheletes were Spetsnaz agents and that there were numerous Spetsnaz sleeper agents in the West who were ready to wreak havoc if the balloon had gone up between NATO and the Warsaw Pact. A lot of the claims he made in his books have been discredited.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To FARIS: I had already uploaded the diagram in the previous thread that showed the line-of-sight in azimuth of the commander’s panoramic sight for the T-90S, which also applies for the PT-91M. It is not necessary from an operational standpoint to have a 360-degree panoramic sight, since advancing MBTs are not reqd to engage any targets to the rear. As for the vulnerability of gunner’s & commander’s sights to HMG rounds, it is extremely difficult to target such sights when the MBT is on the move. Secondly, MBTs will always be accompanied by AIFVs that will take care of hostile infantry emplacements in open or even undulating or terrain. However, when operating in urbanised built-up areas, the MBT’s vulnerability increases manifold, as witnessed in Chechnya. The leopard 2A4 will definitely be able to survive direct hits from any 125mm smoothbore cannon firing non-Russian APFSDS rounds. Apart from PRETIS, Bumar Labedy of Poland has supplied 125mm rounds for the PT-91Ms. Even on the existing PT-91Ms, the power supply reqmts are insufficient & the fire-control system’s performance has consequently been far from satisfactory. What the PT-91M needs is a decent APU driven by a miniature diesel engine. The decision to acquire MBTs of ‘Eastern Bloc’ (not Russian) origin was made in 1993 because the idea was to place the orders with companies located in Croatia & Bosnia-Herzegovina once the civil wars were over. However, both Croatia & Bosnia-Herzegovina took far longer than envisaged to rebuild their military-industrial capabilities/infrastructure & therefore Putrajaya had no other choice but to acquire the MBTs & ARVs from Poland’s Bumar Labedy. The PT-91Ms’ 2A46 Rapira gun barrels were supplied by Slovakia’s Kerametal. The M-87 Orkan was still undergoing development when the Malaysian Army wanted a fully proven & functional MBRL & that’s why the Astros-2 was selected. The Thai MBRL is the WS-1B from CPMIEC. For the Pakistan Army, it would be cost-prohibitive to maintain the Leopard 2A4s in serviceable condition, especially since the entire Pakistani MBT rebuild infrastructure is built around the MBTs of Chinese origin. Therefore, instead of Leopard 2A4s, the Pakistan Army will more likely opt for NORINCO’s MBT-3000 or Ukraine’s OPLOT-M. The existing T-80UDs are already overdue for their mandatory overhauls after the first 10 years of service. But no localised servicing facility has been set up inside Pakistan as yet. Instead of heavy APCs the T-55s can easily be upgraded to accept 125mm cannons, as well as up-armoured with appliqué armour plates & ERA tiles (with six-year shelf-life), similar to what NORINCO has done with its Type 59s. Another option is to modify the T-55s into tank destroyers by installing a new turret (like the Kliver) housing a 30mm/35mm cannon, four ATGMs, one RCWS with 12.7mm HMG, plus one RCWS housing an automatic grenade launcher.

Heberian said...

Prasun, thank you very much! You are kind.

I have to admit that I am seriously envious of how they source technology. I think something is wrong in our lack of true pragmatic nationalism thinly camouflaged as hubristic moralizing.

I am off for some nasi lemak & redang with a kopi ice :)

Rahul said...

Well i see DENEL's MAKOPA in LJ-7, is it the case?

Sujoy Majumdar said...

Prasun Da , ashim dhonobad . Will keep you posted if I make any progress.


Anonymous said...

1. If the onboard jammers in the MiG-29 and Sukhoi-30 MKI can jam the active and semiactive radar seekers of BVRAAM why can't they jam the same of SAM?
2. In the Sukhoi can't the IRST act as a MAWS in the forward hemisphere? Also is the BARS radar capable of detecting BVRAAM and SAM from a good distance away and find it's speed , bearing and notify about it to the pilot. In the aft hemisphere the tail mounted radar can also do the same and act as a MAWS.
3.Is the same internal jammer as the one present on iAF Su-30 s present in it's PLAAF counterparts. If so we won't be having any type of EW advantage over the Chinese.
4. What is the present status of the MiG-27 fleet? When will it be airworthy again? Why isn't the IAF doing anything quickly about this?
5. U once said that the IAF uses the MiG-27 as a tank buster. But when flying so close to enemy armored formations won't it face heavy AAA and fall prey to enemy point defense SAM and suffer heavy attrition due to it's scare defensive equipment.. Also it doesn't have good armour protection.
6. And if it's sole purpose is as a tank buster why has the IAF deployed 2 such squadrons in Hasimara? What nav and attack pod does the MiG-27 uses for low level attacks?

