Total Pageviews

Wednesday, July 18, 2012

Russia-India Military-Industrial Cooperation Set To Increase In Scope And Size

Understanding was reached yesterday on a host of future potential procurement contracts and military-industrial cooperation programmes when the Russian Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin, heading a high-level delegation to India, held discussions with the Indian Ministry of Defence (MoD) delegation led by Defence Minister A K Antony. On top of the agenda was the planned procurement of another three (Batch-3) Project 1135.6 guided-missile frigates (FFG) that would conform to the same specifications as those for the three Batch-2 Project 1135.6 FFGs that are now in delivery for the Indian Navy (IN). 
Also discussed were plans for Russian military-industrial involvement in forthcoming domestic shipbuilding projects like the planned construction of seven Project 17A FFGs and four Project 15B guided-missile destroyers, stepped life-extension programme (SLEP) for the three Project 15 DDGs, and another SLEP for the IN’s 10 existing Project 1241RE guided-missile corvettes, of which the first five were acquired off-the-shelf from Russia between 1987 and 1991, while six were subsequently licence-built by the MoD-owned Mazagon Docks Ltd (MDL) and Goa Shipyard Ltd (GSL) at a unit cost of US$35 million.
The discussions also included plans for proceeding ahead with the upgrading of the mission management system and mission sensors of the IN’s existing eight Tu-142ME LRMR/ASW aircraft by installing on each of them the Novella (Sea Dragon) suite, developed by St Petersburg-based Leninets Holding Company and already operational on board the IN’s five existing IL-38SD MRMR/ASW aircraft. Once completed, the upgraded Tu-142MEs, each armed with torpedoes as well as up to four Novator 3M54E Klub supersonic anti-ship cruise missiles, are expected to remain in service until 2024.
While all the to-be-built principal surface combatants for the IN would be built by MDL and armed with vertically-launched BrahMos-1 supersonic anti-ship cruise missiles, the three Project 15 DDGs and five Project 1241RE guided-missile corvettes too will be retrofitted with inclined launchers for the BrahMos. The latter were designed by Russia’s St Petersburg-based Almaz Central Design Bureau and are currently each equipped with four P-20 Termit anti-ship cruise missiles and Harpoon-E target engagement system. Under the planned SLEP—to be carried out by GSL—the P-20s will give way to eight BrahMos missiles mounted on twin inclined quad launchers, while the Harpoon-E will give way to the Sigma-E suite.  
Therefore, it came as no surprise when Rogozin with the accompanying high-level military-industrial delegation visited BrahMos Aerospace Pvt Ltd’s headquarters on July 17, 2012. There, he was shown a full-scale mock-up of the Army version of the BrahMos Mobile Autonomous Launcher and was briefed about it by Dr A Sivathanu Pillai, CEO & MD of BrahMos Aerospace. Rogozin was also briefed on the achievements and progress the India-Russia JV had made in recent years, including a futuristic ‘Vision Plan 2050’ for developing newer technologies  to remain  a market leader in its fields of activity. After completion of this visit, Rogozin remarked: “I am delighted to see the enthusiasm of Indian and Russian specialists who have made the BrahMos project a success. I believe in its bright future as I believe in the future of friendship between our two nations.” Earlier, when addressing the young scientists, engineers marketing and management officials of BrahMos Aerospace  he said: “Latest technologies can be shared with close friends only , which has been seen in our cooperation in BrahMos, both  India and Russia are great countries and working together we can do wonders. I wish you all the best and success in the development of futuristic technologies for both our nations.”
During the Russian Deputy Premier’s visit, Dr Pillai highlighted the importance of the JV’s product being inducted into service with the Russian Navy, and expediting the development of new products, including the hypersonic BrahMos-2, to maintain technological edge over other countries and maintain its ‘First-in-the-World’ status. Rogozin was accompanied by the Ambassador of the Russian Federation to India Alexander Kadakin, Head of Federal Services for Military Technical Cooperation Alexander Fomin, Head of Military Industrial Consortium NPOM Dr Alexander Leonov, Head of Tactical Missile Armament Cooperation Boris Obnocov, Head of United Aircraft Cooperation Mikhail Pogosyn, and the Head of Rosoboronexport State Corp Anatoli Isykin, and other Russian military-industrial officials.


