Total Pageviews

Friday, July 20, 2012

The Truth, Only If Revealed, Shall Set You Free

Is it indeed a hoax? Is it a sheer waste of taxpayer’s money? Or is it an R & D venture that’s lacking direction and guidance from the apex-level decision-makers of India? The answers to all these questions can only be revealed AFTER one finds answers to the following questions:

1) What were the contents of the political directive given by the MoD to the DRDO in 1996 with regard to the aims and objectives of developing a BMD system?
2) How was the MoD to ensure that development of a BMD system by the DRDO did in no way diminish the deterrence value of India’s nuclear weapons arsenal and her retaliatory second-strike WMD doctrine?
3) On what terms and conditions did France, Israel and Russia agree in mid-1998 to provide key technological inputs by way of supplying off-the-shelf hardware and sub-systems required for the DRDO’s BMD-related R & D programmes?
4) What then was the resultant BMD launch control centre’s (LCC) architecture, inclusive of its launch control section, simulation section and shadow mission control centre (MCC) section, finalised?
5) What are the LCC’s six core missions?
6)  What are the LCC Task Controller’s 19 major functions?
7) How was the mission control centre’s (MCC) architecture defined?
8) What is the demonstrated kill-probability for the launch of four simultaneous (2 x PAD exo- and 2 x AAD endo-) interceptor missiles?
9) What is the projected kill-probability for the launch of four simultaneous (2 x PDV exo- and 2 x AD-1 or AD-2 endo-) interceptor missiles?
10) What is the projected engagement capability of a standalone terrestrial BMD system (without early warning from a constellation of four projected geostationary orbit-based missile monitoring satellites) in terms of simultaneously engaging multiple (how many) targets?

Do I know the answers (corroborated by evidence beyond doubt) to the above-listed 10 questions? You bet. Will they be revealed here? No, for the time is not yet ripe. 

123 comments:

Raghav Srinivasan said...

Regarding DRDO using Prithvi to mimic 2000 km range missile, I don't see why the Prithvi cannot be a good and realistic target missile. Observing the trajectory plots of the target Prithvi missiles shown in various BMD test videos released by the DRDO, one can discern that the missiles are flown into a steep boost phase so as to take them to the maximum possible altitude. During the descent phase, the missile follows a purely inertial trajectory without any propulsion which is quite similar to the descent phase of Shaheen/M-11/Agni etc. Since the target Prithvis are boosted to the maximum possible altitude which certainly takes it into outer space, its terminal phase velocity is not too different from MRBMs.
Since interception happens only in the terminal phase, the target missile needs to mimic an MRBM only in its terminal phase which the Prithvi does quite well. The behaviour during the boost phase of the Prithvi is irrelevant to a missile interception test.

Dandriyal said...

Prithvi does not have the velocity to mimic a 2000km range missile. It does not matter how high of a trajectory when most of its fall is slowing down in the atmosphere. Agni II needs to be tested to get accurate data points. DRDO is trying to fool us again with a foreign procured radar set and a fixed tactical ABM of little strategic value.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To RAGHAV SRINIVASAN: A couple of points need to be borne in mind:
1) Has anyone confirmed so far that the in the re-entry phase the single-stage TBMs & two-stage IRBMs of Chinese and North Korean origin are adopting a purely inertial trajectory without any propulsion? For single-stage TBMs, is it the entire body of the missile that re-enters the atmosphere or just the warhead section?
2) Has anyone confirmed whether or not the Prithvi missile, in the re-entry phase, still comprises the complete missile-body or just the warhead section? This is absolutely crucial, since the Prithvi-1/2 versions are NOT ballistic missiles, but surface-to-surface battlefield support missiles optimised for a depressed cruise trajectory similar to that adopted by BrahMos-1. Ask any DRDO official & he/she will never use the term ‘ballistic missile’ to describe any member of the Prithvi missile family. All existing DRDO-produced literature too never use the term ‘ballistic missile’ to describe the Prithvi-1/2 & Dhanush.
What I’ve stated above therefore makes it impossible for any member of the liquid-fuelled Prithvi missile family to attain either the boost-phase velocity or terminal velocity of a ballistic missile. Accurately mimmicking the boost-phase flight & velocity of a solid-fuelled ballistic missile is equally important in order to optimise the target acquisition/tracking sequences of the engagement radars. If this function wasn’t important, then there would have been no need whatsoever for the DRDO to try to get additional boost-phase early warning cues from AEW & C platforms or space-based missile monitoring satellites. Therefore, your contention about the behaviour during the boost phase of the Prithvi being irrelevant to a missile interception test is absolutely wrong, since no less a person than Dr V K Saraswat himself had officially admitted as far back as February 2010 the need for such early warning cues being obtained from from AEW & C platforms or space-based missile monitoring satellites. Therefore, there is a crying need for the AAD endo-atmospheric interceptor missile to be tested against solid-fuelled TBMs like the Agni-1 or K-15 Shaurya, while the PDV (whenever it emerges) ought to be tested against both TBMs & IRBMs like the Agni-2.

To DANDRIYAL: VMT.

Anonymous said...

The BMD should be tested against agni 1 and 2 and 3,shaurya to have a proven BMD in place.In future the same should also be tested against the Agni 5

dashu said...

am sure you have those answers. point is DRDO and our headless chickens (read our politicians )should take them in +ve spirit unlike the Army

dashu said...

am waiting for your book to be released

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To DASHU: Will answer the first 3 questions (as historical anecdotes) at the top tonight, which will dispel most of the false notions prevailing about the nature of the DRDO-led BMD programme.

Anonymous said...

HI PRASUn, u said,"Depleting force-levels does not just mean the number of decommissioned vessels, but also the serviceability & availability of principal surface combatants. If they’re homeported in drydocks or alongside berths due to serviceability issues, then they’re as good as not being available whenever they’re required." Can u pls tell whether any DDG or FFG-Godavari,Brahmaputra class FFGs have been decommisioned?Whats the various serviceability plaguing the fleet?Whya are spare problems with the ship?Most of the FFG and DDG have been manufactured in India.


Cant the IN's budget allocation can be increased.Although Western FFGs and DDGs cost more , they pack state of the art equipment-sensors and armamnent,much better than the Russians ones.After all good things cost money.

When 8 Brahmos are being fitted on each of the five Project 1241RE which are corvettes then why only 8 on a DDG like Delhi class.16 should be the fitted.the IN shouldnt go for 8.

I have visited the URL u have posted.Will the 9M317ME missiles will go onboard the P-15 during SLEP?Is its range 50 km?What version of the Shtil missile is currently fiteed onboard the Delhi class and what is its range.Is the same 9M317 present on board the batch 2 Talwar class?


In the upgradation of the mission management and mission sensors of IN's 8 Tu, why is the IN going for the old Sea Dragon suite.The IN could have opted for Israeli upgradation with Elta radars or Selex Galileo surface search radar.

Anonymous said...

Sir, a few queries regarding the Rafale.

1.Bradshaw said that Rafale will replace MiG-27.But isnt the Rafales meant to replace MiG-21 of all variants. The MiG-27 will continue to operate.

2.The Rafale's rate of turn and sustained turn rates at subsonic,supersoinc speeds are comparable to those of EF Typhoon if not better.Both were designed from the very outset keeping the Cold War operational scnearios in mind.

3.When you posted the weekend musings, u told that the IAF will go for an uprated variant of the M88 turbofans.AT that time u said that a 200000 lb version of the M88 is alrady available and will only require minor changes-such as larger air intakes. U said that a 34000lbf M88 is now under developement.So are there any chances that a 20000lbf M88 will power the IAF Rafales from the very beginning.


4.Does the RBE2 AESA feature LPI mode to avoid detection by present gen RWR.Also can this aesa be used for jamming of hostile emitters,rf seekers,BVRAAM and SAM datalinks?


5.When will the Rafale MMRCA deal be signed?Will the airforce stick to 126 Rafales or go for additional ones?


6.Does HAL has the expertise and knowledge to manufacture the Rafale airframe fom raw materials?The M88 will come directly from France.Recently i saw Nat geo megafactories Typhoon.What a sophisticated and state of the art manufacturing plants and assembly line. The Rafale plant will also be like that. The entire production plant will have to be shipped from France in cvrates and installed iat any HAL facilty.Also Dassault production engineers and technicians will have to be employed at this HAL plant.If left everthing to HAL, the rseult will be similar to the Scorpene.From where the carbon fibre skin b e sourced?

Anonymous said...

Hi Prasun, u are actively lobbying for attack choppers for the planned 3 combat aviation brigades of the Army. U are insisting for Rudra copters.Why dont u go for AH-64 Longbows.A thoroughbrewd attck copter will be much better.It has better armament,sensors and is built like a tank. It can take multiple hits and still keep flying.Suppose a platoon on the frontline in the event of a future war needs urgent air support.They have been completely surrounded by enemy reinforcements, pinned down by heavy ,machine gun fire and is being battered continuously by mortar and cannon fire.They call in air support.The Rudras arrieve on the scene.Fortunate for the enemyb forces they are accompanied by AAA forces.The Rudras receive some hits and are soon destroyed.The AAC pilots who came to the rescue of the besieged forces now needs to be rescued.A typical Vietnam type scenario with the Huey derived attck helo .If this was an Apache it could have get the job done and return home.The IA could procure 60-70 AH-64 and another 50-60 Rudras.If the IA dont go for dedicated gunships, then the planned raising of 3 brigades is meaningless.

Anonymous said...

Sir, the indigenous BMD effort is indeed a sure waste of tax payers money. Why build a system which can only protect against baseline threats.With the money that has been spent up to date the MoD could have procured off the shelf BMD systems such as IAI ARROW-1,2 or Almaz-Antey S-400,S-300V.Precious money could have been saved.The present DRDO unmammed stealth combat aerial vehicle is another such hoax project.When HAL,DRDO has been struggling for 2 decades to get the Tejas operational and still importing most of the major sub systems, how can it dare to go ahead with such a complex state of the art aircraft when Eurpoeans have been trying hard to develope one and that too collectively.The money intended for this project should have been spent on procurinf more fighter acs off the shelf and funding the Navy for purchasing Western origin DDg and FFG.(As u said that if the Navy now goes for suchj platforms it would be bankrupt)

Anonymous said...

Whats the lifespan in hours of the IAF's aircraft fleet - Su-30, MiG-29,Jaguar,Mirage 2000,MiG-27? I it greater than 6000 hrs?Is there any differnce in the lifespan of Western and Russian origin fighter aircrafts?
Whats the status of the MiG-27v fleet?
How does the IAF technicians repair aircrafts that have received damage. For instance, during war, an aircraft can receive various types of damage-the wingsmay be riddled with bullet holes,the airframe may be riddled with cannon shells, part of the wing may be blown, the wing spars and other structures are broken, the controls are shot to hell, the control surfaces have been completely destroyed,the fuselage may be burnt, the engines may be peppered with bullets, the compressors have some of their blades missing,or the turbofan is emitting pitch black smoke. Upto what level can a fighter aircraft be repaired,restored and returned to service?Are the entire damaged portion of the airframe changed or the various perforations are just filled up.

Mr. Ra 13 said...

Ronald Reagan created the hoax of the star war and USSR collapsed. Is it something like that.

Shaurya said...

Prasun,
See this...
Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZP6IieY-s8E&feature=player_embedded

Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBFhUDi-2Ss&feature=relmfu

Your opinion about this? I thought the logistics issues of Arjun Mk1 are already handled. But it seems that though the products are developed(ARV, BLTs) but they are not put into production yet? Also the spare part related issues still persist? Any chance of improving the situation without further order of Arjuns?(Mk1)?

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Anon@6.03PM: The three Project 16 FFGs will be decommissioned later this decade. It is only the hull of most of the FFGs & DDGs that have been built inside India. Almost everything inside them has been imported. What’s the Western counterpart of the 3M54E Klub-N/S & BrahMos? Nothing of these types of weapon systems is in service with any Western navy. Where’s the space for installing 8 BrahMos ASCMs on board the Project 15 DDG? The Sea Dragon suite has been upgraded & is now available with an AESA-based MMR for maritime search.

To Anon@6.52PM: Even though a newer variant of the M88 is available, the airframe changes reqd take time for proving & certification. Hence, better to acquire what’s already been flight-certified and introduce the changes once they’re flight-certified. LPI mode is available for RBE-23 only for search-n-track, not for jamming. P.5 was answered way earlier. HAL’s Rafale assembly plant will be of the same standards as that in France. CFC composite structures will co-cured within India from imported raw materials.

To Anon@9.50PM: How can the IA’s AAC procure AH-64Ds when the IAF is unwilling to surrender ownerships of its heavy helicopter assets? Therefore, want I have been lobbying for is the compromise formula under which the IA will have to expand its holdings of Rudra helicopter-gunships.

To Anon@10.08PM: No, it is not a waste of taxpayer’s money, since the political directive from the outset in the late 1990s was never to develop BMD interceptors for neutralising n-warhead-carrying ballistic missiles. However, due to lack of any official clarity emerging from the Govt of India (just like the GoI has to date never stated the fact that all in-service Prithvi-1s carry only HE warheads & not n-warheads), many have automatically assumed that the BMD network is aimed at preventing nuclear blackmail, which is patently false. One nuclear weapons state cannot blackmail another. One can only blackmail a country that has no n-weapons. The very notion of anyone in India suggesting that Pakistan can engage in nuclear blackmail against India means that Pakistan has scant or no regard for India’s n-deterrent, which is totally false. Therefore, in order to prevent the situation from getting far more worse, the GoI should issue a declaratory statement spelling out the roles of Prithvi-1 NLOS-BSMs & also spelling out the aims & objectives of the DRDO-led BMD network’s R & D phases. Lastly, the GoI should also issue a statement on the threats faced by conventional NLOS-BSMs & cruise missiles of all types, and should accordingly issue directives to the DRDO to expedite R & D on cruise missile defence, which is the most immediate threat faced by India. All such clarifications are urgently reqd since the DRDO is often seen to be putting the cart before the horse. By claiming that Phase-1 of the BMD project is ready for deployment, the DRDO is, in essence, saying that a newly-built house is ready for possession even though all that has been done thus far is just the pouring of concrete for the house’s foundation, leave alone obtaining a certification of fitness prior to taking possession of the house.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Anon@10.08PM: Russian airframes presently have a 4,000-hour TTSL, while their Western counterparts have upwards of 6,000 hours. That’s why, each Su-30MKI in its lifespan will make use of 4 x AL-31FP turbofans, each of which has a TTSL of only 2,000 hours. As for damages aircraft, it depends on the extent of damage and accordingly it is decided whether or not to go for 1st-level, 2nd-level, 3rd-level or depot-level maintenance. If its’s only airframe skin perforations, then such repairs can be done within the air base itself (1st-level).

To Mr.RA 13: Neither is the BMD-related R & D effort a hoax, nor has it been a waste of taxpayer’s money, since the political directive from the outset in the late 1990s was never to develop BMD interceptors for neutralising n-warhead-carrying ballistic missiles. However, due to lack of any official clarity emerging from the Govt of India (just like the GoI has to date never stated the fact that all in-service Prithvi-1s carry only HE warheads & not n-warheads), many have automatically assumed that the BMD network is aimed at preventing nuclear blackmail, which is patently false. One nuclear weapons state (NWS) cannot blackmail another. One NWS can only blackmail a country that has no n-weapons. The very notion of anyone in India suggesting that Pakistan or anyone else can engage in nuclear blackmail against India means that Pakistan has scant or no regard for India’s n-deterrent, which is totally false. Therefore, in order to prevent the situation from getting far more worse, the GoI should issue a declaratory statement spelling out the aims & objectives of the DRDO-led BMD network’s R & D phases. Lastly, the GoI should also issue a statement on the threats faced by conventional NLOS-BSMs & cruise missiles of all types, and should accordingly issue directives to the DRDO to expedite R & D on cruise missile defence, which is the most immediate threat faced by India. All such clarifications are urgently reqd since the DRDO is often seen to be putting the cart before the horse. By claiming that Phase-1 of the BMD project is ready for deployment, the DRDO is, in essence, saying that a newly-built house is ready for possession even though all that has been done thus far is just the pouring of concrete for the house’s foundation, leave alone obtaining a certification of fitness prior to taking possession of the house.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To SHAURYA: Yup, saw them & they are ubdoubtedly the best perspectives from an end-user’s point of view that are beautifully explained in layman’s terms. Kindly allow me to elaborate further on them, since some vital points were glossed over in the talk-show:
1) The logistics reqmts like specialised repair vehicles & armoured engineering hardware like the BLT-Arjun & Arjun armoured recovery vehicle (A-ARV) have yet to be ordered by the MoD. Although the BLT-Arjun has been accepted for entry into service, no orders have gone to HVF so far. The A-ARV on the other hand has yet to be designed, leave alone being produced for prototype development. It was only last January that BEML signed a joint R & D contract with Poland’s Bumar Labedy for developing the A-ARV, which to me is extremely fishy since neither Bumar Labedy nor BEML ever had any hands-on experience in developing the Arjun MBT. The task of developing the A-ARV should have gone to the CVRDE. And now thanks to the BEML-TATRA scam being uncovered, my fear is that the A-ARV project will suffer seriously.
2) There are problems related to spares availability & training. Regarding the former, the IA has failed so far to preposition spares stockpiles with its various EME Workshops that are tasked to support the Arjun MBT fleet. Secondly, in the area of training, there’s only two sets of driving & gunnery simulators that’s been procured thus far, when the reqmt is for treble that number.
3) The MAIN agency responsible for creating such product support problems/deficiencies is the Army HQ’s Master-General Ordnance (MGO) Branch, whose sole responsibility it is to ensure assured through-life product support for all types of in-service hardware. The problems arose because for some very strange & bizarre reason, Army HQ has never (and this continues till this day) involved the MGO Branch during an imported weapon system’s field trials or prototype development of an indigenously-developed weapon system. Consequently, what happens is that the MGO Branch enters the picture ONLY after a certain type of hardware is procured in bulk & inducted into service. While this is a much lesser problem for imported weapon systems (since the foreign OEM mandatorily furnishes all documentation related to through-life product support, thereby furnishing all relevant data on a silver platter to the MGO Branch), the problem becomes acute in case of an indigenous weapon system, since the MGO Branch will have to ascertain for itself (via the AUCERT process) what the through-life product support reqmts will be, & then draft the maintenance manuals. All this could have been avoidable had the MGO Branch been involved directly with the CVRDE during the Arjun MBT’s prototype development stage, so that by the time the Arjun Mk1 entered service, all data reqd for the process of spares stockpiling—like their estimated quantities & estimated costs—would have already been available, which in turn would have enabled Army HQ to place orders far in advance for items that require long-lead times for production, and suitably pre-stockpile such spares at the designated EME Workshops.
Definitely, there's a need to order at least 500 more Arjun Mk1As in the near future, & marry the Arjun Mk1A's turret with an upgraded & re-engined hull of the T-72M1 (the TANK EX option). The TANK EX is by far the best available option (operationally & financially) for upgrading existing T-72M1s.

manoj joshi said...

Apropos the discussion, you may find this of some interest. China, of course, is committed to ensuring Pakistan retains parity plus vis-a-vis India.http://in.reuters.com/article/2012/07/18/china-usa-nuclear-idINDEE86H0EY20120718

Anonymous said...

Prasun da, why is the TTSL of Russian origin jets so poor and especially that of the Su-30.The Sukhois are built to very high standards by HAL,the raw materials are of exceptional high quality,the basic design is not flawed.I was going through your previous posts in TRISHUL blogspot.There in some of your comments, i read that RAAF pilots have logged 6000 hrs in the F/A-18 Hornets in 10 years and they are now due for overhaul.They have a TTSL nearing 10 k.But why doesnt the Sukhois, MiG-29 have so?From the very onset, the Su-27 was designed as an air superiority and dominancefighter as a direct counter to F-15-to be more manuverable than it.Now if there is such a huge diff in the TTSL, then half the battle is lost.The IAF Su-30 can only conduct half of the sorties than their Western counterparts.To conduct the same no of sorties almost ddouble the no of acs are required.How can the IAF live with this?4000 hrs of total life for such a costly jet is a serious shortcoming.Is there no way that the TTSL of Sukhoi 30mki and MiG-29 can be increased beyond 4000 hrs?Why the Russians have this bad practise?

What will happen if IAF pilots fly the jets beyond 4000 hrs with new build or relifed engines?Will they fall righjt out of the sky. Hasnt HAL been able to come up with a solution?

Regarding repair of fighter aircrafts, are the damaged portions replaced or they are just patched? Upto what levels of damage can be repaired?Aircraft skin perforations are repaired at squadron level.But modern jets have monocoque structures,are the repair so easy.

Shaurya said...

Prasun,
Thanks for all the clarifications. Regarding the BLTs the IA General clearly stated that they are put into trials and cleared for induction, only thing remains is to put it into production! But seriously why? For what reason they are not placing orders? Is it because they will have some changes too for Arjun Mk1As?
And regarding ARVs isn't the BLTs are much technically more challenging to develop?

Anonymous said...

Sir, can u pls tell whether the Rafales are meant to repalce MiG-27 or MiG-21 ?

Anonymous said...

Hi Prasun, a few months ago in an article , "IAF's multi phase iacccs being enhanced,", u highlighted about the various radar procurements the IAF is making to both replace its legacy fleet of GCI, survellience and track and engagement radars and also supplement the existing fleet.U said that the IAF has done its homework on cruise missile defense well and is taking steps to implement one.While procurement of radars completes the acquisition,detection and tracking phase of cruise missile engagement, when will the interception phase hardware be procured.When will new long range SAMs ,point defense SAM to protect the LR batteries from arm and pgm missile strikes and specialised SAM bateries to shoot down NLOS-BSM, MBRL and PGM be purchased.India already faces a credible LACM ,alcm threat from Pakistan and also faces similar threats from China. China is preparing for a masses fire assault along the length of LAC in case of any hostilities in order to effectively cripple forward air bases, staging areas, troop and armour formations close to the border. We are already facing a serious threat and the MoD and IAF have to act swifly so as to neutralise such threats. Soviet style IADS have to be put up.Is the IAF planning to procure new hardware for this purpose .

Anonymous said...

Sir, I have been following ur blog for some quite time and found it highly informative & exhaustive. It not only gives us defence news but also a great source of knowledge for latest science & technology. Please keep it up this good work.

Anonymous said...

sir ,
in the previous post the poster shows that each shtil-1 VLS will have 12 missiles..
will the ship carry just 1 VLS or more ?
if it will only carry 1 VLS..then isn't it less ?

SK said...

Prasun,
You stated that if IN goes for Western FFG's then it would go bankrupt due to their high prices. What about the South-East asian shipyards like the Korea and Singapore ? Collaborative projects with these countries will be cheaper then the western nations although expensive than Russian. Singapore already produced 5 "Formidable Class" ships with DCNS. To me they appear way more capable than the 1135.6 Frigates.

Also w.r.t my previous question only US is at advance stages of fielding dual band radars starting from its Zumawalt ships. Is any other nation among Israel,Germany,Russia etc are at fielding stage ? Is it possible to replace the masts on our older ships during SLEP into a unfied clutter free AESA mast ?

Now that the MOD burned its fingers with delays in technology absorption by Indian industries like the Scorpene. Will there be any changes for the proposed 4 LHD's program?

Anonymous said...

Hi Prasun, the IN has already suffered a lot from the Scorpene program.The Tot to Indian industries by DCNS has proved to be a horrible experience. The MoD owned shipyards has repeatedly been lagging behind schedule. They are unable to complete a project in schedule. So whats the probability that the IN will go for a Western design for the P-17a and P-15B instead of the indigenous ones?Whats the chances of some of these vessels being procured off the shelf followed by license production in India?Will the IN go for MEKO-600,500D or other Western platforms.Though they are expensive, they pack state of the art equipment. The IN can customise its vessels as it wants and fit them with Brahmos,Barak-2,Elta-2248 AESA.

Rahul said...

Sir, almost all the major surface combatants of the Navy have Shtil systems as the primary air-defense systems.In wiki , it is stated that that all carry the Shtil missile. No details is given. In some of your previous threads it is stated that the 9M317ME missile is fitted. Can u pls say which variant of the missile is fitted aboard the Delhi ,Talwar batch 1/2,Shivalik classes along with the range of that variant and the no rounds carried.

Anonymous said...

Its reported that navy is spending 50,000 Crore for the 7 Project 17A frigates is this true ? If yes than the Indian ships are the most expensive on the planet. A FREMM frigate costs 500-550 Million euros, F125 about 650 Million euros and Arleigh Burke Class AEGIS destroyer for 1.1 Billion $...better alternatives for same price.

accidental loser said...

Prasun, i agree tht it's purely a false statement by Mr.Saraswat abt d deployment & i dont see a possible diployment anywhere within 3-5 yrs atleast. Bt apart tht sudnt v hv to pursue with ths project, only voz it wud trigger a nuclear arms race!!!!!!!!!! Does it makes a sense?????? Wud u nt wear a body armour only coz it wud demoralize ur enemy. In tht sense why sud v acquire fgfa too.
And can u plz say wht's a realistic test compared to a lab test.!!!!!!
Wht's d news abt AD-1/AD-2??????

accidental loser said...

The delay in scorpene project ws partly due to MDL hv to start d sub building frm a scratch. Last tym it had built subs ws nearly 2 decades ago & it had little/no experience whn p-75 started. Thr ws lack of expertise as well as infrastructure. So it forced d program into rough winds. Since then it had devloped the infrastructure and put in modular building methods. The crews also got skills building the scorpenes. So any mor delays are unlike to happen. The whole thing wud b pretty smooth if a small fast batch ws procured off d self with desi craftsmen working jointly in foreign shipyards & then put in their skills in building them inshore.
Regarding p-15b & p-17a, india is consistently building advanced warships inshore & hv devloped quite a lot skills & infrastructure required fr d purpose. So there's no need to procure thm offshore. & yeah, the Brahmos,MF-STAR & BARAK 2/8 wud go aboard p-15b destroyers. Nt sure abt p-17a's config. Prasun wud certainly let u know abt these.

Anonymous said...

Hi Prasun , cant fighter acs take part in cruise missile defense? During times of hostilities or periods of heightened tensions air superiority and multi role jets can fly CAP close to the borders.They will carry droptanks and a heavy complement of WVRAAM and BVRAAM. Once a cruise missile launch is detected by ground based radars ,the GCI can vector the jets to an intercept point where the fighter will use its onboard radar to detect , track and eventually destroy the cruise missile. Or the jets can themselves find the cruise missiles from the very onset and engage them. Ecah section of jets will be assigned a sector. The acs will cruise at low speeds to maximise the time on station. Also SA-23 series SAM should be procured in nos. There is a great deal of diff between Brak-8 and SA-10,20,23.They all have a range of 200 km and will be very helpful for area denial.Also the hostile jets can be prevented from launching their standoff munitions. If a 120 km LR-SAM is deployed, multiple missiles will be required to intercept the PGMs launched from the jets whereas with a 200 km range the ac will be denied the opportunity to deploy their standoff weapons and destroy the jet if possible before it is able to launch the weapons payload.

soumyadip said...

to Anonymous at july 22, 10:11pm

This is what i think ALTHOUGH I CAN BE WRONG,that we have AWACS or something for that reason,which can guide interceptor missile to intercept cruise missiles and hostile aircrafts and can also guide the friendly fighter aircraft during air battles.AWACS with superior radar,which has longer range and much better 360 degree tracking capability will do its job while staying at a safe distance from enemy surface to air missiles located in border areas....where as
fighter aircrafts with much weaker radar(compared to AWACS)which do not have 360 degree tracking capability wont be able to track terrain hugging,low RCS cruise missile and also can be targeted by enemy sams such as you mentioned sa10,20,23.Thus AWACS are safe,cost effective and reliable solution but then again thsts what i think and I MIGHT BE WRONG.

Anonymous said...

PRASUN da, in your article Full Spectrum Hawk eyes, you mentioned about a massive arms procurement from France by Pakistan that was going on at that time. Can u pls give a brief detail on the various procurements.



When will the 2 follow-on A-50 AWACS will arrive? Why did the oaf go for just 2 follow on AWACS? It could have purchased more when PAF will have 8 AWACS in it's inventory.

Ravi said...

Prasun, would you be so kind as to contact me on rikhye1@hotmail.com?

Ravi
www.orbat.com

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To MANOJ JOSHI: Interestingly, both DPRK & Iran, against which the US-led ballistic defence missile shield is meant to be used against, are still adherents/signatories to the NPT, and neither of them have emerged as declared nuclear weapons states, i.e. their existing arsenals of ballistic missiles (TBMs, MRBMs & IRBMs) have been declared for usage as asymmetric deep-strike weapons armed with conventional warheads to overcome their respective inabilities for deploying effective offensive airpower. This is something the DPRK, Iran & even Pakistan have learnt from the ‘War of the Cities’ that was waged between Iran & Iraq during the mid-1980s, when Iraq fired Russia-supplied R-17E SCUDs against the Teheran, while Iran retaliated with R-17E SCUDs acquired from Libya & Syria against Baghdad. China had even developed the M-18 MRBM, then called the DF-25, which was displayed in scale-model form only once in Beijing during the ASIANDEX expo in August 1987, and it was then being offered for export to countries like Iraq & Saudi Arabia. It is this missile that is now known as the Shaheen-2. The PRC’s primary concern now is that the US-led BMD network could well neutralise the the 1,500+ TBMs that are presently deployed against the ROC (Taiwan), while the DRDO-developed BMD shield may well neutralise all Pakistani efforts to target India’s national Capital Region & her financial capital Mumbai with IRBMs like the Ghauri.

To Anon@1.23PM: The TTSLs of Russia-origin airframes can always be extended through supplemental type certifications after undergoing depot-level MRO, but the same cannot be said of Russia-origin turbofans, due to obvious weaknesses in metallurgical expertise which are either hard to muster or are too expensive to be subjected to mass production processes. All this may well explain why the PAK-FA/FGFA’s definitive powerplant is yet to emerge. For each Su-30MKI, therefore, two sets, or four AL-31FPs are being acquired. HAL cannot come up with any definitive solution for airframe TTSL extension. Only the aircraft’s original designer, Sukhoi OKB, can after conducting extensive fatigue tests on used Su-30MKI airframes. Regarding repair of battle-damaged aircraft, if the airframe sections are made of metal, then they can be repaired on-site, but for precision-machined sections made of titanium, the aircraft will have to go to the Base Repair Depot. The same applies to repair of CFC-made structures & replacement of damaged avionics LRUs.

To SHAURYA: Placing of orders for the Arjun BLT, whose development was completed by 2007, is being hampered due to lack of adequate funding. There’s no other reason for it. Hopefully, once the Arjun Mk1A’s user-trials are successfully completed, orders for the Arjun MKk1A & Arjun BLT will be placed concurrently. As for the Arjun ARV, the industrial cooperation agreement between BEML & Bumar Labedy has not yet been cancelled, nor has anyone explained why the CVRDE wasn’t allowed to develop it in-house. I therefore strongly suspect that the management of BEML & the MoD’s Secretary of Defence production & Supplies together plotted to keep the CVRDE out of this & instead show undue favour to BEML.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Anon@9.39PM:, Not just the MiG-27Ms & MiG-21s, but also the MiG-23BNs.

To Anon@10.05PM: The Barak LR-SAM variants should be available from 2016, while SHORADS deliveries will begin from 2015 & last till 2026. The cruise missile defence/NLOS-BSM defence arena is NOT led by the DRDO, but by the IAF and therefore the combination of Barak-2 MR-SAM & Barak-8 LR-SAM together with the EL/M-2084 Arudhra MMR & EL/M-2258 MF-STAR radars will be more than adequate to address such threats. Interestingly, in light of the revelations obtained about the IAF’s force modernisation plans from the documents sent to C Edmonds Allen by Abhishek Verma, it now 100% certain that the IAF was NEVER intending to play any role whatsoever in the deployment & usage of the DRDO-developed BMD network. It is therefore high time that all those who were highly skeptical about the DRDO-developed BMD network being driven only by the DRDO’s civilian scientists & technocrats, at last accepted the truth & realise that from a military standpoint, it is spectacularly outrageous on the part of any armed service of a nuclear weapon state to lobby for or support the deployment of a BMD network aimed at neutralising hostile nuclear warhead-armed ballistic or cruise missiles. In light of all this, therefore, this is all the more reason why the Govt of India must formulate a policy about how to counter the threats posed by conventionally-armed ballistic missiles that could be targetted against civilian population centres within India, & accordingly instruct the DRDO to develop suitable BMD shields, instead of allowing the DRDO to constantly harp about acquiring capabilities for intercepting 5,000km-range ballistic missiles.

To Anon@2.33AM: The VL-Shtil-1 VL cells will be both in the frontal & rear sections, totalling 48 missiles on the P-15 DDG.

To SK: Those warships built in the ROK & Singapore were all licence-built warships of foreign design (from the US & France) & therefore, India cannot directly procure such warships or their designs from the ROK & Singapore. The Project 1135.6 FFGs are in some ways more capable than the DCNS-designed Formidable-class FFGs since the latter have not only supersonic Klub-N or BrahMos ASCMs on board, but are also capable of housing Ka-31 AEW helicopters that can provide effective AEW/ASV capabilities for a naval task force in the high seas. The DDGs & FFGs of the navies of ROK & Singapore don’t have this capability as yet. Their shipborne helicopters can only provide ASV capabilities. Regarding dual-band radars in integrated masts, to date only the US, Russia & France have publicly displayed such concepts, with the US Navy being the first to deploy them. It is possible to replace the masts on the existing three Project 15 Delhi-class DDGs with a sturdier structure housing EL/M-2248 MF-STAR AESA-based volume search radars, but this will be possible only in the latter half of the decade when these DDGs go for periodic refits. Regarding ToT absorption, the MoD has indeed burnt its fingers, but has yet to admit that unveilling the Defence procurement Procedures in isolation since 2004 was a horrible mistake. What the MoD should have done then was FIRST usher in a policy aimed at promoting military industrialisation by both encouraging strategic partnerships to the tune of 49% with foreign OEMs, & also clearly spelling out the norms for joint private-sector/public-sector cooperation. This should have been followed by maintaining the non-lapsable defence modernisation fund that was created in February 2004. Only AFTER all this should the DPPs have been unveilled.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Anon@1.09PM: Both the Project 17A FFG & Project 15B DDG will be designed in-country, but with substantial inputs from foreign OEMs, who have been designated as ‘technology providers’. There’s no possibility at all of such vessels being imported. Too much work has already been done in-country & all this cannot be washed away. Going for imported designs will delay these projects by at least another six years.

To RAHUL: Those details were already uploaded in the thread on INS Satpura’s commissioning last year.

To Anon@3.40PM: What should be calculated is how much of the Rs.50,000 crore is being spent locally in Rupees & how much is going out as foreign exchange. Only then can a realistic comparison be made of programme costs for warships of Indian or foreign origin.

To ACCIDENTAL LOSER: In light of the revelations obtained about the IAF’s force modernisation plans from the documents sent to C Edmonds Allen by Abhishek Verma, it now 100% certain that the IAF was NEVER intending to play any role whatsoever in the deployment & usage of the DRDO-developed BMD network. It is therefore high time that all those who were highly skeptical about the DRDO-developed BMD network being driven only by the DRDO’s civilian scientists & technocrats, at last accepted the truth & realise that from a military standpoint, it is spectacularly outrageous on the part of any armed service of a nuclear weapon state to lobby for or support the deployment of a BMD network aimed at neutralising hostile nuclear warhead-armed ballistic or cruise missiles. In light of all this, therefore, this is all the more reason why the Govt of India must formulate a policy about how to counter the threats posed by conventionally-armed ballistic missiles that could be targetted against civilian population centres within India, & accordingly instruct the DRDO to develop suitable BMD shields, instead of allowing the DRDO to constantly harp about acquiring capabilities for intercepting 5,000km-range ballistic missiles.
A realistic test is one where the data obtained is shared for ‘peer review’ with independent entities like the IAF or IN or IA, and common inferences are derived. There’s no news so far from the DRDO about the PDV or AD-1/AD-2 interceptor-missiles.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Anon@10.11PM: The F-35 Lightning JSF, through its ‘EOTS’ IRST sensor has already demonstrated its ability to detect launches of ballistic missiles from appreciably long distances. CAPs by manned combat aircraft can always be detected by long-range airspace surveillance radars & therefore the enemy won’t be fooled to launch cruise missiles when such CAPs are in position. Furthermore, aerial refuelling tankers won’t always be available. A far more cheaper option therefore is to deploy aerostat-mounted MMRs of the AESA-type that can stay aloft 24/7 for weeks, & can easily be networked with the ground-based EL/M-2084 Arudhra MMRs to provide a continuous & coherent situational awareness aimed at detecting & tracking inbound cruise missiles. LR-SAMs are NEVER used against combat aircraft equipped with PGMs, since the combat aircraft can always fly terrain-hugging profiles to avoid such LR-SAM networks & their supporting SHORADS networks. LR-SAMs are typically used against dedicated manned bombers.

To SOUMYADIP: The cheapest & best option is to deploy aerostat-mounted radars of the AESA-type that can stay aloft 24/7 for weeks, & can easily be networked with the ground-based EL/M-2084 Arudhra MMRs & EL/M-2258 MF-STARs to provide a continuous & coherent situational awareness aimed at detecting & tracking inbound cruise missiles. Airborne platforms like AEW & CS & manned combat aircraft, on the other hand, have limited endurances & constantly require aerial refuelling for staying airborne for more than 10 hours, thereby making this exercise cost-prohibitive. What is now being looked at is networking radars like the ground-based EL/M-2084 Arudhra MMRs & EL/M-2258 MF-STARs with the aerostat-mounted AESA-MMRs, and deploying a fleet of HALE-UCAVs armed with LRAAMs over selected strategic military-industrial & economic targets. This will be far more economical & realistic than employing manned airborne assets.

To Anon@11.38PM: The two follow-on A-50I AEW & CS should arrive by 2014. Pakistan’s four Saab 2000 & four ZDK-03 AEW & C platforms are not just for airspace surveillance/battle management over land, but also over the sea. Therefore, you should also take into account the number of AEW + AEW & C platforms acquired by India, which then comprises 13 Ka-31 AEW helicopters & three (+2 on order) A-50Is.

Anonymous said...

sir ,
how many barak SAMS will be put in place in p15 b & p17a ??
48 shtil's will be there in delhi class...what about the kolkata class?
how many SAMS will be there in these destroyers in total ?

Anonymous said...

Is the work on the networking of various radars with aerostat has already started ?

We all know that India has a requirement of HALE UAVs and UCAV but only US is the one with these UAVs. Then how is India planning to purchase these platforms as i doubt US will give it to us? IN wanted NG's RQ-4, any progress on that ?

When is the winner of TCS and FICV contract gonna be announced ?

Unknown said...

Prasun would you say the following guys touting Tavors and US UCP are MARCOs or SPB? Going by what you have said in the past IN SPB do have acess to TAVORS and such uniforms and it would be highly iregular for MARCOs to be used for such guarding duty right? So I'd assume SPB but still find it hard to belive such a force (non-SF) ie a securty guard unit in India has such equipment in 2012.


Here are the pics of the guys in question taken from Saturday's commisiong of INS Sayhradi:

http://i.imgur.com/SRnxd.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/1D7Gu.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/3hBVY.jpg


And in the 3rd pic, what would you say that was attactched to the guy's belt with the 5 bead-like things on top (centre one being red)? And the desert camo'd bag he his carrying would you say that is to hold UBGL rounds or what?


+ if they are SPB does that mean SPB are used to guard MDL docks? And what other locations come under their remit to guard?

joydeep ghosh said...

@Prasun da

there are a few things i would like to say about things you may have missed,

1. You said INS Chakra is Akula III but everywhere its reported to be Akula II only, did you miss something?

2. You say the trail is on for Arjun Mk1A whereas everywhere its reported as Arjun Mk2, did you miss something?

3. You say order for 3rd batch of Project Krivak III 1135.6 FFGs were decided post price escalation, where as your 2009 post says the order was anyhow to come only thing awaited was completion of batch 2 FFGs and other modalities. However everywhere its reported thaat this time it will be Krivak IV FFGs, did you miss something again?

a few more things

1. Your last line of answer to @manoj joshi says that you have faith in India's BMD, isnt it?

2. You have said a lot about missiles but relatively nothing on K-series missiles, will be glad to have a write up on these missiles.
whether its K15, K4Mk1/2, K5, K air launched missile (wikipedia)

3. your write ups seem like you are critical of arms agents and always say that GOI/MoD should have chosen not this but that weaapons or system.

if i am not wrong GOI/MoD has asked all arms agents to register with them but till date the response is nil.

as per you, if i am not wrong you are in the defense industry with contacts with various arms makers, why dont you register as arms agent and present better weapons to GOI/MoD?

(answer to last question its entirely upto you)

Thanks

Joydeep Ghosh

accidental loser said...

Oh..... Nw i can see tht v both hv an equal suggestion regarding BMD. Bt DRDO sud nt only be capped at intercepting TBM,IRBM&MRBMs only. Coz u can nevr expect 'a superpower at the making' to freeze development of an imp. project. Bt fr d tym being it's bettr to stick to these as wht d situation demands. Pak cud nevr launch a nuclear tipped one unless it's too late fr it to save her a**. Bt aint it's fragile state gives nightmares evn to uncle sam & his best buddies. So who can say tht one day a cheap,barbaric megalomaniac terrorist enjoying the possession of a nuke!!!!!!
& BTW lykd ur reply abt aerostat mounted sys. I too ws thinking abt it since long. Bt why u said tht LRSAMs cant effectively take out fighters? They lack agility bt compensate in form of large ammo payloads. & as most SAMs nw r joined to IADS so there's nvr lack of search& track equipments. Hv u made the point by taking a stadalone sys into account ???????
The indian LACM project hs a single outcome 'NIRBHAY' or separate ones accounting indo-israeli ADM too?????
The EOTS u referred in ur reply is aftr all an optronic system & so handicapped with severe range limitations, also taking into account the hypersonic speeds of ballistic missiles in terminal phase, hw can it effectively track them? Ws it a typographic error? Dd u meant cruise missiles?
Hw much feasible it is to use IIR seeker equipped AAMs lyk python 5 to defend an Ac against hostile AAMs??????

Anonymous said...

Sir, way back in 2011 & 09 when the M-MRCA evaluations were taking place and the finalist had not yet been declared, many guys including me had asked you that the M-MRCA would replace which combat aircraft in the IAF fleet, you said that the Rafales are meant as a replaement for the MiG-21.

At that time, many reports regarding the M-MRCA comprtition came out in the newspapers.And in all of them, it was mentioned, that the IAF is facing an acute aircraft shortage.The MiG-21s have become too aged. They have reached the end of their lives and are now totally obsolete. But is indigenous replacement, Tejas is facing developement problems, is way back behind schedule and will not be availabl when the MiG-21 will be phased out.So as a stop gap measure and to arrest depleting squadron levels, the M-MRCA were ordered. With their inducment the MiG-21 will be progessively phased out.There were no mentions of the M-MRCA replacing the MiG-27 fleet.

When the Rafalw was selected anu u posted the thread,"Weekend musings." early in 2012, at that time u also mentioned that the Rafales would replace the MiG-21 and not MiG-27.U said that Jaguar IS nad MiG-27 would be replaced by AMCA.

Anonymous said...

Continued from above-
The MiG-27 fleet is relatively new. The ac have loads of usable hours still left in the airframe.They are potent acs and if used cleverly and properly will produce potent results.With a little upgrade they can be turned into state of the art ground attack platforms.There are 130+ MiG-27 in IAF service.126 Rafales would replace some 200 MiG-21 and so many good MiG-27.How is this at all possoible ? And as far as MiG-23 BN are concerned they have been long retired apart from some some which serve with the MiG-27 squaderons as OCU trainers.

The IAF in all its wisdom will probably keep the MiG-27 in service well past 2022 and will subject them to a deep upgrade inclusive of re-engining.

Anonymous said...

Hi Prasun,"What is now being looked at is networking radars like the ground-based EL/M-2084 Arudhra MMRs & EL/M-2258 MF-STARs with the aerostat-mounted AESA-MMRs, and deploying a fleet of HALE-UCAVs armed with LRAAMs over selected strategic military-industrial & economic targets. This will be far more economical & realistic than employing manned airborne assets." Deployment of a fleet of HALE-UCAV is a bad idea in a long line of bad ideas. Deployment of EL-2084 , EL-2258 and aerstat mounted AESA is okay.Along with these manned interceptors are needed. Pilots are ble to make spilt second decisisons which are cruicial which the operator of HALE-UCAV will be uncapable of.Deploying HALE for ISTAR purposes is allright.Why will the fighters in CAP need to be refuelled in mid air?Once out of fuel, they will land at an airbase , re-arm and refuel and again takeoff. Or many sets of fighters will be assignedb to a particular sector. Ecah will be assigned a time period. Once over, they will land and the next group will take to the skies. And if the Paks dont fire a single cruise missile for fear of them getting shot at, then its VERY VERY NICE. Mission accomplished.The very purpose of saving targets in homeland from missile strikes are over. Then deep penetration air strikes can knock out the launchers and destroy the stockpiles. The IAF has such good jets as the Su-30. They along with Mirage and MiG-29 are good for the job. If having a viavble Sukhoi fleet and not utilising them properly is pathetic.USAF is perfecting upon a model where it will use a combination of ground based radars, AWACS and F-22 Raptors for cruise missle defense.

Anonymous said...

Prasun da, the Akash SAM is a miserable system with such a short range.In an article in your older blog Trishul , it was stated that the end users were not very happy with Akash,s range when it had the logistics trail of a 50+ km MR-SAM. Why did the IAF nad IA then place large orders for Akash sam?

Why will the LR-SAM come into service in 2016? Why is it taking such long time to develope ?Meanwhile willn the Army and Airforce go for another Sam system for quick delivery to boost its air-defense capblties?

Anonymous said...

PRASUN da, in your article Full Spectrum Hawk eyes, you mentioned about a massive arms procurement from France by Pakistan that was going on at that time. Can u pls give a brief detail on the various procurements. A very brief one.



13 Ka-31 AEW&C are no match for ZDK-03 and Saab-2000.Afterall the latter have greater range, much more endurance and their radars are more sophisticated, has a 400km+ range versus Ka-31 's 200 km and can handle more targets and also offer more modes. The IAF can go for a extra A-50I for a total of 6. U said the IAF intended to buy 8 of them.Also what about the Navy,s AWACs program?

Anonymous said...

I am anon at 11:29 AM. There has been a slight mistake. It is not Weekend Musings. It Is Dassult Aviation's Rafale wins Indian mmrca article.Retiring the MiG-27 would be very bad.

Anurag said...

@Prasun da,
Earlier it was stated that IN had chosen Elta El/M 2048 STAR multi funtion AESA radars in quad-antenna array configuration for all of its future warships including P 17,P 17A FFGs,P 15A DDGs.Then why is RAWL 08 is being ordered sir??And does this mean that our warships will not be equipped with any AESA radars now??
And by the way,wikipedia suggests that P 15A Kolkata class DDGs will be equipped with both Elta El/M 2048 MFSTAR and RAWL 08-why so??

2.Do you have any idea about the amount of India's current stockpile of weapons grade Pu and Tritium??

3.is there any chance that future warships of IN like P 28A corvettes,P 17A FFGs,P 15B DDGs etc might be constructed with composite materials like (CFC and GRP) Instead of steel??

THANX in advance. . . . . . . .

accidental loser said...

To anon@11:58 AM
Tell me one thing dear, Whn v hv been acquiring new SHORAADs, E-SHORAADS,MRSAMs & LRSAMs as well as SPAAG, all with interception capabilities against cruise missiles,.why u.expect ACs scrambled only to hunt fr a cruise missile. Does it makes sense to hv a plane on air 24/7. Hv u imagined the direct & indirect costs of ths stupidity. Also to remind u basic ASFs of IAF being russian already faces less TTSL & TBO. U thnk IAF wud spend the remained service hours in ths act so tht when there's real call comes u cnt find an AC to respond with. If u dnt thnk SAMs r enugh fr cruise missile defence & ACs r really needed then only HALE-UAVs cud do d job coz they often hv single endurance of 48 hours on station. So a modified HALE-UAV armed with LRAAMs cud do d job as well as provide real time surveillance datas to it's operator. So in one misson u can get dual benefits & with long endurance missions less number of platforms r needed. So both u can get cost-effectiveness & desired protection in ths way. Thus i agree wht Prasun suggested.
F-22's large internal fuel volume & sustained supercruise ability enables it to perform these tasks but still frm a cost-effectiveness pointd of view it's high unlikely to be pressed into cruise missile defence missions.

accidental loser said...

To Anonymous @12:53AM
Dd u hv heard abt d DRDO's AEW&Cs, IAF gonna acquire around 20 of these systems. Navy's gonna procure additional carrier based AEW&CS whn IAC-2 enters service. Shore based AEW&CS can also b procured 2 supplement d existing fleets. 40 more SU-30MKIs gonna b upgraded to act as mini-AEW&CS platforms fr supporting strike pakages.
Is it enugh or u wanna change d name of IAF to USAF!!!!! Only then my friend, u can see AEW&CS in hundreds

Black Hawk said...

i believe you said India imports raw materials for making CFC parts for Tejas. Is this true for the Agni re-entry vehicle too? Isn't it a violation of MTCR? Why can't we make them indigenously? What about PRC? Do they import the raw materials too?

Anonymous said...

Well Accidental loser can u pls tell me the follwing,:

1.What new SHORADS,E-SHORADS,MR-SAM & LR-SAM ,SPAAG are we purchasing?The Rheinmetall Sky... is a dead end.

2.There is no surity as to when the DRDO AEW&C will be ready.Just look at the Tejas and everything else will be clear.

bradshaw said...

The P28 kamotra class corvette are widely publicized as "Anti submarine warfare". Now wats the difference between them and any other frigate or destroyer of IN. All carry the standard RBU-6000 anti submarine rockets as standard fit.

Whats so special about Kamotra's anti submarine capabilities ????

Nair said...

Your reply from the previous thread on July 20, 2012 5:35 PM

Prasun K. Sengupta said...
To NAIR: Will reply in detail to your query tonight. Ex Intelligence never solicited any comment from me, rather he just requested me to read through the contents of the weblink.


Hi Prasun,
I was looking for your comment to my questions during the weekend. Could you kindly post your comments. Thanks in advance.

Nair

Anonymous said...

To Bradshaw, how do you know that the Rafales will replace MiG-27? Then the no of combat aircrafts inIAF service will decline and also the no of squadrons. Are u sure about this.

accidental loser said...

To Anonymous @8:21PM
Fr SHORAADS thr's high chances of spyder to be selected.As E-SHORAADS we hv our own AKASH series & BARAK-2/8 is the LRSAM/MRSAM ans. AKASH mk.2 may well gonna acquire the niche of MRSAMs. Regarding SPAAGs an upgrade package fr the existing russian systems is currently being fielded. The blacklisting of Rheinmental is temporary & we can expect the ban to be lifted in near future. If ths doesn't happen thn v can always go fr russian systems & upgrade them indigenously.
Why u guys always link the delays in TEJAS program to all other programs of DRDO. Why don't u all believe a simple fact tht there's a lot much difference between situations prevailed during the LCA program's early development compared to those being now. Access to critical technologies frm foreign vendors is no more a mirage & considering these it's rubbish to think off some serious delays abt the project. Two prototypes are already flying & so u can expect the platform to be operational within a 5yr period atleast. Is tht enugh fr ur queries????'??

SK said...

Prasun,
With reference to your reply to To

Anon@3.40PM: What should be calculated is how much of the Rs.50,000 crore is being spent locally in Rupees & how much is going out as foreign exchange. Only then can a realistic comparison be made of programme costs for warships of Indian or foreign origin."

Could you elaborate more. I am not well versed with complicated financial calculations. More money is being spent on fewer ships then before. My understanding is project 17A FFGs are a derivative of the Shivalik FFG. Since its not a fresh design from scratch they therefore require no additional development and validation costs. Agreed that most of the weapons,propulsion & radars come from abroad but a price escalation of this kind raises eyebrows. Shivalik is reported to cost around 2600 crore/ship. Considering inflation, dropping rupee against dollar, new equipment & weapons still does not justify a 7000 crore/ship cost (50,000 crores for 7 FFGs).
At these prices IN will go bankrupt just by buying indigenous ships way before then buying European ships.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Anon@4AM: 48 in P-15A/P-15B DDGs & 24 in P-17A FFGs.

To Anon@8.43AM: Networking began almost four years ago. Who says the US is the only one to develop HALE-UAVs? Are you that naïve? Haven’t you seen China’s Xianglong ‘Soar Dragon’ HALE-UAV, or Russia’s Zond family of HALE-UAVs (see: http://www.sukhoi.org/eng/planes/projects/bpla/complex/)
Decisions on TCS & FICV are another two years away.

To UNKNOWN: Those are naval seamen trained to be members of both SPB as well as boarding parties for VBSS operations. They’re embarked on every principal surface combatant of the IN. The attachment on the belt is a comms kit. The camouflaged bag stores reload magazines & grenade reloads for the Tavor. SPB never guard civilian installations. CISF does in case of MDL. The INS Sahyadri’s commissioning ceremony was held at Naval Dockyard, & not at MDL.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To JOYDEEP GHOSH: I’m deeply anguished to see that in your first three questions, you have already decided that I’ve missed something, when in fact it is the exact opposite, i.e. those using terms like Akula or Arjun Mk2 or Krivak-4 are actually missing not something, but everything! For instance, neither Russia nor India officially uses the term Akula, because that’s a NATO classification/name given to a Russian submarine design. The official term to describe the SSGN is Project 971A Shchuka-B. However, MILITARY PARADE, the Russian military-industry magazine that’s sponsored by Rosoboronexport State Corp, described as far back as 2003 the Project 971A Shchuka-B as the equivalent of Akula-3 in NATO’s classification standard. Coming to the Arjun Mk2, once its photos are officially released by the CVRDE or DRDO HQ, you will know exactly the difference between the Arjun Mk1A & Arjun Mk2. Regarding question 3, I never recall making any such statements. Moreover, the term Krivak-4 has appeared in only one news-item so far, at: http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/indian-navy-eyes-expansion-with-russian-krivak-frigates/1/208434.html
What you must note is that the term ‘Krivak’ again is a NATO classification term which is never used by either Russia or India. Neither is the term ‘Talwar’ class used to describe the Project 1135.6 FFGs. Therefore, terms like Krivak-3/4 are totally irrelevant & downright wrong. Then there’s the reference to “all the Talwars are each being armed with 8 BrahMos ASCMs, which is another downright falsehood since only the seven projected P-17A FFGs & 3 Batch-2 Project 1135.6 FFGs have been authorised to have BrahMos on-board. Constant misleading usage of NATO classification terms like Kashin, Krivak, Tarantul & Akula only creates more confusion. And more so for the ‘desi’ journos, like this self-styled Strategic Affairs Expert of BUSINESS STANDARD & NDTV who can’t even figure out that it is PACOM that is HQed in Hawaii, while CENTCOM is HQed in Florida (see para 5 in: http://ajaishukla.blogspot.in/2012/07/mod-snubs-us-proposal-to-increase.html). In any case, weren’t these very journos were upbest on the Arihant SSBN being made operational by 2011? And what I had stated in 2005 (about the Arihant being a technology demonstrator) is now being stated publicly by the likes of the former CNS, Admiral (ret’d) Arun Prakash.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

Continued from above.....
Regarding BMD, again you’ve totally misread my POV. Rather than lose faith in DRDO’s BMD, I’ve argued for an official policy announcement on this issue from the GoI so that proper R & D goals can be set in order to meet the actual threats in the near- and medium-term, instead of conjuring up perceived threats from 5,000km-range ballistic missiles. I can’t say or comment much on the K-series of ballistic missiles in isolation, but will do a write-up in future on both the SLBM & S-5 programmes, based on what I learnt & discovered at DEFEXPO 2012, with lots of illustrations.
Regarding arms agents, yes, I’m indeed critical & consider it an abhorant profession as it only facilitates the accumulation of ill-gotten & undeclared wealth for a select few at the cost of the individual taxpayer. An agent, unlike an industrial player/partner, has got no reason to re-invest the commissions he/she earns back into legitimate military-industry-related business activities. Whereas an industrial partner teamed up with a foreign OEM does exactly the opposite,i.e. pump back the earnings from commissions into in-country military manufacturing sectors. It is these public-/private-sector industrial players that have registered as agents or representatives of foreign OEMs with the MoD, but not individuals who are always more inclined to stash their commissions abroad & buy a new bungalow or tourist resort, limousine, wife/mistress, all in offshore havens. As for me, I’ve no need or desire for acquiring such opulence & I’m quite happy in the services sector as a successful & prosperous provider of networked solutions, instead of peddling individual bits of hardware.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To ACCIDENTAL LOSER: I would never classify any member of China’s Pakistan’s military hierarchy as being a cheap, barbaric megalomaniac terrorist, or a rogue element. To do that would only oversimplify matters & lead to serious miscalculations. In Pakistan’s case, what is not realised by many is that its tactical nuclear weapons of the sub-kiloton type are meant for use INSIDE Pakistani territory against a massive Indian armoured thrust in the desert areas of Cholistan. And how will India retaliate? No one in India’s officialdom has an answer to that as yet. The Nirbhay & supersonic LRCM are concurrent projects & both are meant to enter service. EOTS is never meant to track ballistic missiles in the terminal stage; rather, it has successfully demonstrated its ability to detect the launch of ballistic missiles from great standoff distances. Hostile AAMs can only be neutralised by active jamming or by decoys like chaff & towed-decoys.

To Anon@11.29AM: Replacements does not mean a one-for one replacement. It is impossible to do that today & in future. Instead, one is today talking about additional accretion of airpower capabilities for waging effects-based air campaigns. In any case, a squadron does not always mean exactly 18 aircraft. It can be even two flights of four aircraft each, but each Rafale can perform the role of four MiG-21s or four MiG-27UPGs. Therefore, in terms of acquiring additional precision firepower delivery capabilities, the Rafale M-MRCAs will take on the roles hitherto performed by MiG-21 Bison & other variants, MiG-23BN, & MiG-27M (as Rafale deliveries will be spread over a 15-year period). The time for a deep upgrade of MiG-27UPGs is long gone. It should have been taken up in 2007 to be effective. Now it’s too late. Out of 165 + 40 MiG-27Ms originally delivered, less than 110 are in service & only 40 of them can deliver PGMs.

To Anon@11.58AM: What you’re suggesting would have been possible with MiG-21s & Gnats, but not with fourth-generation combat aircraft, which can fly only about eight hours a day & that too not beyond a week. Avionics need periodic servicing, the majority of which cannot be performed at forward air bases. Even with highest levels of efficiency, at least 1/3rd of any fleet of fourth-generation combat aircraft will always be grounded for various levels of MRO activity. HALE-UCAV operators donlt need to make split-second decisions since cruise missiles like Babur/CJ-210 are subsonic & don’t travel at the speed of light.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Anon@12.36PM: If you were to physically compare the dimensions of Akash Mk1 & China’s KS-1A, then one would have expected the Akash Mk1 to have a max range of at least 57.5km. However, as beggars can’t be choosers, the only option left on the table was to acquire the Akaah Mk1, & after 10 years replace them with the 40km-range Akash Mk2.

To Anon@12.53PM: The PN’s two Agosta 70B SSKs are being upgraded by DCNS to accept the SUBTICS combat management system & Black Shark torpedoes. All three Agosta 90B SSKs will by next year be operational with MESMA AIP, again from DCNS. SEMT-Pielstick diesel engines for the three F-22P FFGs, AS.350C3 Fennecs for the Army Aviation Corps, POF licence-producing 155mm cargo ammo developed by France’s Nexter Systems for 155mm howitzers.
The IN will stick to shipborne Ka-31s. Shore-based fixed-wing AEW & C platforms can easily be tracked while they’re heading for an Indian carrier battle group and this will reveal the position of the battle group to the enemy. Hence, far safer to stick to shipborne AEW helicopters.

To ANURAG: The S-band EL/M-2248 MF-STAR is for the three Project 15A & four Project 15B DDGs, plus the seven Project 17A FFGs. RAWL is a L-band radar. Eventually, the RAN-40L will replace RAWL. No precise idea about Question 2. Composites-built structures & composites-built modular armour tile inserts are already on Project 15A DDGs, Project 17 FFGs & Project 28 ASW corvettes. P-15B DDGs & P-17A FFGsd will also have them.

To Black Hawk: Raw materials for CFC are not classified as being materials banned for export. What is banned is the co-curing/bonding technologies that result in the emergence of the final end-product. The PRC produces its own raw materials.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To BRADSHAW: The difference is that a Project 29 corvette can ONLY perform ASW patrol duties. The FFGs & DDGs, on the other hand, are all-rounders.

To NAIR: Clearly the Russians are struggling to stay ahead of the West in terms of technological superiority. But it is a losing game for the Ruskies, since today the Ruskies also have to compete with the Ukrainians & Belarussians. Re-acquiring all the military R & D and military-industrial capabilities lost after 1991 to Ukraine, Belarus, the Baltic Republics & Central Asian Republics is impossible now, hence the Russian design bureaux are struggling to even come up with a fifth-generation turbofan for the PAK-FA, while the long-promised IL-476 strategic transporter equipped with fly-by-wire flight controls remains as elusive as ever. The same goes for next-generation scramjet-powered guided missiles like BrahMos-2. Small wonder therefore that for the Super Su-30MKI, FGFA & IL-214 MRTA, India is insisting on integrated avionics suites that will be co-developed by Indian R & D entities in partnership with Western companies like Cassidian, THALES, Galileo Avionica & SaabTech.

accidental loser said...

yep, tht's real problem. do u hv any counter-strategy to deal with ths problem.!!??

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To SK: Yes, it is indeed a fact of life that more money is being spent on acquiring fewer warships. But that’s because of the following:
Firstly, orders are being placed in an ad-hoc or piecemeal manner. For instance, had the decision been taken at the very outset to contract MDL for building six Project 17 FFGs, then today there would have been no need for ordering the three Batch 3 Project 1135.6 FFGs from Russia. Instead, the problem arises when MDL has reached the peak of industrial efficiency, it has to stop after producing only three P-17 FFGs, when instead the momentum could well have been built up to produce a follow-on three P-17 FFGs at an even faster rate. In the same way, if instead of the adhering to the flawed logic behind the in-principle decision to acquire two different SSK designs, had the decision been made to acquire 12 SSKs of the same design but with incremental improvements (like the last six SSKs being equipped with cost-effective AIP modules like Stirling engine) & had the first two Scorpene SSKs been built by DCNS during which India-based OEMs built up their manufacturing expertise with the help of on-site mentoring from DCNS & its France-based vendors, then MDL would have saved a lot of production time & it could even have sub-contracted fabrication of hull sub-sections to L & T or Pipavav. But for that to happen, MDL’s modular shipbuilding yards would have had to be built in Greenfield areas, instead to trying to squeeze in at where it is today. And for all this to happen, it all boils down to articulating a military-industrial roadmap that governs business partnerships between the DPSUs & private-sector. Instead, this has not happened, and only the DPPs have come out, all of which has only caused mayhem & utter confusion. The country’s 13th President therefore has a lot to answer for when awarding the Scorpene contracts at REM pricing levels before drafting the military-industrial roadmap.
Secondly, all the warships built in India thus far have been built in an extremely uneconomical manner. For instance, due to lack of modular shipbuilding yards, millions of man-hours of work have gone wasted, as workers have to sit idling by since series-production of warships cannot take place inside cramped shipyards. And why so? Because whenever the MoD-owned shipyards want money for expansion or modernisation, they have to queue up in MoD for additional funds, which the Navy is unwilling to sacrifice from its budget (after all, a navy wants to spend money on capital procurements & not on shipyard modernisation). Had all the existing MoD-owned shipyards undergone corporate consolidation into a single entity, then they could have been listed on the stock exchanges (via disinvestment, with the MoD holding a golden share & having veto powers in the board of management) and this in turn would have allowed the shipyards to raise urgently reqd funds for the capital markets as & when needed. This is exactly what China has done with all its previously state-owned shipyards & as a result it takes only 17 months for these shipyards to launch a DDG or FFG.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

Continued from above....
AS for P-17A FFGs, the IN wants some incremental improvements incorporated, such as a broader beamwidth (the P-17 FFG in particular is too narrow for comfort in the engine room, for instance) & greater usage of composites-built structures. Modular shipbuilding for the very first time will be put into practice at MDL, with Pipavav supplying major sections of the hull & MDL acting as prime contractor, plus prime fabricator-cum-systems integrator. For the four P-15B DDGs, L & T will be roped in for fabricating the hull sections (for the past two DEFEXPO expos L & T had showcased scale-model replicas of P-15B DDGs at its pavilion) since the two programmes—P-17A & P-15B—will be proceeding concurrently. WE can only hope that these will all result in accelerated deliveries, which in turn will reduce the per-unit costs. But shipyards like GRSE, GSL, CSL & HSL are all lagging behind in areas like modular shipbuilding & virtual-reality design centres.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To ACCIDENTAL LOSER: The only counter to that is to change the entire existing warfighting doctrine of waging deep armour-heavy thrusts in the desert areas of Pakistan, & instead focus on making such thrusts into the Punjab heartland across the working boundary, where tactical nuclear weapons will be impossible to use over large urban settled areas & agricultural land. In the desert areas, rapidly deployable combat aviation brigades composed of large numbers of helicopter-gunships can be used for locating & defeating hostile armoured forces.

accidental loser said...

Ok. Got ur point. But u ddnt notice my question abt feasiblity of using AAMs lyk python 5, against hostile AAMS!!!
What's d difference between SSNs & SSGNs????

Mr. Ra 13 said...

As always, your solutions are the easiest, cheapest and the best.

Please allow me to ask a very simple but awkward question that is haunting my memory: Were you reporting for the TOI during the war between Taliban Vs the Northern Alliance of Afghanistan and when the US intervened therein.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To ACCIDENTAL LOSER: What kind of AAMS are you referring to that will be targetted? SSN is a simple hunter-killer n-powered submarine sans any land-attack cruise missiles (LACM) or long-range anti-ship cruise missiles (ASCM). SSGN carries both LACMs & ASCMs.

To Mr.RA 13: VMT. Rest assured that I was never a correspondent or employee or freelancer for any ‘desi’ news-media entity. Furthermore, I was a few thousand miles southeast of Afghanistan throughout the 1990s & the following decade.

accidental loser said...

To d SRAAMs usually being heat seeking typs. Can they b targetted using another high agility AAM???????
Going by ur definitions, i guess v need SSGNs mor thn SSNs. Is n't it?????
In ur last post i askd u abt SU-30MKI's RCS. Can u zero on the exact number to satisfy my queries!!!!!

rad said...

hi prasun

In another blog it claims that due to the sttep hike i prices for the il-67 and the radar byboth manufacturers have prevents follow on orders.If that is true then it is realy sad .Is that true?I t also claims that there is a search for another platform to have 360 degree view aesa radar better than the israeli supplied awacs something that is difficult to comprehend to believe as the drdo is famous for statements like this , even so it is going to take a long time and we will be short of awacs while pakistan will have 8 awacs!! what is the reality

dashu said...

to blunt China in conventional weapon US is the only partner we should look forward to . US has the technology for the same . but out misguided defense policy and corruption and the DRDO being an elephant in the room is not helping to achieve this edge over PRC . if we can tame China, Pakistan will fall in line in no time .

SherKhan said...

The 8 awacs are PAF assets. PAF will more than likely have access to additional 2+ SAAB platforms(from RSAF, which they will mann in any case). PN will require their own assets. They were initially interested in Hawakeye 2000 but more than likely now go for a platform compatable with PAF's.

Arun G said...

Hi Prasun,

In a country like India where ARMS AGENTS are so very powerful how did Abhishek Verma get caught ? It is an open secret that Israeli arms agents David Kolitz, his partner Israel Yaniv, and their Elul Group continue to operate freely even today influencing major arms deals in favor of Rafael.

The reason I ask you this is coz I was planning to set up a small company that manufactures defence related hardware , but now I am afraid that arms agents like Verma will not let me 0r anyone else like me , operate.

Thanks,
Arun G

Anonymous said...

Sir, I am anon at July 23, 2012 11:38 AM.
How can u be so sure that the MiG-27 will be phased out?Has the IAF already decided on this matter? way back in 2011 & 09 when the M-MRCA evaluations were taking place and the finalist had not yet been declared, many guys including me had asked you that the M-MRCA would replace which combat aircraft in the IAF fleet, you said that the Rafales are meant as a replaement for the MiG-21.Even a few months back in January u had said thet the MiG-21 would be replaced.A few months has passed. And now another decision has been taken.

Each Rafale can perform the role of 2 - 2.5 MiG-27 and not more than that. Further, one aircraft cannot be at two places at same time. This is where nos come to play. Further, as u said present 4 gen fighter jets can fly a maximum of 8 hrs a day and that too for a week. Much time is required for their servicing. Now IAF have the advantage of easy maintainabilty of MiG-21 and MiG-27 which means more time in the air and less time on ground. And the IAF isnt mad that it will replace 200 MiG-21 and 160+ MiG-27 with just 126 Rafales.It would mean a downsizing of force.The IAF will be dead against it. As a Air Marshal once quoted, that the present squadron strength is down to 32 from the sanctioned 39.5. And a healthy level is 44.And by a squadron he meant 18 aircraft per squadron.The main reason behibd going for the Rafales was the rapid depletion in IAF fighter nos since the 1990s.So Rafale was selected.If not so, the IAF could go for Tejas whatever be the delay in tis induction.


The IAF would never allow this to happen.One on one replacement will take place. Rafales will replace the MiG-21. And even if the IAF thinks of replacing the MiG-27 with Rafales, the MoD will never approve this.

and theres always a first for everything.The IAF will go for the deep upgrade of its MiG-27 fleet.

Anonymous said...

Sir, why will the Rafale production be spread over 15 years. The targetted production rate is 14 acs per year.So it will tahe 7.5 years at this rate. But why is the nos so low? Su-30mki is being produced at a rate of 22+ acs per year. Will the Rafale production rate be increased from the present 14?

Purbayan Roy said...

Hi Prasun, I am anon at July 23 , 12:53 PM. Thanx for outlining theb various procurements.

Can u pls tell how the home grown DRDO AEW&C fair against the PAF Saab 2000 & ZDK-03 in terms of endurance, speed, service ceiling and most importantly the on-board radar parameters such as radar modes, maximum radar range, no of targets coverd, mission avionics and self-defense suite?

The Pakistan Navy is steadily increasing its undersea warfare capabilties while that of our IN is steadily decreasing.Why cant the IN go for AIP on is first batch of Scorpenes?

If the IN goes for imported FFG and DDG, why will we lose 6 years?This means that all the designs are now complete. And will not the Kolkata class DDG feature 64 Barak-2 , 16 Brahmos?Will they feature Palash / Palma in addition to Barak-1?

amey said...

Sir can u please tell me wht type of training do Maharashtra state police commando force FORCE-ONE has ?
Wht weapons they use and can they fight a 26/11 type of attack on their own?

Is IAF planning to induct some 2nd hand mirage 2000-9 or may be mig-29smt to arrest decliing force levels
mirages can be procured asap frm saudis or uae cant they be?

Unknown said...

Prasun thanks for your reply wrt SPB. However (whilst I may agree with you) some have said that the guys present were MARCOs and not SPB. Is this just another case of mis-reporting Desi journos?

SK said...

Prasun,
Is there any advantage capability wise if Patriot PAC3 is acquired by India. Be it anti-aircraft or Missiles.
For cruise missile defense as you reported IAF is on right track with the MR-SAM and LR-SAM.

Anonymous said...

must read::

http://registan.net/index.php/2012/07/24/a-position-to-envy/

China has got 1,122 kilometers-squared .

I quote "Moreover, China has a recent history of coopting lands from Dushanbe: Tajikistan last year ceded 1,122 kilometers-squared of its eastern region to China, representing a loss of approximately one percent of Tajikistan’s territory.".

Read the article you will know it is not only south china sea where has eye for boundary extension.

Unknown said...

Prasun, when will the MARCOS start getting their ICS? Has a system been selected yet?

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To ARUN G: Arms agents always represent OEDMs willing to offer products off-the-shelf. And to influence decisions in the favour, right from the stage when the RFI & RFPs are drafted. For this, the concerned agents should be in position to spend a few millions in order to earn tens of millions. Therefore, these agents have to make investments in palatial & opulent farmhouses, lots of booze (which the predominantly North Indian civil servants/military officials working in various ministries throughout the National capital Region easily fall for), sleeze (preferably Caucasian females from the former Soviet republics or from Eastern Europe), as well as favours in kind (like sponsoring a civil servant’s or armed forces officer’s kid/s education at a foreign institution located in the UK, US or Australia, this being the most favoured ‘compensation’ being dolled out by agents since the mid-1990s). It is an elaborate exercise where even tens of millions are spent in order to earn multi-billion dollar/Euro contracts. The only way to stop this is the adoption of a no-nonsense policy involving the Defence Intelligence Agency (DIA), which ought to create a separate cell manned by counter-intelligence officials whose only job will be to keep persistent track of the travel activities & electronic communications of these Indian agents. What Abhishek Verma is today is the same as what the Chaudhary brothers were in the 1990s. To keep track of them & monitor them one needs boots on the ground, which agencies like the CBI, CAG or CVC don’t possess. That’s the main reason why news comes out only after the deed has been done, instead of nipping things in the bud. But if you’re intending to venture into the manufacturing sector as a vendor to an established military-industrial OEM (local or foreign), then you won’t have to worry about any agents, who are primarily in the undeclared services sector.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Anon@10.08PM: I have never stated that the Rafales would replace only the MiG-21, for it is a ridiculous proposition. Don’t confuse my statements with someone else’s. The decision to replace MiG-23BNs & MiG-27Ms was taken a long time ago in the late 1990s itself & that’s why the MRCA programme was conceived then, and which later morphed into the M-MRCA programme. There’s no need for one aircraft to be at two places at the same time when the single aircraft can perform several roles in one mission. Numbers therefore don’t play any role in effects-based air operations. And what makes you say that MiG-21s & MiG-27Ms have easy maintainability? Have you compared the number of man-hours of maintenance-related work that these aircraft consume with those for a Mirage2000H or Rafale? If you had then you wouldn’t be making such silly remarks. And who ever claimed that the IAF will replace 200 MiG-21s and 160+ MiG-27s with just 126 Rafales? And who ever said that only 126 Rafales will be acquired? When talking about force structures, why are you forgetting the upgraded MiG-29UPGs & Mirage 2000UPGs? Why are you forgetting that the number of Rafales to be eventually procured will be 189, & not 126—a fact that I had highlighted last February itself? Why are you forgetting that with each passing day it is getting next-to-impossible to order even airframe spares for the MiG-27M from Russia? Do you expect HAL to keep open its MiG-27M spares production line at a time when it has to spend more resources for setting up production lines for the Rafale & Tejas Mk1, & at the same time upgrade the Jaguars & Mirage 2000s? If so, then you’re terribly overestimating the financial & human resource capabilities of HAL. You say the IAF’s squadron strength is 18, but you gloss over the fact that this is only on paper. The reality is totally different & one can easily arrive at this conclusion by looking at the number of aircraft presently deployed for service. And where’s the need for 44 combat aircraft squadrons when the PAF has since 1996 been openly admitting that it cannot attain any kind of parity with the IAF anymore, while the PLAAF can at best deploy its combat aircraft assets in Tibet in very limited numbers (not more than two squadrons) that that too for very limited periods of time? So, get real & don’t get into a numbers game vis-à-vis the PAF or PLAAF, for such bean-counting exercises were valid only up to the early 1990s, & not beyond that.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Anon@10.40PM: 189 Rafales, and not 126, will be eventually procured. Su-30MKI licenced-production & licenced-assembly has picked up speed only over the past three years, and not from 2002. People take time to negotiate the learning curve when it comes to licence-producing a new aircraft-type.

To PURBAYAN ROY: How the DRDO-developed EMB-145I AEW & CS will fare/compare against the Saab 2000 or ZDK-03 AEW & CS remains to be seen. One will be able to gauge the realistic performance parameters of the EMB-145I AEW & CS only after its flight-trials get underway. Right now, therefore, it will be highly speculative to discuss/explore such matters. On the first batch of Scorpene SSKs, only the first three SSKs will not incorporate AIP modules, while for the remaining three SSKs the option is still there to incorporate AIP modules, provided the makes a final selection of the AIP-type to be procured, which in all probability will be the Stirling engine-based module from Kockums AB of Sweden.
Why would India lose 6 years if the IN goes for imported FFGs and DDGs? Because the decision-making process involving the introduction of a first-of-type naval vessel is excruciatingly long.

To AMEY: AFAIK, both the FORCE-1 & NSG detachment in Mumbai lack the kind of infrastructure reqd for honing their counter-terror skills. They may well have acquired advanced weapons, but what’s their use when such weapons can be made use of due to lack of firing ranges? How will these detachments maintain their proficiency in counter-terror operations? What is therefore now underway is just to give a false sense of assurance to the residents of Mumbai that all’s fine, when clearly it isn’t. In the event of another terrorist attack in Mumbai like 26/11, the only meaningful & viable first responders will once again be the MARCOS detachment stationed in Karanja & at Lion’s Gate near the BSE.
No additional Mirage 2000s or MiG-29SMTs are planned for acquisition. Force levels in terms of numbers of available aircraft may well have depleted, but the nett deliverable firepower of the IAF has increased several times more than what was possible in the 1990s. Saudis never bought any combat aircraft of the Mirage family.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To UNKNOWN: Those who believe that personnel of MARCOS are free to wander around a warship in full view of cameras, or are requisitioned for on-board warship security don’t have the faintest idea about what special operations are all about. No self-respecting navy (the IN included) will ever deploy its special operations forces assets in such a callous manner, to say the least. The tenders for the ICS have not yet been floated.

To SK: The Patriot PAC-3 is being proposed by the US for India purely for theatre-wide defence against NLOS-BSMs. And that’s because the DRDO is clearly having problems with the development of both the PDV & AD-1/AD-2 interceptor missiles, & is in dire need for some mentoring & guidance in areas like the Missile Monitoring Satellite. That’s the reason why the DRDO’s top brass having been making several trips to the US over the past two years.

accidental loser said...