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Heberian: VMT. In India’s case it is not so much about sourcing technologies, since unlike China, India faces no major tech-/hardware denial embargoes in the realm of conventional weapon systems. The problem within India is lack of leaders bestowed with the art of strategic visioning. Over the past two-and-a-half decades I haven’t yet come across any Indian political leader who can take difficult decisions without difficulty.

To RAHUL: The LJ-7 appears a bit heavier than the Mokopa.

To Sujoy Majumdar: VMT & best of luck.

To Anon@11PM: It is all about the availability of power to sustain maximum transmitted jamming signals. No internal jammer for combat aircraft has enough on-board power-generation capacity for neutralizing the high-power target illuminators of ground-based SAMs like MR-SAMs & LR-SAMs. IRST & MWAS operate in different wavelengths as they have totally different functions. The BARS MMR can only detect targets in the frontal hemisphere, while SAMs & BVRAAMs never come head-long. They either appear from the rear or sideways. Su-30MKI never had any aft-mounted radar. All Su-27s & Su-30s exported worldwide thus far have internal jammers. Beggars can’t be choosers, & since the R-29B turbofans for the MiG-27s were retired from service throughout Russia in the early 1990s, it is almost impossible to source spares for such engines. Not all hostile armoured/mechanised formations have heavy AAA cover & the MiG-27M’s cockpit area is well-protected with titanium armour plates. There are enough armoured vehicles that can be used by India’s neighbours in areas like Arunachal Pradesh & the Siliguri Corridor & hence the presence of MiG-27Ms in Hashimara. The MiG-27M never had nor has any low-level navigation pod, while attack pods like LDPs are never used for low-level bombing runs.

Mr. Ra 13 said...

In Batalik sector, Flight Lieutenant Nachiketa in his Mig-27L carried out a second attack on the target using the aircraft's 30mm cannon. Subsequently the engine flamed out.

Can this engine flame out in any case be associated with the firing of the cannon.

accidental loser said...

prasun some questions,
1;what's meant by track-via-missiles guidance?????
2,Understanding the fact that ADS can always be penetrated, to what much extent SAM systems can inflict loss to the opposing party. I mean suppose a case of war between two fronts each equipped to the teeth with modern weapons, In starting phases of offensive air campaign by airforce of A, it counted some strategic SAMs. ARMs were fired simultaneously with PGMs to take them down, but the point defence SAMs took them out. Similarly the A airforce stand-off jamming fighters jammed the radars of SAMs guided against them and managed to survive. what sud be the best outcome of this kinda asymmetric warfares we gonna the nt too far future.??????
3.Rather than takin conventional missions how much our SOFs prepared to fare against assymetric 5th gen warfare!!!!!!!!
4.What are the standard equipment of an average SOF personnel for regular missions.
5.The NATGEO says normal composite hard add-on armour plates used today by militaries for protection against assault rifle bullets breaks-down partially at the point of impact from a bullet. So 3-4 hits on it make the plate too much weak to hardly resist any other bullet impact. Is ths true?
6, What are those topi typ things usually found on indian army soldier's head, is it a kinda standard headgear or what.?

accidental loser said...

another 1,
If stand-off jamming of ground based high power targeting radars is impossible thn hw much feasible it wud b to jam d datalinks feeding d SAM from d radar ???

Anonymous said...

1.Isnt there a radar housed in the slender cylindrical projection between the nozzles of the Sukhoi-30mki. Fotr I have read in Wiki that there is a backward facing radar NO19 in the Su-27/30/35 family.
2.The MiG-27 doesnt employ any pod for navigation .How does it navigate over hilly mountaineous terrain during low level missions.
3. U said that there were enough armoured vehicles for use by India's neighbours and so the presence of MiG-27 in Hasimara. So will the MiG pilot aquire the tanks,armoured vehicles and other ground targets visually, then ID them and again track them visually and then go in for the strafing run.cSuch obsolete ways of acquiring annd engaing targets. This was the practise during WW2. And after almost 65 yrs, so much has changed. New techs have come up. There are so many RTP available and also SAR,GMTI equipped radars. Still everything is done visually. If the weather is bad, i mean bad visibilty then there can be no flying. Like during the Battle of Bulge, neither the Luftwaffe nor the Allies could provide air support due to bad weather. The same will apply for the MiG-27. They are better on the ground than in the air.
4.The IAF has to pay dearly for the great mistakes commited by our great politicians in the 80s.They should have gone for Mirage 2000 instead of MiG-23/27.
5.Does the MiG-27 have armour protection over the engine and critical parts of the airframe & wings. It was clearly not intended as a tank buster.

Vikram Guha said...

Dear Prasun ,

Why are the Russians suddenly setting up an arms manufacturing unit in India ?