SK said...

Didn't you mention a while ago that India will not go for the 3rd batch of 1135.6 frigates since the project 17A frigates are at advanced stage ?
You can't always predict which direction the MOD (especially MOD) will take. Hope this time the Navy takes your advice and go for the Palam/Palash CIWS instead of Kashtan. When will we see AESA radars on these type of frigates ?

Indian said...

Prasun da,

When there are ready to fire multi- missile vertical launch versions of Shtil Mid-Range Naval SAM is available...then why Indian Navy still inducting Shtil SAMs of older design launcher based systems in Navy's Frigates and destroyers..?

Ex Intelligence said...

Dear Prasun ,

Sincere request , plz take a minute of your time to read this article

It reveals the faces behind the mask of the Govt of India

sbm said...

Prasun, any discussions for army and air force acquisitions ?

Raj said...

Prasun Ji,

Few blogs have posted updates regrading 2nd P-8I taking to the sky for flight testing.

I have three queries..regarding the same..please answer..

1.Where these Indian P-8I stand in terms of Technologies/Sensors and Capability..compared to those of US Navy's own P-8A? Are these Indian P-8I's,the same versions or downgraded versions compared to US's P-8A's?

2.Secondly..can these Indian P-8Is detect all Ultra Silent next gen subs like US's Ohio Class SSBN / SSGN Submarine.Russia'a Borei Class Subs,US's future SSBN-X follow-on submarines etc ? I doubt..these planes will not be so detect these advanced subs,I mentioned above.

3.I believe these P-8I can record signatures of Indian Arihant class SSBN's or any other Indian Submarine in action.Is there any chance by which US technicians can get those electronic signatures while doing End User Verification or Service of sensors/equipments ??
Or using any Satelite Communication Antenna/equipment..can send those electronic signature details online...outside of Air force Network directly ?

Anonymous said...

Hi Prasun, I have a few queries.
1.Why is the IN going for the same Project 1135.6 frigates?As they will have the same specs, they will feature the same sensor and armament suite.The Fregat radar is already a decade old. Most of the systems are of Soviet vintage?Again they will feature the AK-630 when so advanced systems such RAM are available. Why not go for a heavy hitter with larger displacement,modern state of the art sensor suite, heavier armament and state of the art SAM such as Barak-2?
2.In the SLEP of Project 15 DDGs, what sensors are to be fitted?What will be the various changes? Will the IN go for an updated variant of the vintage Shtil missile?Is there any 50km+ version of the Shtil? Why not go for the navalised version of the S-300PMU/PMU-2,3,4 as the PLAN has done?Will this DDGs feature 16 Brahmos each?Why are they not going for the -2 version?
3.Why arent the Kashin class being subjected to SLEP?
4.What are the procurements of the IAF?Thought that the IAF will buy more Sukhoi-30,buy new gen LRSAM such as S-400PMU,sign contract signature for upgradation of the Sukhoi-30 fleet? Was there nothing for the IAF?Why arent we purchasing the Sukhoi in larger nos.
5.What were the procurements,military - industrial cooperation regarding the IA?Will all the T-90M be upgraded to AM version?Are we buying any new IFV from Russia.


buddha said...

will kolkata class destroyer have any land attack capacity ?

Anonymous said...

Sir! Why government not thinking a seprate branch of ISRO that will only dedicated for our millitery ,s needs.? What do you this would be a great idea to enhance space capacity of our millitery and will also create so many job. Are our government interested in it or they haven't it in theiq mind... And space cammand of army is same or is deffernt from this.?

Shaurya said...

Earlier you said that NAVY has issued RFI for new generation radar like SMART-L to replace the current RAWL-02 currently manufactured by BEL for Project-15B, Project-17A. But the silhouette of them in the MDL poster seems to have same old RAWL. What happened to the project?


Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To SK: The situation changes over the past three months when it was realised that the financial crisis afflicting the country will only result in delayed delivery of several warships, including the seven projected P-17A FFGs, four P-15B DDGs & the six Scorpene SSKs. Project costs increasing by a steep margin due to heightened inflation, lack of effective skilled human resources, etc. That’s why the Scorpene SSK delivery is once again in trouble, as is the construction schedule of INS Vikrant (IAC-1). Cochin Shipyard Ltd has overspent its prior allocation of MoD funds due to the high cost of buying raw materials & due to labour disputes involving greater salary demands, all due to unchecked inflation-levels prevailing in India over the past two years in a row. The Scorpene SSK licenced-production programme was flawed from the outset, since by deciding to fabricate all six units in-country, the decision-makers ensured that MDL should be made to run before it could even begin to crawl or walk. Had it been decided in 2005 that while the first two Scorpenes would be built in France & the remaining four by MDL in India, then the India-based sub-contractors would have had a chance to learn from DCNS & its French/Spanish vendors all the QA/QC intricacies involved, thereby ensuring a steady (and not steep) learning curve & imbibing of mandatory QA/QC practices/processes. Instead, what has actually happened is the creation of a steep learning curve & the need to imbibe/absorb mandatory QA/QC practices/processes within a compressed & unrealistic timeframe & within severe financial constraints, and consequently, all such tasks are now unachievable. Roughly somewhat same is the story concerning the P-17A & P-15B vessels, and consequently, Indian Navy HQ now has no other option but to procure more FFGs off-the-shelf in order to try to arrest the depleting force levels.

To INDIAN: Not only that, but where was the need for the three P-15A & four P-15B DDGs to have both diesel and marine gas-turbine propulsion? After experimenting with the three P-15 Delhi-class DDGs, the IN could well have gone for all gas-turbine propulsion systems for the P-15A & P-15B DDGs, which would have resulted in a far smaller superstructure, or alternatively, getting rid of the Bergen diesel engine-based propulsion powerpack and using that space to install VLS cells for additional BrahMos or Barak-2 MR-SAMs. For the four P-15B DDGs & seven P-17A FFGs, VL-cells for the Barak-2 have been specified.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To SBM: No new major procurements for the Army & UAF were discussed, for they have already been contracted out, except for the Super Su-30MKI programme for which the IAF has insisted on a major re-jig in terms of the on-board mission sensors of non-Russia origin, like the Ariel towed-decoy from CASSIDIAN.

To RAJ: Well, there’s no consensus as yet among these India-based bloggers whether the P-8I has been christened by the IN as ‘Poseidon’ or ‘Neptune’! In terms of of-board sensors, there’s no downgrading of any type. All are production-standard hardware that will also go on board the US Navy’s P-8s. The P-8Is, however, will be customised to accept National Secure Mode (NSM) IFF transponders, radio comms hardware, plus voice/data secrecy encryption systems associated with indigenous SATCOM equipment/protocols. As for detecting new-gen/next-gen SSBNs, SSGNs or SSNs or AIP-powered SSKs, there are no guaranteed solutions from anywhere in this world. Once such submarines are submerged to deeper depths there’s no way anyone can detect them. The only way of detecting & tracking such vessels is by equally deeply submerged SSBNs, SSGNs, SSNs or AIP-powered SSKs whose job is to shadow their targets in the hunter-killer mode. End-user verification entails only the physical existence of the hardware at a particular location & that too in peacetime. It does not call for accessing the data stored on the mainframes inside the aircraft.