Fr all
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-4aqMimH-8ak/TvzXippdIkI/AAAAAAAAAgs/hDeHMzIPOD0/s1600/Tavors+of+Indian+Navy.JPG
It's a pic of navy seamen & nt of the MARCOS. guess any similarities with the controversial pics???

accidental loser said...

Yeah Prasun, Tht's exactly wht i wanna say to all those in ans. MARCOS nevr do a PR stunt in front of cams. They had hv maintained their covert nature & wud do so. Evn during 26/11 TAJ INCIDENT, marcos ddnt gv a photo opportunity to media bare face. so hw d hell those jurnos get to publish their pics.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To ACCIDENTAL LOSER:
"MARCOS nevr do a PR stunt in front of cams. They had hv maintained their covert nature & wud do so. Evn during 26/11 TAJ INCIDENT, marcos ddnt gv a photo opportunity to media bare face."
----------------------------------
Unfortunately, most, if not all, don't ever make use of the gifts of common sense & logical reasoning. I guess such gifts/qualities have already become an extreme rarity or extinct quality. Shit happens!

Anonymous said...

sir ,
the PLAAF is one of the laargest air force in the world..then how can it be that it can deploye only 2 sqns at a time in tibet ?it is too less..
& what abt rest of indo-china border ?
& sir, how many su 30 mki is HAL annually producing now ?

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Anon@1.40AM: There are only two airports that presently host some facilities reqd for housing combat aircraft in Tibet--Lhasa Gonggar & Shigatse. Secondly, not all types of fully-armed combat aircraft can operate out of these two air bases--only the Su-27s and J-10As can. Thirdly, it was only since 2010 that such Su-27/J-10 deployments for very limited periods (only 3 months began). At best, over the next 10 years, only about six squadrons of such aircraft can be deployed within TAR, if reqd. But as of now, the PLAAF has not been able to deploy more than 10 aircraft each to Lhasa Gonggar & Shigatse. Photos of such aircraft at Shigatse taken on May 27 & July 22 are in my possession.
HAL is still producing only 13 Su-30MKIs per annum. The rest are the 40 aircraft that were ordered earlier & are arriving in semi-knocked-down condition from IRKUT Corp for final assembly by HAL. The same will be the case with the 42 Su-30MKIs on order, plus another 40 that remain to be ordered before 2014.

Anonymous said...

sir,
afaik 272 su 30 mki are on order..
or abt to be ordered..are these last 40 aircraft that u r talking abt new orders ??
does it mean the su 30 mki order book now numbers 312 ??

Anonymous said...

sir ,
now that MDL is teaming up with Pipavav & L&T for ships & submarines will the time taken to manufacture these things come down to 3-5 yr timeline ??
does MDL has any plans to shift out of its current extremely cramped dockyard in mumbai ?
or any plans to make ships in 3 man shifts than the present 1 ??

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Anon@2.11AM: The 40 aircraft remaining to be ordered have NOT YET been ordered. They will be ordered in future.

Anonymous said...

You didn't answer the question. The last 40 Su30 mki that will be ordered in future will make the the total number to 272 or 312 ?

Also will these last 40 Su30 mki be able to use air-launched Brahmos or not ?

Anonymous said...

Dear Sir The REAL Numbers of IAF
Mig 29 and Mirage 2000 are a SECRET

And the FACT is that Mig 29 and Mirage 2000 are the REAL Strength of IAF

Su 30 MKI though is the cutting edge is like the Proverbial SILVER BULLET

Mig 29 and Mirage 2000 are the MAIN Reasons why India has been ABLE to keep BOTH PAF and PLAAF in Check

Indian said...

To Anon 4:52 AM

>You didn't answer the question. The last 40 Su30 mki that will be ordered in future will make the the total number to 272 or 312 ?

Ans: The total No will be 272.

>Also will these last 40 Su30 mki be able to use air-launched Brahmos or not ?

Ans:Last 40will be of Super Sukoi 30 configuration with 1(One)Brahmos on the center line pylon.

Arun G said...

Prasun , many thanks for your great answer.

-Arun

joydeep ghosh said...

@Prasun da

it seems you have not taken my query in spirit, i just wanted a clarification

regarding my 3rd you said you never said anything, well here it is http://trishulgroup.blogspot.in/2009/03/batch-3-of-project-11356-ffgs-to-be.html

as for 3rd batch i only want to know that whether it will be same as previous 6 or upgraded ones or Krivak IV that are in use by Russian navy

As for the Chinese AF in Tibet we must not forget the long range heavy bombers they have which will not take off from Tibet but cause immense damage. Also there biggest advantage is that their number and infrastructure that allows them to send soldiers like ant army

Btw I expect that the total no. of Su30MKIs with India will eventually touch 300 and those of the Rafales will touch 220 (if navy picks the Rafale M for IAC 2, 3).

this is just a discussion, nothing personal

Thanks

Joydeep Ghosh

accidental loser said...

To Indian
The SU-30MKI in it's present configuration is able to carry 1 brahmos underbelly. Bt d user insists on improving d carrying capacity to atleast 2. Tht's why 2 airframes shipped to Russia fr implementing d airframe strengthening process to enable them carry extra Brahmos rounds.
Source: WIKI.

Abhijit said...

Hi prasun your blog is very informative and you are indeed very well informed than rest of "desi" Defense Experts. I Agree about your views on NSG & force 1. Dont u think its better to place NSG some where in Mandwa which is only 10 nautical miles away from Gateway of india as it has ample of open space plus good infrastructure and also very nearby to BARC,Bombay High and HPCL refinery. Present Location of NSG and Force 1 is in western suburbs whose connectivity to South Mumbai is through Western Express Highway which is jammed every day in peak And would take hours to reach South Mumbai.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Anon@8.34AM: The Su-30MKI fleet will increase to 312. The 40 ti-be-ordered Su-30MKIs won’t be modified to fire the BrahMos. Only the first 50 Su-30MKIs once they are due for the mid-life upgrade as Super Su-30MKIs will be modified for firing the BrahMos.

To Anon@12.18PM: The numbers ARE NOT secret.

To Joydeep Ghosh: Had I not taken your queries in spirit, I wouldn’t have answered them in the first place. Kindly give me any weblink which states that there is something known as Krivak-4 in service with the Russian Navy. The PLAAF’s H-6K bomber can launch only four CJ-10A LACMs & as such cannot cause much damage in an AirLand campaign. Instead, the ground-launched CJ-10Ks from Sichuan province are more likely to be used against India.

Anonymous said...

Sir,I am anon at 10:08 PM.U had never stated that the Rafales would replace the MiG-21 .But at the same time u never for once mentioned anything about the MiG-27.U had said that the MiG-27 and Jaguar would be replaced by AMCA.In all of media reports and newspapers regarding the M-MRCA competition, it was repeatedly stated that Rafales would replace ageing MiG-21.I am not contradicting anything u said.I dont trust the desi media & journos.So asking abou this to u. Has the phasing out of 27 been confirmed by the IAF? 189 Rafales replacing 200 MiG-21 and 160 MiG-27.A total of 360 aircrafts been replaced by 189 Rafales.Thats highly unlikely .

The IAF is unlikely to decrease the no fighter jets it has in service.U are talking about the upgraded MiG-29 and Mirage 2000 when referring to force structures.But why cant u realise that these acs were there in the 90s are there now. So the no remain the same barring those lost in crashes.Replacing 360 old acs with new ones is not very possible especially when one is replacing the MiG-21 but close to that no can be achieved.If MiG-27s are indeed phase out now,, then a sizable no of Tejas mk2 will be ordered to make up for the missing nos.Suppose 126 Rafales replace 200 Mig-21 as the media had reported(I am not telling they are right and u r wrong)Another 63 will be ordered as u said in taht article of January.These leaves 100 acs and IAF will likely order around 80 Tejas mk2.This will make up for the nos.Also 40 Su-30 may be ordered and if its so then theres absolutely no problem with nos .And the Jaguars are intended to be replaced with AMCA.So the nos will be intact.And why will the IAF only go for 40 Sukhois? Around 100 can be ordered.The PLAAF has around 450 of them.Also compared to the Rafale , Su-30mki is much cheaper .They can be orderd in nos.

HAL cant have a production line for spares of MiG-27??Why is the IAF always looking to Russia, for spares?Why is there Ukraine for?It has got a resreve fleet of MiG-27 and one can always ask them for spares.Also they have got a huge military - industrial base. They can be asked to produce the spares for us.After so many years, not everything is rusted.Some of their factories are still operational.And for MiG-29 spares, they are the first country that the MoD should go to. They have a huge reserve fleet of MiG-29 ( around 150+ ).They also produce their spares. IAF can go for attrition replacement of its 29s from this reserve fleet.

accidental loser said...

To Joydeep,
The bombers nevr intrude a protected airspace without the escort of supporting fighters, on their own. Ths wud make them highly vulnerable to enemy interceptor fighters.So.in either case PLAAF wud need to deploy fighters.
Regarding deployment of ant army, it's a way old tactic used in pre-coldwar period. I personnally wud guarantee tht PLA wud nt follow ths tactic. Evn if it does so thn one strike with a Brahmos block 3 wud guarantee a pretty big massacre. Concentrated troops always stay exposed to NLOS-BSMs & cruise missiles. So a future war wud be based around large scale SOF activities backed actively by NLOS-BSMs & arties, a lot in the difficult mountainous terrain with limited AF support fr PLA i think. Still i wud say tht there's nt chances of a 1965 repeat atleast within a decade or two, due to various political & strategic reasons.

Anonymous said...

Dear Sir
I am the Anon at 12 : 18 who said that we MUST be having MORE Mig 29 and Mirage 2000 than what is revealed by the Govt of India

Let us Look at the ENTIRE Situation

IAF ordered 50 odd Mirage 2000
AND 60 odd Mig 29 which were delivered by 1990

But India's ECONOMY has become NINE times BIGGER than what it was in 1990

SO Obviously we are spending well
on Defence

But as you said Sukhoi 30 MKI has been joining the IAF in good numbers ONLY in the LAST three years

AND add to it the FACT that Rafales will ONLY come from 2016

The Threat from PAF and PLAAF attacking TOGETHER is REAL

SO How can IAF be so LAZY with respect to the Numbers when we are facing a real threat

Just relying on 150 odd Sukhoi 30 is suicidal

If we were SO WEAK PAF and PLAAF would have Bombed us to stone age

But we are STRONG and UNFORTUNATELY ONLY our enemies Know our REAL strength

We the COMMON Patriotic people have to Indulge in guessing games or RELY on Govt statements like " We are well prepared "

Purbayan Roy said...

Hi Prasun, a few months ago, in an article in Telegraph and on some website, I read that the no of Su-30 manufatured by HAL last annum was 23. A few years back, in some newspaper, it was mentioned that the HAL's targetted no of Sukhoi-30 was 14 airframes but production has picked up speed and it will produce 24 from 2010 onwards.And u are saying that only 13 were manufactured by HAL last yera. Such poor nos.Why cant HAL speed up production? It has producing them since 04 or 06 and is now well versed in the learning curve.Will the Rafale production stepped up in the near future? Why go for a targetted 14 airframe and not 20 or 18.The BAE plant at Warton churns out 25 EF typhoon eachb year and thats a pretty impressive no.If they can do so, why cant we?When such a complex jet can be built so fast, why nly 13 Sukhois each year?


It will take 6 years for the IN and MoD decision makers to introduce a new vessel into service?Are they mad or running on steroids?Why cant they take a decision within 6 months. The IN will specify that it needs a FFG or DDG with such & such specifications , prefarebly ... and tell the MoD and then they will approch the shipyard and open up financial & contract negociations.How much desighn work is left with the P-17A & P-15B ships?


Ont thing regarding the BMD. If any nuke tipped missiles are intercepted by it over NCR or any other metropolitan and the nuclear warhead goes off in the atmosphere.It would not do any physical or biological damage but would create a huge EMP which would fry virtually every electronic circuits and would render all electronic goods and gadgets inoperable.If any airbases or logistics base or weapons store center are nearby then it would do great damge.All radars would be incapacitated.The combat aircrafts will become unflyable, their radars ,avionics will be destroyed and to again restore them to flying status, everything electric have to be replaced. A nighmare scenario for all.We will left defenseless.And u said about the PAC-3. But isnt it a 15km shortrange interceptor. The THAAD would be better instead. Why not go for ann off the shelf BMD system such as Arrow nad a combo of THAAD,PAC-3?In this way the BMD can de deployed earlier?Also can the entire Western India be covered with BMD?

Anonymous said...

To Anon At 10 : 18

Mate your worries about Mig 21s and Mig 27s are real but these planes are NOT really going to be any useful in any future combat and
BOTH have to be replaced

China is AIMING for an ALL Fourth Generation PLAAF by 2020 and here we are relying on Mig 21 and Mig 27

Anonymous said...

To anon at 7:55 pm. Well said. The nos are very important.The IAF will never decrease the no of combat acs in service.Upto this year,the IAF were shouting for MMRCA and now when Rafale has been selected it is not going for contract signing and fast tracking the delivery process.272 Su-30mki have been ordered. And 70 MiG-29 have been ordered.Prasun da, can u pls tell give the approximate no of fighter jets in service as of now and pls tell the no of each type in service.

Anonymous said...

Hi, can u pls tell as to why a 4th gen aircraft can fly for atmost 8 hrs a day and that too for a week. Are they very maintenance intensive? What's it that needs to be serviced every week? Why can't just fuel and fly like commercial jets .Pls reply.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To ABHIJIT: VMT. Firstly, there’s no need for the NSG for any of the metropolis throughout India, except for the National Capital Region. What is reqd is for the raising of SWAT detachments for the major cities. In addition, these SWAT detachments ought to be provided with heliborne logistics. Only then can such SWAT teams become the first responders within stipulated timeframes, no matter where they’re located within or in the outskirts of a city. In Mumbai’s case, given the fact that all potential targets for terrorists are located in southern Mumbai, a location closest to this area will be the optimum base for Force-1. Additionally, the Indian Navy’s Sea King Mk42C helicopters based at INS Shikra can easily be requisitioned for rapid airborne deployment. The NSG can provide training instructors for the SWAT teams, but a full-time NSG detachment in the major cities is totally uncalled for. In India’s scheme of administration where law-and-order is a State subject, SWAT teams like Force-1 can be utilised far more effectively than the NSG, whose involvement can come about only after the Union MHA’s approval, which can be a time-consuming process as we all have witnessed thus far. I would even go to the extent of saying that such state-level SWAT teams should also be trained to foil aircraft hijackings, as is the case with other SWAT teams for the rest of the world. In the case of 26/11, a 50-member SWAT team of the Maharashtra Police, backed up by a local MARCOS detachment, could have easily contained & controlled the situation, instead of deploying Army personnel equipped with Carl Gustav LAWs. Hardware like NVGs, HHTIs, plus anti-materiel rifles & sniper rifles equipped with night-vision telescopic sights could easily have done the job much more faster & better.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Anon@7.34PM: Looks like you have posed the same questions at LIVEFIST as well. Want to await your answer there, or here? I have always stated that it is futile for anyone to even think of the AMCA unless & until the Tejas Mk2 & the FGFA begin entering service. It is alright to have dreams with ignited minds, but in the real world, such things don’t matter at all. And I had also asked several times before that what is it that the AMCA will be able to do/perform which the FGFA won’t be able to. No one to date has been able to answer this convincingly as well. That’s why logic dictates that the FGFA would be ordered in far greater numbers in future than has been acknowledged thus far. The phasing-out of the MiG-27 was confirmed in mid-2005 the day it was decided that only 40 of the remaining MiG-27Ms would be upgraded to MiG-27UPG standard. Also, one cannot compare the limited capabilities of the MiG-29s & Mirage 2000s with the enhanced capabilities of the MiG-29UPG & Mirage 2000UPG. The PLAAF doesn’t have 450 Sukhois. It’s less than half that number, while the PLAN has less than 50 Sukhois.
And which Ukrainian companies are producing spares for the MiG-27s & MiG-29s? Had such companies existed, then these aircraft would not have been placed in reserve. These aircraft, in fact, are being cannibalised for spares. 90% of Ukrainian military aircraft companies are all MRO facilities. Most importantly, do you think Russia as the OEM for these aircraft-types will just stand by & watch silently if India decides to procure spares in bulk from Ukraine? Russia will immediately brush its hands of all product liability issues of consequence to the IAF’s fleet of MiGs (like refusing to cooperate in aircraft accident investigations) & will downright refuse to extend product-support for the MiG-29UPGs. Securing product-support from foreign OEMs for imported hardware is not as simple as choosing between hypermarkets for obtaining the cheapest offers of off-the-shelf hardware. Even if attrition replacements are obtained from Ukraine, both the IAF & HAL are contractually bound to approach only Russia’s Rosoboronexport State Corp & United Aircraft Corp for refurbishing & upgrading them.

To Anon@7.55PM: There’s no clear & present & immediate threat from either China’s or Pakistan’s fleet of manned combat aircraft. The threats are more likely to come from NLOS-BSMs, TBMs & cruise missiles.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To PURBAYAN ROY: Between 2002 & 2007, HAL was only licence-assembling the Su-30MKIs. After that, it began building Su-30MKIs with the help of raw materials supplied by Russia, which were then machined locally. Therefore, with each phase, starting from licenced-assembly of kits supplied in semi-knocked-down condition, to licenced-assembly of kits in fully knocked-down condition to licenced-production with locally moulded & machined structures all involve negotiating a separate learning curve. After that comes the financial reqmts for expanding the manufacturing/final assembly lines, if reqd. here too, you cannot even dream of comparing BAE Systems with HAL because the former is a publicly listed company that can raise funds reqd for capacity expansion within 24 hours from capital markets worldwide, whereas HAL is a wholly MoD-owned company that can only request additional funding from the MoD’s annual allocated defence expenditure. And depending on the MoD’s priorities, the funding request may or may not receive the attention it deserves. To key to rapid corporate success is always financial autonomy. Since India’s DPSUs don’t have this type of autonomy, failed delivery schedules are inevitable. The kind of decision-making that you’re calling for will NEVER happen in India’s case under the present circumstances. Maybe in Singapore, but definitely not in India. PAC-3 is perfectly suited for countering NLOS-BSMs in a given theatre, while THAAD-type interceptors are reqd for point-defence against TBMs & IRBMs. There’s no stated or planned operational reqmt for protecting the whole of western India against ballistic missiles, since the threats will be cruise missile-based. There’s only 1 target for inaccurate ballistic missiles in western India, & that’s Mumbai.

To Anon@8.14PM: 70 MiG-29s have been ordered? When?

To Anon@11.19PM: Of course such combat aircraft are much more maintenance-intensive than what a MiG-21 or MiG-27 is. The sheer number of avionics LRUs that need monitoring & servicing, for starters. And spare LRUs & even aircraft tyres or brake parachutes cannot/are never stockpiled in forward air bases, & are available at only major air bases designated as hubs for particular aircraft-types. Commercial jetliners always fly between major airport hubs which also contain spares warehouses & MRO facilities. Therefore, in their case, any AOG situation is resolved within 24 hours, whereas for combat aircraft, the AOG situation is usually resolved between 96 hours & 2 weeks.

accidental loser said...

http://oi40.tinypic.com/6ib6n5.jpg

accidental loser said...

Prasun,
Wht's d mattr abt d pic. Dd MARCOS really bid gdbye to d legacy black uniforms?????? Got it frm google nw.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

No, the black uniforms are still very much in use.

bradshaw said...

Hi Prasun Da,

I have some confusion an dit results in 2 Q's :)

1. What is the guidance system of Brahmos , its optical sensor, GLONASS or Active radar ? And if a frigate or destroyer is cruising at its maximum speed say 30-32 Knots , than will the brahmos will able to hit it prcisely ?

2. If you compare Club missiles and Brshmos both are supersonic and have similar range of 300 Kms. Whats the need of developing brahmos when a similar missile is available in the same class ?

3.How the anti submarine version of ship based club misile work. Does it carries an anti-submarine torpedo ?

Anonymous said...

Sir, I am anon at July 25, 2012 7:34 PM. You have gotten me all wrong.I am not a frequent visitor of Livefist.And that was my first comment.I had been a die hard follower of Trishul trident and had always asked u if i needed to know something.At that point of time i was in a state of desperation.Thinking that IAF after all is decreasing its aircraft fleet strength.I had virtually run out of patience then.But after it came to me that the Tejas mk2 will be ordered, did things become clear.And of course your ans.I am not of that type who always tallys your ans with someone" else.

Previously, I had written so many comments on the MiG-27.I had asked u that it is a pure obsolete aircraft.I had repeatedly mentioned about standoff range and outlined the need for having onboard radar.But u had said that the MiG-27 can attack from standoff distances with Litening-2 LDP.I clearly remember u had said that MiG-27 is a potent strike aircraft-a tank buster .I had repeatedly said that it can carry only 4 t and has 7 pylons said and u had replied that it when armed with 5 LGBs is more than enough.

I am not saying that the Jag would for sure be replaced with AMCA. It may be the FGFA. My only problem is the nos.

And u hadnt answered the very question that i had running about. "The IAF is unlikely to decrease the no fighter jets it has in service.U are talking about the upgraded MiG-29 and Mirage 2000 when referring to force structures.But why cant u realise that these acs were there in the 90s are there now. So the no remain the same barring those lost in crashes.Replacing 360 old acs with new ones is not very possible especially when one is replacing the MiG-21 but close to that no can be achieved.If MiG-27s are indeed phase out now,, then a sizable no of Tejas mk2 will be ordered to make up for the missing nos.Suppose 126 Rafales replace 200 Mig-21 as the media had reported(I am not telling they are right and u r wrong)Another 63 will be ordered as u said in taht article of January.These leaves 100 acs and IAF will likely order around 80 Tejas mk2.This will make up for the nos.Also 40 Su-30 may be ordered and if its so then theres absolutely no problem with nos .And the Jaguars are intended to be replaced with AMCA.So the nos will be intact.And why will the IAF only go for 40 Sukhois? Around 100 can be ordered."

As the Tejas mk2 will be ordered in nos , it will arrest the depletion.Plus Sukhois would be ordered.Pls say about this.

Anonymous said...

Will u be pls be kind enough so as to tell the actual nos of MiG-29 & Mirage 2000 procured? How many have been lost to accidents and how many are operational ? Will the MoD agree with IAF's decision and go for Vixen-850e/1000 ,Skyward IRST for Tejas mk2?For it so it will make for an excellent platform.The Tejas mk2 will eventually make up for the declining nos of fighters in airforce inventory .

Purbayan Roy said...

Hi Prasun,
a thing regarding BMD, u didnt ans. If any nuke tipped missiles are intercepted by it over NCR or any other metropolitan and the nuclear warhead goes off in the atmosphere.It would not do any physical or biological damage but would create a huge EMP which would fry virtually every electronic circuits and would render all electronic goods and gadgets inoperable.If any airbases or logistics base or weapons store center are nearby then it would do great damge.All radars would be incapacitated.The combat aircrafts will become unflyable, their radars ,avionics will be destroyed and to again restore them to flying status, everything electric have to be replaced. A nighmare scenario for all.We will left defenseless.
PAC-3 is very suitable for intercepting NLOS-BSM as well as TBM.But Barak-8 is also good in this.PAC-3 has a significant cost advantage over Barak-8 due to its short range.So are wepurchasing the PAC-3 systems.It would be very useful during massed fire assaults from the Chinese .In one of your posts u clearly mentioned how the chinese were preparing to use massive missile strikes against Indian positions in the North West & in Jammu.Why will SHORAD delivery continue till 2026? Why is there such lag in terms of production?

And can u pls tell , that HAL is now producing 24 Sukhoi-30 airframes as said in 2010?It has lerant many neew things regarding production.And the various engineers & technicians are now well familiar with Su-30 production.So the production must have picked speed.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To BRADSHAW: The terminal guidance sensor for BrahMos is the Granit JSC-built & supplied SGH synthetic aperture radar. Cruise speed of the warship has nothing to do with ASCM hit-probability. BrahMos is a 290km-range missile that can be extended to 550km. The Klub’s 3M53E supersonic variant has a range of 220km, while the subsonic 3M14E has a 290km-range. There’s no ASW version of the Klub, only a SSK-launched ASCM.

To Anon@6.28PM: The MiG-27UPG does remain a potent tank-buster. But it is getting increasingly expensive to maintain its serviceability & airworthiness, a situation that will only grow worse as the years go by. In contrast, the Jaguar IS has far higher reliability & availability & since BAE Systems has transferred all necessary technical data packages & industrial toolings to HAL, it is now possible to produce as many Jaguar IS as the IAF wants. Therefore, in the years to come, expect at least 140 upgraded Jaguar IS aircraft to become the principal tactical interdiction platform armed with LGBs & IIR-guided PGMs like the AASM Hammer. Sizeable numbers of Tejas Mk2s will be ordered ONLY IF the prototype development proceeds smoothly and right now there’s no firm indication of that. If the Tejas Mk2 fails to live up to expectations, then there’s no other choice but to acquire the FGFA in far greater numbers, instead of ordering 100 Su-30MKis. I don’t think the AMCA will ever take off as is being propagated.

To Anon@6.35PM: 51 Mirage 2000UPGs & 63 MiG-29UPGs. Only the Vixen 850e is on offer for Tejas Mk2, not the Vixen 1000. It is still premature to be overly optimistic about the Tejas Mk2, especially after what’s been happening with the Tejas Mk1’s staggered service induction process.

To PURBAYAN ROY: Why should a ballistic missile’s or cruise missile’s nuclear warhead go off in the event of such missiles being intercepted? That’s not how nuclear warheads work. They are pre-programmed to explode at a particular altitude ranging from 10km to 20km. SHORADS deliveries will continue till 2026. It’s not due to production lags, but the staggered nature of the orders being placed in successive tranches. No one has officially stated that HAL is producing 24 Su-30MKI airframes. What has been stated is that HAL delivered 24 Su-30MKIs in 2010. There’s a huge difference between the two. Producing aircraft from raw materials stage is one thing, and assembling the airframes delivered in semi-knocked-down condition from Russia is another. The former has NOT YET picked up any speed.