Vikram Guha said...

Dear Prasun,

Just an addition to my previous question . A couple of Indian Defense contractors like Mahindra for example are tieing up with Israeli & American defense contractors . Why have none of the Indian defense contractors tied up with any Russian company.

Best Regards,

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Mr.RA 13: As the MiG-27M had never been designed to be employed in combat at such high altitudes, it was never flight-certified by its Russian OEM & Design Bureau to undertake the kind of straffing runs with 30mm cannons. On top of that, what the IAF MiG-27M did over Batalik was never tried out even once prior to the outbreak of hostilities & consequently, the aircraft’s peculiar flight characteristics were a totally unknown factor until it was actually tried out with fatal consequences. I remember mentioning once before that the MiG-27M’s airspeed decreases by 22 Knots due to the sheer recoil force of the 30mm cannon when in use. At high altitudes, when this happens, unless the pilot has prior experience of this happening before, it becomes almost impossible to recompense by instantly increasing engine thrust, and this is one probable reason why a MiG-27M can go into a stall at such altitudes. There have also been several cases of the exhaust fumes of unguided air-to-ground rockets & aircraft cannons (fired by another aircraft ahead) lingering at high altitudes and this in turn is sucked into the air-intakes of the following aircraft, which leads to engine flameout. It has happened several times before with aircraft of Western origin, such as MB-339As and A-4 Skyhawks. Therefore, in conclusion, the Batalik incident would not have happened had this particular attack manoeuvre been practiced at least eight times before in similar operating conditions so as to iron out all the bugs. Sadly, this didn’t happen.

By the way, do read this:

Will try to upload by tomorrow the latest on the Tejas Mk2 front, based on materials already gathered from the Farnborough Air Show, which officially gets underway later today.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Accidental Loser: Check out all available info on Raytheon’s MIM-104 Patriot SAM & there you’ll find all information on TVM guidance. ARMs are employed primarily for SEAD, whereas for DEAD, loitering anti-radar drones or even air-launched land-attack cruise missiles will be the primary tools used. Airborne jamming can only partially guarantee survival. The chances of survival will grow if it is predetermined with ELINT & SIGINT where exactly the SAM sites are located, & then employ AEW & CS platforms for airborne battle management. Fifth-generation warfare is not about actual fighting or clash of arms; instead, it is all about employment of comprehensive coercive power, of which the military is only one component. Composite add-on armour plates have finite shelf-life & are of the disposable type. They can’t be recycled after sustaining multiple hits. That headgear is called the PATKA. The data-link connecting the SAM to the ground-based target engagement radar is not of the high-power RF-type. But the best way to get off the high-power target engagement radar’s field–of-view is to duck and stay below the radar’s engagement envelope.

To Anon@2.48PM: There are no rear-facing radars on any Su-27 or Su-30. On the Su-34 perhaps. When navigating over mountainous terrain, there’s no need to fly at low-level, because terrain-masking can be done by flying in between the valleys. For this, the NVG is more than enough. The MiG-27UPG comes equipped with Litening-2 LDPs that can acquire targets AFTER being briefed from the ground-based forward observation controller. RTPs & SAR-/GMTI-capable modes are useful only in flat clutter-free terrain. Over jungle terrain, such tools are useless. There’s more than enough protection of the MiG-27UPG’s airframe wherever it’s required.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Vikram Guha: Why not? There’s a huge demand for small arms & related ammo for the CAPFs. Mahindra Defence has already tied-up with Russia’s tactical Missiles Corp for manufacturing & servicing all the tube-launchers of the Uran-E anti-ship cruise missiles. OFB too has tie-ups with several Russian OEMs, like Tulamashzavod, Uralvagonzavod, Ural Transmash, & Chelyabinsk Tractor Plant. KRASNY Marine Pvt Ltd in Mumbai & Rosoboronservice India Pvt Ltd & LARSEN & TOUBRO all have industrial tie-ups with several Russian naval OEMs, while Indo-Russian Aviation Ltd is a JV between HAL, United Aircraft Corp & Rosoboronexport State Corp. Several other private companies are producing several components for the T-90S MBT & Su-30MKI & SSBNs under the auspices of ToT-related JVs. Last but not the least, there’s BrahMos Aerospace Pvt Ltd. But unlike Western companies, hardly any Russian OEM is publicly listed & therefore very little information on such tie-ups comes out in the public domain by way of annual reports or media announcements from the Russians.

Vikram Guha said...

Prasun Da,

As always , Very Many Thanx.


Mr. Ra 13 said...

You are right. Perhaps in the Mig-27 the sudden reduction of speed due to the back thrust of the cannon creates a sudden low pressure wave front formed at the suction. While rapidly travelling further through the engine this low pressure wave front discontinues and quenches the flame, hence the engine flame out. Now I hope that they must be practicing such possible scenarios on regular basis.