To Anon@7.30PM: The whole idea behind the decision to acquire the third batch of Project 1135.6 FFGs is to acquire additional capabilities/assets on time & on coat and ASAP. If one starts tinkering with the design then the delivery schedule will only get delayed, thus defeating the whole purpose of the off-the-shelf procurement exercise. The SLEP proposal for the three P-15 DDGs is the same as what I’ve uploaded above, which shows the VL-Shtil installation. Try to put something else & the entire refitting schedule will go haywire. This SLEP cannot be compared to what the PLAN has done with its new-build DDGs since the latter has been designed from the outset with PESA volume search radars. If someone tries to install EL/M-2248 MF-STARs & Barak-2s on the P-15 DDGs, this will only result in far more delayed deliveries. All five Kashin 2-class DDGs have already undergone SLEPs. Why should the IAF buy S-400PMU when it has already contracted for the Barak-8 LR-SAM?

To BUDDHA: ALL warfighting vessels of the Indian Navy equipped with main artillery guns have land-attack/shore bombardment capability.

To Anon@9.18PM: Where’s the need to create a separate branch? Who else in the world has created such separate entities for civilian & military space applications hardware? Therefore, why should India be the sole exception to the rule?

To SHAURYA: are yaar, that is MDL, a DPSU, so can you expect anything better coming out from it? In all probability, the RAN-40L radar from Italy’s Finmeccanica (which has also been ordered for IAC-1/INS Vikrant) will be ordered for the P-15B DDG. P-17A specs are still being worked out.

Anonymous said...
sir , do u think all of these 75 or so helicopters will be in service within a decade ?
also the cost of 56 LUHs for the navy is mentioned as 7000 crores..isn't it too much ?
& now when do u c the new p17's &p 15 b's starting construction..will all of them be in in service within a decade ?
& sir , now what will happen to the scorpenes ? i read somewhere all 6 will be completed till 2018 ? really ??
whats the news abt the next 6 ssk ?
where is that project stuck ?

Unknown said...

Prasun, when will BARAK-8 become the standard fit for IN ships? And what existing ships will be retro-fitted with it and what futre ships will have it? And you mention the SHTl-1 but is the BARAK-8 not superior to this? And why would IN be remotely interested in it? Surely after the amount of times India has been burned by Russia India should be looking to scale down deals and copoporation with Russia not scale it up. And why Russia? Surely these days India can get the same (if not superior) tech from Europe, the US or indigenously?

Mr. Ra 13 said...

The increasing cooperation with Russia in no way interferes with our relations towards the newly emerging friends and is not being done at their costs and prices. We have to dynamically check and find that Russia, Israel and France have been our most trusted allies in the moments of crisis, which is a true test for any specimen.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To UNKNOWN: It is not at all an easy task to retrofit VLS-based systems on to the hulls of existing vessels UNLESS the OEM of the VLS-based system happens to be the same one that had supplied the earlier system that needs replacement. That’s why the VL-Shtil is the best option for the three Project 15 DDGs. No matter what anyone may say about the projected performance parameters of the barak-2 MR-SAM or Barak-8 LR-SAM, the fact remains that the SLEP for the three P-15 DDGs cannot be delayed just for the arrival of the Baraks. Exactly how many times did Russia ‘BURN’ India? I can’t come across any specific instance to date. Could you elaborate further? Lastly, it is not about getting hi-tech from other alternatives, but has more to do with the existing hull design and its internal power-supply systems & electrical wiring harnesses, to just name a few. And since the Russian weapons manufacturing OEMs were involved from the very outset with the P-15 DDG’s design and construction, these OEMs are therefore able to offer much better and far less riskier SLEP options any anyone else. And since the truth is now out about how India-based OEMs are proving unable to absorb all the ToTs (for reasons that I’ve outlined above) that had been negotiated in the past with foreign vendors as part of the MoD’s direct industrial offsets policy, maybe it is now time to revisit the issue of the T-90S MBT’s indigenous production in India and find out whether it was the Russians who had reneged on their earlier ToT commitments (as alleged by some India-based news reporters/bloggers), or whether it was the Indian vendors who were unable to absorb the technologies already transferred.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Mr.RA 13: Kindly include the US in your list of countries as well, since in the immediate aftermath of October 1962, the then decision-makers of the Govt of India with their blinkers on had refused to even talk to Israel, while the then-USSR was being courted at a time when the Soviet Politburo had declared that "blood is thicker than water, & while India remains the USSR's friend, the PRC is our brother". The only country then that commenced emergencies supplies of war-waging materials then was the US.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Mr.RA 13: Do read this:
Now, here are the questions that arise:
1) How can a Romanian citizen represent a Swiss weapons manufacturer on Indian soil? The DPP rules clearly state that an India-based representative who is entrusted with marketing weapon systems of foreign origin ought to be either an Indian citizen who is a full-time and exclusive employee of the foreign weapons manufacturing OEM, or a foreigner who is a full-time and exclusive employee of the foreign weapons manufacturing OEM.
2) Has the Swiss company Sig Sauer employed this Romanian citizen as its full-time employee? If so, then what was the selection criteria? Was she an expert in small-arms firing? Or was it just her looks & physique as befits a GRO? Was her company accredited with the MoD as an authorised & registered representative of Sig Sauer?
3) The norm for foreign OEDMs when it comes to meeting MoD officials is to be accompanied to the MoD by either an Embassy Councillor or the Defence Adviser of the country which the OEM is representing—this being the case if the foreign OEM does not have a full-time representative office inside India or an industrial affiliate in India. Why then were foreigners with dubious ‘representative’ credentials allowed entry into the MoD?
4) Of all people, why should the MoS meet the top brass of foreign OEMs? Doesn’t he have anything better to do? He had all the time & opportunity to meet such OEM-related officials during DEFEXPO 2012. So why this meeting inside the MoD?

rad said...

Hi Prasun

As India has refused to sign the CISMO and other agreements that come along with US defence equipment how are we going to maximize the use of weapons systems . It Seems the foll are not added - IFF-data link ,sat com, vhf- uhf voice and data crypto stuff, to the anti sub boeing 737 and hercules transports.
Though it makes sense not to have US stuff can the equivelant indian hardware software be effective .We know that we have our own data link 2, sat com , vhf uhf comms etc but will they allow our system to be interfaced with their weapons systems ? How are we going about it .

bradshaw said...

Hi Prasun Da,

Why IAF is not asking for more powerful engines for Rafales as done by UAE and many gulf countries. the IAF is more or less happy with the M88_3 egines rejected by even most gulf countries and on contrary wants greater thrusts for indegenious LCA ?

Is this because the IAF is inducting the Rafales as primary ground attack a/c as a replacement for Mig 27's? Rafales uses shorter range MICA BVR's and is less maneuverable than EF which indeed uses the longer range AIM 120 series. Plus the SPECTRA on rafale permits it to invade hostile territories with ease an ddo SEAD missions.

This clearly indictaes that IAF is inducting Rafale as an A2G a/c with limited A2A role and SU 30 MKI will be the primary air superiority fighter and procide escorts to rafales.

How can an a/c with RCS of 10-15 m2 will be a primary A2A fighter? Don't you think that IAF should have selected EF with more powerful radar , better engines , super maneuverable , longer range AAM's and low RCS as primary A2A fighter and the A2G role should have gone to SU 30 with lightening pods , EL2222 jammers and Brahmos ??

Anonymous said...

Can you tell us the specification of Vixen 850e like range, the number of target they can track and engage simultaneously ?

If 850e is for LCA mk2, Is Vixen 1000e is meant for MRCA or Lwarger aiercrafts like Su30 ?

Anonymous said...

HI PRASUN, u said, "Roughly somewhat same is the story concerning the P-17A & P-15B vessels, and consequently, Indian Navy HQ now has no other option but to procure more FFGs off-the-shelf in order to try to arrest the depleting force levels." What do you mean by depleting force levels? Has some FFGs , DDGs , corvettes been decommisioned apart from the Nilgiri class?What is the present strength of the Navy's surface fleet?

Again u said,"The whole idea behind the decision to acquire the third batch of Project 1135.6 FFGs is to acquire additional capabilities/assets on time & on coat and ASAP. If one starts tinkering with the design then the delivery schedule will only get delayed, thus defeating the whole purpose of the off-the-shelf procurement exercise."Then why isnt the IN HQ going for FFGs and DDGs of Western origin such as from UK.Germany,France? We can purchase the FREMM frigates or others.They possess very high tech equipment and are fitted with the latest weapons.The Western shipyards will also take 30-40% less time to complete and deliver the ships.So if the whole objective is to get the ships ASAP, then why not go for Western ones?

Will the new Talwar class frigates feature the Palash,Palma and RAM launchers?

As part of SLEP upgrade, what will be the changes to the radar suite of P-15 destroyers?How many Brahmos will each carry?Will the VL-Shtil SAM system feature the same Shtil missile that the P-15s carry or a new upgraded version. Can u pls throw some light on the missiles- guidance,range?

Anonymous said...

Prasun da, what major re-jig in terms of on-board mission sensors of non-Russian origin has the IAF insisted other then the Ariel towed decoy?pls delve into some details.The inclusion of towed decoy is a good news.Is this in addition to the internal Virgilius jammer suite? Will the Super 30 upgrade programme applies for the whole fleet?Where does the upgrade programme now stands? When will the upgrade begin?Will the IAF order more Su-30?Has attrition replacement been sought for the Sukhoi that crashed last.Pls reply.

buddha said...

is there any chance for IN for getting foreign destroyer

Jagdish Khanna said...

Hi Prasun,

Just reading your reply to a question where you state that we need to include the US in our list of allies. However, as you would also know that the west especially the US & UK thinks that life in this part of the world does not mean much. Look at the way they killed a fisherman & blamed them for the accident . Also US & UK media is only reflects negative stories about India . Poverty , caste&community conflicts , lack of education and of late how we are stealing American & British jobs. However, I have never seen such negative media reports in Russian and Israeli media. The Anglo Saxon world therefore is only a fair weather friend . Also, as a reminder it was because of US instigation that India supported Tibetean extremists in Tibet & permanently spoiled it's relation with China .


accidental loser said...

Prasun, I got a li'l curious abt wht bradshaw dd said.Wht wud u say abt d rafale's performance compared 2 EF!!!!!
Wht's d story abt su-30s. Is it true tht they got d same amount of RCS, jst lyk jumbo transporters possess!!!!! I don't believe it man.
And also can u get me d link of images u earlier mentioned of being su-30 internal weapons bay mod?

Mr. Ra 13 said...

There were olden days and during those times it was good that US never wanted India and China to become mutual friends, so they attempted that way. However it was not good that the US always longed for a covert and beneficial relationship with China than with an open friendship with India. Obviously being the strongest democracy, they have practically succeeded everywhere during the contemporary times.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To RAD: As I had explained to RAJ earlier, sensitive US-origin hardware was not procured simply because India had developed her own product substitutes that are already on board the two P-8Is that are now flying. These include National Secure Mode (NSM) IFF transponders, radio comms hardware, plus voice/data secrecy encryption systems associated with indigenous SATCOM equipment/protocols. Had these product substitutes not been integrated or interfaced, they would not be flying right now.

To BRADSHAW: Neither the IAF nor the UAEAF ever wanted the immediate availability of uprated M88 turbofans. Insiuead, what was sought & has been promised is the future availability of such turbofans as part of a staggered multi-phase upgrade roadmap. Rafale’s manoeuvrability or for that matter the EF-2000’s manoeuvrability pales in comparison to the manoeuvrability & agility displayed by HMD-cued AAMs. Therefore, neither instantaneous nor sustained aircraft manoeuvrability is a critical issue in contemporary dissimilar air combat scenarios. Once the Meteor BVRAAM becomes available from MBDA, it will make a critical difference for BVR combat. Therefore, when comparing the Rafale to the EF-2000, all these fact ors should be taken into account. If an air force can overcome intellectual hurdles & evolve audacious offensive air campaigns that make extensive use of UAVs like anti-radar drones & long-range PGMs like BrahMos or Nirbhay, in the opening phases of an air campaign, then iot makes no difference whether a M-MRCA has a RCS of 15 square metres or 150 square metres.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Anon@7.31PM: Those performance parameters are still classified. 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. Going for DDGs & FFGs of Western origin will make the IN bankrupt, as they never come cheap compared to what comes from Russia. Right now, the Yantar Shipyard JSC is in an excellent position to expedite the deliveries of the three Batch 3 Project 1135.6 FFGs since its workforce is now fully well-versed in the construction of such vessels and the shipyard’s logistics pipeline for outsourced raw materials is also at its optimum level. Consequently, there won’t be any delays of the type witnessed during the construction of the three Batch 2 Project 1135.6 FFGs. The same goes for the four Project 15B DDGs& seven Project 17A FFGs. The Batch 3 Project 1135.6 FFGs, like their Batch 2 counterparts, will likely have the Barak-1 CIWS on-board. For the P-15 DDG SLEP, RAN-40L long-range radars are likely to be installed. Eight BrahMos on each DDG will be the standard fit. The VL-Shtil-1’s design is all-new. You can see it at:

To Anon@7.49PM: Apart from the Ariel active towed-decoy, there will be the MILDS MAWS from Cassidian & the Virgilius internal hammer from Italy’s Elettronica. In addition, there will be twin Russia-origin IRSTs (one in front of the cockpit & another aft of the cockpit) of the same type as that developed for the FGFA. The thrust-ratings of AL-31FP turbofans will be uprated by 20%. The upgrade prograame will cover the entire fleet in various phases. As to when it will get underway, & how many more Su-30MKIs are to be ordered, these are all under discussions & nothing’s been finalised.

To BUDDHA: No chance at all.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To JAGDISH KHANNA: Indian politicians do the same thing as well everytime Indian fishermen get killed by the Sri Lankan Navy, without even bothering to find out what wrong did the Indian fisherfolk do. Has anyone from India ever bothered to explain why it was perfectly right for the Sri Lankan Navy to open fire? Has anyone bothered to explain the terms & conditions of the maritime boundary demarcation between India & Sri Lanka, & what are the rules & regulations that Indian fisherfolk have to adhere to, which they frequently do not? As for the type of media reportage about India in Russian & Indian media, while some may describe the glass as being half-full, others tend to see it as half-empty. It’s all about perceptions. When it comes to India-Iran relations, the comments & views of structured debates within Israel’s mass-media will be totally different & not to India’s liking. Similarly, in Russia’s media entities, there’s no debate on how the Kremlin authorised the PAF’s JF-17s to be powered by RD-33/RD-93 turbofans, or how China has ‘bought’ USSR-era weapons technologies for developing its first aircraft carrier or the CJ-10/Babur cruise missiles. Anyone can conspire to instigate or provoke, but it is up to countries like India to be discerning. One can hardly hold the Anglo-Saxons responsible for the myopia & stupidity practiced by India’s founding fathers in the immediate post-independence era.

To ACCIDENTAL LOSER: I believe your questions were all answered above. AS for the photo of the Su-30’s internal weapons bay mod, it is available somewhere in one of the threads of KEY PUBLISHING’s aviation forums.

Nair said...

Hi Prasun,
Do you think the collaboration between Russia (or USSR) and India was at least 20 years late? I used to wonder in spite of only major country who supported USSR, there were no military collaborations nor major exercises between India & USSR.

One can understand the status of Russia after the collapse of communism in USSR. Even after that, one do not see much collaboration, except the BraMos and recently the PAK-FA. One reason could be India's lack of scientific talents. Is there any other reason?

I also would like to know the present standard of Russian Military technology. What Russian weapons/ships/fighters/submarines/missiles are same standard as those from Western countries, if not better?

Just a few thanks are not enough for you. Thank you very much for hosting this blog as well as for replying to readers comments and questions.

Lastly; Is there any reason from your side for not replying to "Ex Intelligence's" comment?


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.

accidental loser said...

Nop Prasun, U still hvn't specified flanker's RCS. Hop u zero on a single digit number in the ans.
& BTW on ur last post an ex-af did sm interesting comments. Why don't u take a peek thr!!!!