Anand said...

Hi Prasun,

Can the Shaurya missile reach speeds of 7.5 mach.DRDO says that its a hybrid missile.What's that?Wiki says missile has already entered production.Has IA,IAF ot IN ordered the missile?How is the missile in terms of accuracy?Another query.How is a scramjet engine supposed to be better than a ramjet engine?


accidental loser said...

Did the homework on TVM, got sm fresh doubts!!! It's main disadvantages are a lot more than what advantages it provide. as the radar has to continuously illuminate the target througout the engagement, it makes the radar highly susceptible to an ARM shot by target itself. once the radar goes down the missile is almost equal to useless. also if by any case the target gets outside main radars coverage or ducks down the radar's horizon then also it cnt b intercepted. only advantages are the relative lightweight and less cost of missiles & the difficulties in jamming the fire control high power radars. bt articles too suggest the possibilities of jamming links to the missile rendering it useless. Are n't these cases true!!!!!!! also wiki says, the russie SA-10/S-300 dropped the TVM guidance coz it's inability in intercepting targets at attitudes less than 500mtrs.
maintaining radar silence or emission control, is it possible to mask an aircraft's radar visibility to some extent. if yes then how much best case is possible?????
The SPECTRA ew suite is jst an usual aesa one or does it posses the characteristics of active cancelling and plasma theory???? There's much happenings on the media abt this.

Mr. Ra 13 said...

Is there not any arrangement for the 'friend or foe' signal.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To MrRA 13: The IAF has since discarded the use of 30mm cannons & unguided rockets for air-ti-ground strikes at high altitudes. Instead, 250kg & 500kg LGBs launched from Jaguar IS, MiG-27UPG & Mirage 2000s is now the standard norm. As lightweight, smaller diameter LGBs become available (like the Scalpel from Lockheed-Martin & Hammer from SAGEM), it will be possible for the MiG-27M & Jaguar IS to each carry at least eight such laser-guided PGMs for standoff precision strikes. One hopes that similar versions of the ‘Sudarshan’ LGB from the DRDO’s ADE & IRDE labs are also developed in the near future. For LUHs like the SA.315B Lama/Cheetah, there’s no built-in IFF transponder & in any case, IFF in nay airborne platform works only against other airborne platforms & ground-based radars. This incident was a clear-cut case of deliberate human error since the aircrew chose not to rely on their GPS navigation tool. In conditions where the aircrew gets visually disoriented, the cardinal rule is to follow NOT one’s instincts, but the on-board cockpit instrumentation at all costs.

To Anand: yes, it can. Hybrid missile means it is capable of achieving both pure ballistic trajectory, as well as depressed ballistic flight trajectory, much like how the BrahMos cruises at an altitude of 16km. The missile has entered production only for test-flights. The land-launched version of Shaurya has yet to find a confirmed customer, & during DEFEXPO 2010 it was shown in full-scale mock-up form in IAF colours. In terms of accuracy, it ought to have a CEP of 50 metres. Scramjet engine is optimsed for usage in the exo-atmospheric domain, whereas ramjet is used within the endo-atmospheric domain.

To Accidental Loser: For an ARM to find & engage the MIM-104 Patriot’s target illumination radar, the ARM’s launch aircraft has to first enter the airspace monitored by AEW & CS platforms & interceptor aircraft on combat air patrols. Even if the ARM-equipped aircraft ducks below to evade surveillance from medium-power or high-power airspace surveillance radars, it will have to contend with E-SHORADS/SHORADS & VSHORADS emplacements placed in-depth. Air-defence is a networked solution, & there are no standalone systems. The data-links used for TVM can be jammed by Growler-type SEAD aircraft. Emission-control can’t hide an aircraft for long, since IFF modes of airborne AEW & CS platforms, combat aircraft & ground-based airspace surveillance radars will always be able to acquire & engage the aircraft. Active cancellation is a technique that’s still being researched upon in Europe, & is presently not used by the Spectra EW suite. In this area, the US is about 50 years ahead of the rest of the world.

mcube said...

I wonder why PAF/PA did not alert its forces about the intrusion by Indian Army Helicopter? Luckily, for the pilots and their families it was not shot down.


Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To MCUBE: Had the intruding helicopter been an armed LOH or attack helicopter, surely, the area's air-defences would have been alerted. In this case, the SA.315B lama/Cheetah was just an unarmed aerial logistics helicopter & that too of the same type being operated by the Pakistan Army's Aviation Corps since 1988. Therefore, it was decided by GHQ in Rawalpindi to bring this incident to a successful & swift closure.

To All: Do read the following: