Total Pageviews

Wednesday, November 21, 2012

Iron Dome Under Indian Army’s Scanner

The operational performance of Israel’s ‘Iron Dome’ tactical air-defence system, which earlier this week underwent its first ‘baptism by fire’ in Israel, is being closely monitored by the Indian Army, which became interested in ‘Iron Dome’ as far back as 2007 and is most likely to procure it (at least four Regiments) and integrate it with its land-mobile battlespace Air Defence Control & Reporting System (ADC & RS), which is due to become operational by 2017.    
The ‘Iron Dome’ system, jointly developed by RAFAEL and Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI), comprises the hit-to-kill Tamir guided-missile from RAFAEL, and the command-and-control system centered around a version of the active phased-array EL/M-2084 multi-mode radar (already being procured by the Indian Air Force under the brand-name Arudhra) that was developed by the ELTA Systems Ltd subsidiary of IAI. Upon initially detecting am incoming threat (whether MBRL rocket or mortar round), the EL/M-2084 estimates the precise location of the impact area so as to be able to warn the relevant population or deployed friendly ground forces in that area in good time, and provide the necessary data to the system to support decision-taking regarding the launching of a Tamir interceptor-missile (for example, an interceptor is not launched if the impact area is defined by the system as being uninhabited). The EL/M-2084 was designed to provide very accurate target location information throughout the targetted rockets’ trajectories, and so allow the interceptor-missile to be directed accurately towards its target. This has allowed ELTA to develop a relatively low-cost interceptor system which ‘takes command’ only in the final phase before actually intercepting the target.
Being an AESA-based radar, the EL/M-2084 is extremely reliable and has high operational availability. It is capable of performing many missions simultaneously (interleaved operations) such as locating and targetting launched threats, air-defence, and interception support, so that diverse missions can be performed by a single radar, as opposed to in the past, when special-purpose radars had to be allocated for each mission.
A fully operational Iron Dome-specific EL/M-2084 MMR was showcased for the very first time in India during the Aero India 2011 expo in Bengaluru in February 2011, while the Tamir interceptor-missile was showcased during both Aero India 2011 (photos below) and the DEFEXPO 2012 expo in New Delhi last March-April.


Anonymous said...

Sir this is gun -

can you open this file?

Anonymous said...

Prasun da,

How India will counter the 220km range Norinco guided AR3 370 mm MRLS Multiple rocket launcher system which i think will be a game changer in future Indo-pak & Indo-china conflicts? The IA is not even equipped with 120km range MRLS system. Does the IA plan to acquire 180km MRLS Multiple rocket launcher system in future? Will the Iron Dome be able to counter the AR3 370 mm MRLS system?

Does Iron Dome has anti-missile capability?

Will the first SU-30MKI which will undergo routine overhaul be upgraded to Super Sukhoi standard in future? If not how many SU-30MKI be upgraded to Super Sukhoi standard? How many SU-30MKI will be in the IAF after the deal for 50 Super SU-30MKI be signed? Some article say that it will be about 270 while others say that it will be about 310. Which is true?

Thank you.

rad said...

HI Prasun
Why cant we base our cruise missile defense system on the iron dome and the david sling system as all of our airdefence radars will be of israeli origin they can be easily networked and all we have to do is to order more aerostat phased array radars to complete the system This should be a good equal to the american JLENS cruise missile defense.
IN that case how do we protect our aerostats?

Anonymous said...

Hi, The first 50 Sukhoi-30 were sent to Irkutsk for refurbishing and routine overhaul. But wont they be eventually upgraded with MIRES AESA, MSWS , new EW suite , new glass cockpit , uprated engines along with the rest of 270 Sukhoi-30 ?

Isnt the whole Sukhoi-30 upgrade programme divided into two parts. A part will be upgraded to Super standard. These acs can be discriminated from the rest as they can carry Brahmos and will be fitted with L-band skin AESA . These along with the rset of Sukhois will get aesa, RF jammer , MSWS, Tarang mk3, uprated AL-31FP , new glass cockpits, new OLS and a rear IRST for full 360 degree coverage.

This is in general for all Su-30 and not the first 50. As you said they will get uprated engines. "The uprated engine will also employ a larger diameter fan, redesigned key hot-end components and cooling system technologies to permit reduced thrust lapse rates with altitude, which in turn will permit supercruise flight regimes. Also to be incorporated into the uprated engine will be new-generation full-authority digital engine controls (FADEC) as well as all-axis thrust-vectoring nozzles (±15 degrees in the vertical plane and ±8 degrees in the horizontal plane, with deflection angle rates of up to 60 degrees per second). At the present moment are they correct - uprated engines with all-axis thrust vectoring and offering super-cruise.

Pls clarify.

Rahul said...

Hi Prasun , Are you very sure about the fact that IA will buy atleast 4 regiments of Iron Dome.

Cant Iron Dome intercept 155mm artillery rounds and mortar rounds as widely publicised by Rafael .

In India's case , we will be facing strikes of long range MLRS from our immediate neighbours. So can Tamir missiles intercept and shoot down rockets with 120 km + range like A-100,A-200,WS-1B,WS-2,3,AR-3,AR-2 ? The threats faced by Israel is different from those faced by IA.Unless Tamir missile can be customised to face these threats it wont be very useful.

What is the range of Tamir interceptor ? How agile is the missile?

Can Tamir intercept subsonic terrain hugging cruise missiles like Raad , Babur and supersonic cruise missiles ? Can it intercept fighter jets and helicopters as reported by IAI.

A new variant of Iron Dome is avialable.IA should go Iron Dome 2.What are the improvements to Tamir missile in Iron Dome 2?

If IA procures this system IAI & Rafale will customise Tamir to meet the challenges , threats of long range MLRS faced by Army.

IA & IAF can also go for Stunner missile of David's Sling which is an anti-missile missile for intercepting NLOS-BSM, very long range rocket system, both sub & supersonic cruise missiles.

Waiting for your Project Sanjay.

Anonymous said...


In a recent article in SP aviation experts think IAF need close to 30 AWACS and AWAECS aircrafts while indian chief of staff have openely stated they 20 AWACS (like Phalcon) and 9 ISR aircrafts (not yet finalized only RFI issued). ANd the starnge thing is IAF is going ahead with the plan.
IAF also wants clost to 10 more C17.
Similarly IN wants 12 more LRMR (there are speculation that it might even be a different platform) but Boeing thinks they have a market of 10 billion $ of maritime patrol aircraft in India.
According to some speculations Ah64 might be selected by IA also and considering this too to be a very big order.
My question is can these deals really happen ? I am asking because armed forces wants them and i doubt government will sanction it. Do you think Finance ministry willsanction it ?

I would really appreciate if you give us the information about the new bullet proof light weight jacket that will be procured by IA for infantry (trials in beginning of 2012) and the laptops and wristpads for the infantary ? Whats the progress and how many of these will be procured and from whom ? Can we expect some domestic supplier for these two ?

Whats the progress of MARCOS modernisation plan and IA's infantary moderfnisation plan ? You said subsidaries of gerneral dynamics and raytheon were selected for those plans ?

WHat do you think about the ANil Kakodkars latest comment about india's capability to build nuclear powered AC and warships ?

ALSO DURING THE RECENT LAUNCH OF ARIHANT PM said he would be sanctioning more such submarines. MOD and CCS alreay cleared till A5 or A6. Is there indication of the sanctioning of the next class of SSBN ?

Whats the progress of the AVRO replacement project for IAF ? Any idea which indian private sector will be selected for this ?

In the last post i asked about reusable missile and you said it isw misinterpreted, its loitering UAV but you didn't told me whether there is any plan to develop any such platform which could launched and recovered later and which could also deploy A-to-G weapons ? don't care if its a loitering uav or if its uav following cruise missile trajectory. I am asking this because such project will be very economical.

OFB Jabalpu build a 155mm gun. Its trrial is gonna start this year. Is it true ?

Spain is asking for closer relationship. Why don't we purchase Spain's share in Barracuda UCAV project ? Its gonna get cancelled anyway.

Why aren't we using HALBIT's cockpit NG in Super Sukhoi ? If not can we expect it on FGFA ?

What going on with K4 missile ? The first test was in 2010 and then for two years no news ABOUT IT. Alsao is the work on MIRV and SLBM version of A5 started ?

There were some old reports about drdo wanting to build Ashwin SAM with the interceptors of BMD program. Is it true or mere speculation?

raw13 said...

Problem for IA & IN is that Pak is creating a killing zone upto 250 km from the border/coast. This is being done by cheap, accurate, reliable land based systems. This tier is defensive in nature. The second tier is the Baburs, Raads, H series glide bombs, CM-400, MR-1(anti-rad), exocet, harms, YJ83s, etc. this tier is either ship, submarine and or air based. FC1 can carry two of these!!! This tier is offensive in nature. irrespective of how many radars, anti-missile systems you have in place.this is the stuff of nightmares. Want proof: look what the argentina did with 5 exocets at the max range of thier fighters. The IN is no better if not worse condition than the RN was then. There are other factors, p3c's, awacs, a2a refulelers and oh the daddy of them all the drones...especially the small stealthy ones (and armed)!!! Now throw into this mix a hypersonic CM400 (mach 5.5+), its like bringing a gun to a knife fight.

These systems allow pak to degrade Indian systems before they get into teh 250km killing range, be it on land sea or air!!! Also look up what hezbulleh's 2 CM did to super hi-tech israeli navy ship.I so want the IN to blockage the Pak ports.

Anonymous said...


1.In BMP-2K deep upgrade the turret is getting an upgrade with new fire-control systems and new ATGM .

2. Is there any upgrade to the armour package of hull and turret included in the package ? Are extra add-on armour blocks to be fitted ?

3. When will this upgrade start ?

4. I didnt want to know the SAR seeker of Brahmos LACM.What is the use of X-band SAR in Brahmos LACM ? GPS coordinates of the target building can be fed into the inertial nav system and the missile will fly to this point ?

5.What has taken the place of BMP-1 in IA ?

6.Which one is IA's preferred choice among Spyder-SR,VL Mica,Iris-SLS ?

7.What is the SL-QRM requirement ?

8.As Sukhoi airframes have been sent to Irkut , the no of operational acs in the squadrons have come down. When will deliveries start ?

9. After upgradation , AL-31FP will have horizontal axis TVC capabilties . You said so.

10. What is the status of GTRE-Snecma JV for Kaveri engine ?

11.The 80 modernisation projects of IA are they part of Project Sanjay ? Waiting for this thread. Hope you will provide some details about these projects.

12.What is the reason behind saying IAF's ever expanding IACCCS network ? Are more new radars being procured ?

13.As part of 42 Super Sukhoi procurement will they be weapons purchase of R-77, R-73,R-27,Kh-31,Kh-59,EW pods ?

14. What is the use of laser warner in an air-superiority fighter ? They must be MAWS.

15. French airforce dont want uprated M88. Its IAF who only wants themfor improved performance in hot and high conditions.

Sayan said...

Sir , Plasma stealth uses a plasma generator to create an ionized field around the ac. F-22 doesnt use this tech. There are serious doubts on usage of plasma stealth in B-2. On small fighter acs like PAK-FA plasma stealth cant be used .

Antony wants indigenous aircraft carrier delivered soon

Indian aircraft carrier: More costly, already delayed

Antony can double the workforce working on IAC-1 .He can also introduce double or triple shifts instead of the present single shift . In this way the completion date can forwarded.

Hope IA goes for a customised version of Iron Dome with improved Tamir interceptors for longer range rocket threats in the 150 km class. Hope it goes for David Sling as well.

ARE THERE PLANS OF UPGRADING ALL Sukhoi-30 with AESA, MAWS,Virgilus EW suite, higher thrust AL-31FP with improved TTSL.

Anonymous said...


84 F-15SA,300 AIM-9X Sidewinder , 500 AIM-120C/7 Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missiles (AMRAAM),1,000 of Lockheed Martin’s 500 pound Dual Mode Laser/Global Positioning System (GPS) Guided Munitions (DMLGB).
1,000 of Lockheed Martin’s 2,000 pound DMLGBs
1,100 GBU-24 Paveway-III 2,000 pound Laser Guided Bombs, with penetrator warheads for use against hardened targets.
1,000 GBU-31Bv3 2,000 pound Joint Direct Attack Munitions (JDAM) GPS/INS guided bombs.
1,300 CBU-105D/B Sensor Fuzed Weapons (SFW)/Wind Corrected Munitions Dispenser (WCMD). These are GPS-guided cluster bombs that can destroy both troops and tanks.

400 AGM-84,800 AGM-88,169 AN/AAS-42 Infrared Search and Track (IRST),158 AN/AAQ-33 Sniper advanced surveillance and targeting pods.,193 LANTIRN

LANTIRN,SNIPER for every F-15. Quite contrary to IAF prcatise of having one targetting pod for every two ac and even then having crucial EW pods, targetting pods at 30 percent of required nos. So much A2G ordance. IAF needs to follow this.

Anonymous said...

There will be a list of 150-180 ‘Make’ projects that (the MoD) will put on the web.
Other than FICV, TCS which other projects are like these ?

When can we see improvement in the indian naval designs of our shipyards considering taxpayers are spending a lot of money for modernisation and consultations from Swedish, french, italian shipyards ?

Why doesn't Indian shipyards try to find market in ASEAN region ? They need to modernise their navies while China can't help them here. If we wait long either korean or japanese shipyard will take away what could be a new market for india.

Anonymous said...

Hi Prasun,

nstead of remaining restrained and no trying to pursue challenging projects like AMCA and AURA, It would be worth a million to give a whole hearted effort by our technological institutions. By this way we will be stepping few more steps towards indegenization.

As per your statements regarding Army FMBT (Piggy backing on Russian R & D by not formulating GSQR) is disheartening to hear. why the armed forces were not made accountable for Indigenous efforts. It is only when the world stops selling their weapons will the armed forces look towards indigenous efforts?

Israeli Merkava (even though not at its best) is introduced into IDF and gradually improved to its current form. Why can't Indian Army also choose the same path.

China buying the entire production line of TU-22 M3 Bombers (Even though speculated to be out dated in design) and mass producing them should irk concerns in India. Why IAF is not looking forward for introducing Bombers into its squadrons (Maintaining a cutting edge bomber fleet).

Like FGFA, India can participate in Russian future Strategic/Tactical bomber project. which could be real worth a learning curve for Indian Aviation Industry.

Can Indian navy explore this option

Developing similar class of battle cruisers with 14000 tons of displacement carrying more fire power and stronger air defense will be helpful in superior force projections.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Anon@10.26AM: That’s the SRCM system from OFB that’s been developed for installation on naval vessels & MPVs, & not on MBTs since there’s not enough space on the MBT’s turret-top to install such systems. Smaller RCWS are reqd for MBTs.

To Anon@10.41AM: In terms of offense, long-range MBRLs can be targetted by NLOS-BSMs like Prahaar & its planned follow-on variants. In terms of defence, Iron Dome-type systems will have to be acquired, since an incoming MBRL rocket has a steady trajectory & is incapable of intelligent terminal manoeuvres. Iron Dome’s command-and-control sub-system has anti-missile capabilities, nu the Tamir SAM doesn’t. For defeating subsonic & supersonic cruise missiles, the Iron Dome incorporates a plug-n-play system that can easily accommodate elements like SpyDer-SR & even Barak-2 MR-SAM omtp the overall network.
As I had explained earlier in the previous thread, the IAF has changed its earlier plans to upgrade its first 50 Su-30MKIs into Super Su-30MKIs when they undergo life-extension, & will instead subject them to the ‘deep upgrade’ programme at a later date. The first 42 Super Su-30MKIs to be acquired will be ordered on December 2.

To RAD: That is exactly what will happen, with the only new elements being the Tamir SAM launchers. David’s Sling is not reqd since that role will be taken over by the 70km-range Barak-2 MR-SAM. Aerostats are located well inside Indian airspace & won’t face any danger from hostile guided-missiles.

To Anon@12.41PM: 1) That will happen at a later date not only with the first 50 Su-30MKis, but also for the rest of the fleet of Su-30MKIs. 2) Uprated AL-31FPs with all-axis TVC will go into all Su-30MKIs after 2016 since NPO Saturn will by then be able to undertake series-production of such turbofans. Right now, these uprated turbofans are not available due to delayed R & D cycles & hence it was decided by IAF not to wait for them & not delay the life-extensions for the first 50 Su-30MKIs of 2002-2003 vintage.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To RAHUL: 4 Regiments is the minimum baseline reqmt. The Tamir SAM was never developed to intercept field artillery rounds. It can intercept all types of medium-range & long-range MBRLs out to a distance of 6km, since the greater the time spent by the incoming MBRL rockets in the air, the better the prospects of a successful interception. Agility is not required from the Tamir since the targets to be destroyed themselves are not agile & follow a predictable flight trajectory without any evasive terminal manoeuvring. Stunner from RAFAEL isn’t reqd since the Barak-2 from IAI will be available for both the IA & IAF.

To Anon@3.14PM: 1) Those projections are correct since whatever’s been ordered to date or tendered out represents only the minimum baseline capability for the three armed services & I had successively in the past stated the final expected quantities of such systems, all of which can be easily acquired if the armed forces do some kind of force restructuring/rationalization so that funding is released for such capital procurements. The first 22 AH-64Ds are already going to the IA & there’s nothing more to select. BPJs & all other kits fir infantrymen will probably be imported. As for SSBNs, only S-2/3/4/5 vessels have been sanctioned. OFB’s 155mm/45-cal 155mm howitzer has been undergoing firing trials at PEE in Balasore since last year.

To Anon@3.16PM: The five AM-39s of Argentina never scored any direct hits for as long as the RN’s task force was in the open seas. Hits were scored only after the RN’s warships began moving into the bays & coves in the Falklands. In an India-Pakistan scenario, no IN warships will face any geographical limitations of the type experienced by the RN in mid-1982 & therefore any threats from guided-missiles like CM-400AKG, C-802A, C-602 & AGM-84A Harpoons will be easily countered by suitable tactical deployments all in the high seas. The principle limitation of Pakistan is its elongated geography, which in turn greatly simplifies the attacker’s RSTA/ISR reqmts. As for the CM-400AKG, despite all the bluster & claims emanating from PAF sources, a simple examination of the missile-body reveals that its maximum range is no more than 100km of powered flight & its cruise speed is most unlikely to attain even Mach 2.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Anon@5.45PM: 2) Only BUSK add-on armour. 3) Not yet known. 4) How does none obtain precise GPS coordinates of targets deep inside enemy territory? 5) More BMP-2s. 6) SpyDer-SR. 7) SL-QRM & SR-SAM are the same but different designations are used by the IA & IAF. 8) After eight months. 9) Not after this upgrade-cycle, but at a later date. 14) Laser Warner alerts the pilot to laser illumination by both land-based SHORADS as well as by hostile rangefinders embedded within IRST systems BEFORE any missile is fired & is therefore of vital importance when initiating evasive manoeuvres.

To SAYAN: Whether or not the F/A-22 raptor uses plasma-stealth technologies will be revealed long after such aircraft have been committed to combat in future. The B-2 has always used such low-observability/speed engancing techniques. Doubling the workforce for fabricating IAC-1 won’t expedite the vessel’s commissioning since that is not the main reason for the delay.

To Anon@8.17PM: There’s plenty more, like IACCCS, ADC & RS, BMS, BSS, CIDSS, CMS, PSS, MALE-UAV, MALE-UCAV, PDV, AD-1/AD-2, etc. Indigenous design of naval warships can’t be improved unless India has in-house capabilities for doing peer-reviews of such designs. Private-sector shipyards are already top-notch, such as those of Pipavav Defence & Larsen & Toubro. And who says China can’t help ASEAN navies? China had supplied four Jianghu-4 FFGs to Thailand as far back as 1988 & has since sold more such FFGs to Myanmar, OPVs to Thailand, IPVs to Cambodia & ship-launched/air-launched C-705 ASCMs to Indonesia. MoD-owned shipyards just can’t compete with their European, Scandinavian & Russian counterparts in areas like warship design validation, delivery timescales & systems integration.

To Anon@9.27PM: Instead of AMCA & AURA, all R & D efforts now ought to be focussed on expediting the development of Rustom-1 MALE-UAV (which by the way was promised for delivery to the IA last year!), Rustom-2 MALE-UAV, & a twin-engined MALE-UAV that can evolve into a re-usable UCAV. Development of an all-new turbofan design in cooperation with SNECMA can be completed within five years, if the will is there. The existing Kaveri can easily be used on board a home-grown HALE-UAV. These are far less risky & less technologically demanding projects that can be expedited & can be produced in large numbers, since the requirements for the three armed services is quite large. The IA-supported FMBT project will be similar to what’s being done with the MRTA & FGFA projects in terms of risk-sharing Indian R & D participation & product development. Russia will never sell its Tu-22M3 production line to China, rest assured. Nor does China require any strategic bombers since its threats are not global, but strictly regional in nature.

Anonymous said...

Sir when will the first Saryu-class OPV be commissioned?

Anonymous said...

@ Prasun
Are the tracks of Turkey's 55 tonnes ALTAY MBT imported? What else are they importing?

How would you compare it with the Arjun?

Anonymous said...

Sir does India have any S-300PMU SAMs in inventory?

Soom 350+ million USD more have been released for construction of the IAC-1 carrier, of what significance is this development?

Will IN buy mid-air refuellers for itself to refuel MiG-29Ks, P-8Is, and N-LCA Mk-2?

Anonymous said...

Prasunda is India interested in acquiring S-400 or the in-development S-500 SAMs?

Anonymous said...

If SPain is offering Super Scorpene, what are French offering in P75I submarine project ?

Germans are offering U214 ?

There's a buzz on the web that Indo-Rusian SAM was just a mode for Israel for gathering funds for their David's Sling. David Sling is now considering the upgrade of MRSAM which is not yet build. Is it true ?

Whats the progress of Marcos and army's infantry modernisation program for which GD Dynamics and Raytheon's subsidaries?

Any new state of the art platform being offered by US to INdia like P8I or APache block 3 ? India is the first customer for the above two ?

can we expect the result of FICV anytime soon ? I mean the two finalized vendors. Also we would appreciate if you post pics of proposed designs for FICV by vendors other than Tata ?

raw13 said...


You are seriously mistaken if you think HMS sheffield was sunk in the bays and coves of falklands!!!
The ship was on defensive watch over 100 miles out to sea.

have a look at the map where it was hit:

infact it was not sunk by the missile because the warhead never exploded but after being towed in "high seas" to port.

whilst you are at it look up USS Stark being hit by iraqi exocets!!!

For any naval captain worth his salt, anti-ship missile is a nightmare and you hope that your defences and luck makes the missle miss. here i am talking of one subsonic missle being fired. Now when you ask them what happens when a number of supersonic are fired, most of them will just smile and say pray that they miss. The defences have no chance!!! And this was from the captain of Aegis class cruiser. if i am correct one Aegis class cruiser has more fire-power than the entire IN.

wrt chinese weapons, i remember reading indian commentators saying that j-10/fc-1 were paper planes. That j-20 was photoshopped and then had russian engines in it! and now you can tell the speed of a missle just by looking at it. WOW respect man!

Also iron dome has been an utter failure. less than 20% of the rockets were intercepted. fact. IAF has complete air control, they have 3d view of rockets coming from an extremely small area and yet still such a low hit. As one israeli commentators said we will be bankrupt if we continue using iron dome.

Anonymous said...

sir ,
when will u post PROJECT SANJAY thread??
2) what will be the composition of each iron dome regiment..i mean the no. of batteries & launchers loaders etc for each of them ??
3) how will iron dome be employed..
i mean will it be given to each stike corp or something or will it be randomly deployed anywhere as needed ??
4)& sir , y do we need to import infantry kits & BPJs & helmets when we manufacture them in country..
i understand tata & mdu udyog manufacture these things..& these kits can be easily developed in house..moreover we require more than a million of y import ??
5)normaly when we see pics of western forces in iraq & afghanistan..all of them(whether they are arty , cav. or armoured troops) have extensive protective gear..
but as far as i know such gear is not available to every infantry soldier in india..leave aside armour or artillery troops..
what is being done in this direction ??

Rahul said...

Hi Prasun, Are you sure that Tamir interceptor, Iron Dome will be able to intercept 120-200 km MLRS rockets like A-100,200;WS-1B,2,3 & AR3 370mm because it was created with 70 km max rockets in mind like Grad . 120+ km missiles is to be taken care with Stunner missiles of David Sling .

The longer range MBRL in 90-200 km class are all guided. They have inertial navigation with GPS or similar navigation. They are not like Grad rockets which will follow a fixed trajectory and EL/M-2084 can calculate the impact point and launch interceptors accordingly. The former rockets can be deliberately programmed to follow a different trajectory , one which is offset from the real flight to target by some degree. This will fool the Iron Dome system into thinking that they will not land on intended target. Very close to the target, the missile's onboard control & guidance system can take help pf inertial nav and then correct the path to fall on the desired target. At that point of time there will be no time left to effect an intercept.

Can Tamir intercept subsonic terrain hugging cruise missiles like Raad , Babur and supersonic cruise missiles although Barak-2,8 can take care of it but still ?

Will it be able to intercept fighter jets and helicopters.

6 km is too small a range. Isnt its range 10 km ? If any missile is carrying a chemical warhead , the contamination radius will be greater than 6 km. In any case if the blast radius becomes greater than 6 km ?

Is Tamir a hit to kill missile or uses a close-proximity detonation warhead ?

What are the improvements in Iron Dome 2 system ?

Stunner will be better than Barak-2 as it was conceived & optimised as an anti-missile weapon. It is not very costly and intercepting a threat with this missile will cost less than with Barak-2.

Hope that Tamir is able to intercept LACM,ALCM both subsonic & supersonic as well as ARM and standoff PGM. Then it will be a truely versatile sam system . Lets pray that IA orders at least 4 regiments of this system.

Has IA placed any firm orders of Barak-2 ?

Anonymous said...

Sir, Uprated AL-31FP with all-axis thrust vectoring are currently available and is in mass production as Item-117S or AL-31FN for Su-35BM . IAF wont have to wait till 2016 for that.
At present , the first 50 Sukhois were sent for routine overhaul. Now, why are they indergoing life-extensions ? Sukhoi-30 mki has a 3000 hr or 25 yr lifespan. The first 50 is in service for around 10 years. It is not possible to complete all 3000 hours within 10 years . Maybe 1500 hrs were completed . So why life-extensions now ? Explain pls.
In these life-extension is the airframe zero-lifted ? Will the aircraft be able to fly another 6000 hrs after thses life-extension ?

IAF can do a selective upgrade now with the avionics and sensors barring the engines now .How many Su are planned to be upgarded to Super standard ?

Sayan said...

Sir, How can plasma technology be used to increase the speed of an aircraft ? Both B-2 and Black Manta are subsonic acs. B-2 sure is.

Russia and China reached preliminary agreement for 48 Su-35BMs. China intends to buy 48 Su-35BM. Will these acs be exactly same as Russian Su-35BM or downgraded variant ? Will it feature the highly advanced and capable Irbis E and increased thrust Item-117S . Dont you its only a matter of time before Cninese institutes starts reverse-engineering them and produce their own family of radars and engines. Uptill now all Chinese MMR are slooted planar arry designs. So, they are very eager to lay their hands on phased arry design.

When will Barak-2 and LR-SAM emerge and get inducted into armed forces ? How many LR-SAM for IAF are on order book of Nova systems ?

Sayan said...

Sir, Project Sanjay pls.

IA must order Iron Dome systems. Exporting Su-35BM to PLAN is a bad decision of Russian MoD.

Regarding BPJ how many are needed? What level bulletproof protectiom will they offer ?

Anonymous said...

Hi Prasun,

Does Russia really sell china Su 35BM, because all the reports say they came to a formal agreement and again Russia is afraid of selling it as Chinese may copy cat it.

Is Developing an standard Infantry rifle as per army's requirements is a risky R&D program?

What is the Ideal displacement of the to be build LPD's (About 25000 tons? similar to the displacement of Jhalaswa)

Compared to the chinese Type 54A frigate, where Shivalik stands? Does Shivalik edge out?

How good is GTRE developed Kaveri engine. Where it stands in terms of generation of engine.

DRDO already had a design of Wankel engine that is working on Nishant. Shouldn't is be a good option to continue the R&D and produce even powerful engines which could well pave them selves into future UAVs...

Isn't it a good option for DRDO, GTRE technocrats to think about the option of developing a PROP Fan engine (Ultra High By Pass Ratio Turbo Fan) for MTRA (Which could help GTRE to step ahead in powering Cargo planes like MRTA and future passenger aircrafts that were in design table. (This in lieu with the development of a cutting edge Low By Pass Ratio Turbo Fan which could power LCA and Future Indian born aircrafts)

Anonymous said...

Hi Prasunda

What are the limitations of the F35when it comes to air superiority role?What is the difference between range and Ferry range?What is F 35 s overall range?If F 35 was offered for mmrca and it was able to enter service in 2015.What would have been the IAF s choice ..Rafale or F35....VMT

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Anon@9.58AM: Your guess is as good as mine.

To Anon@10.33AM: The entire Altay MBT is being imported, for starters, leave alone the tracks. It is the K-2 MBT from South Korea with some Turkey-specific iterations. Turkish content will be increased in a progressive manner.

To Anon@12.12PM: India never imported any members of the S-300 LR-SAM family. The US$350 million is not any extra expenditure, but part of the total project cost. The forex amount is being progressively released as orders have to be placed for hardware of Russian, US & Israeli origin, such as internal fitments for the maintenance bays, new gearboxes for the LM-2500 gas-turbines, EL/M-2246 MF-STAR radar & Barak-2 MR-SAMs. The IN wants carrier-based aerial refuelling systems, not land-based ones.

To Anon@12.25PM: Not at all.

To Anon@2.56PM: The S-80 Super Scorpene is a joint France-Spain programme in which Navantia is prime contractor & DCNS is the principal sub-contractor for items like SUBTICS CMS, IPMS, etc. There’s no such project for India-Russian SAM. Selection of principal vendor for FICV project will take more time to reach fruition since it is a unique Greenfield programme for the IA.

To Anon@4PM: 1) Relax, what’s the hurry? 2) Standard format of six launchers per Battery, three Batteries per Regiment. The rest can be gauged from the photos uploaded above. 3) It will be embedded within the IA’s Artillery Divisions, since these Divisions will be the principal targets of long-range MBRLs. 4) BPJs & helmets from abroad are now available at bargain-basement prices since a lot of them are available ex-stock, since such orders placed earlier by NATO’s ISAF forces in Afghanistan have/are still being cancelled as more & more NATO forces withdraw from Afghanistan before 2014. 5) That’s because life is very cheap & has little value in India. That could also perhaps explain why the IAF’s MiG-21s, MiG-23BNs & MiG-27Ms never had flare countermeasures dispensers prior to OP Vijay in 1999, & why mechanised minefield clearing vehicles were procured only after OP Parakram.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To RAHUL: Pre-planned product improvement is a continuous process & therefore enhanced, follow-on versions of hit-to-kill Tamir have already been developed. Long-range MBRLs of Russian & Chinese origin are still not guided & even if they will be in future, they still will not be capable of changing trajectories. Those rockets that can do so are NLOS-BSMs. Tamir can intercept cruise missiles but its warhead isn’t as big as that of a SHORADS & therefore for guaranteed interceptions & neutralization of subsonic cruise missiles, combat aircraft & helicopters, SHORADS is the preferred option. 6km is the effective range. Chemical weapons will never be used against India since those that could use them have already ratified the UN ban on chemical weapons. Since Barak-2 is being acquired in large numbers by the IAF & IN, it will be cheaper to procure for the IA as well. The only sure-kill option against ARMs or standoff PGMs is the directed-energy weapon & nothing else can be realistically expected to become a substitute. IA will place orders in future for Barak-2.

To Anon@7.13PM: Item 117S is not the same as uprated AL-31FP, nor is the 117S flkying on the PAK-FA with all-axis TVC nozzles. AL-31FN is for J-10 & not Su-35BM & A-31FN too is devoid of TVC nozzles. The first 50 Su-30MKIs are now undergoing service-life extension after attaining their TBOs after logging in 1,500 flight hours. TTSL is 3,000 hours. After 3,000 hours, there will be TTSL extension that will enable the aircraft to fly for another 2,000 hours, if reqd. Selective or deep upgrade for avionics is done only when the TTSL extension option is exercise, as in the case of MiG-29B-12s now being upgraded to MiG-29UPGs.

To SAYAN: Not plasma technology, but application of the laws of plasma physics, which result in 80% airframe drag reduction. That’s how the B-2 & Black Manta attain supersonic cruise speeds. Till today, China has never succeeded in reverse-engineering any item that it procured from Russia since 1989. Even on the Shenyang J-11A/B China installed the very same avionics suite that it had developed for the Chengdu J-10 & Xian JH-7A. All that China has succeeded from acquiring from Ukraine are design blueprints & production-engineering data from Ukraine regarding the Su-33 & its on-board avionics, all for the Shenyang J-15 carrier-based MRCA which too uses AL-31F turbofans imported directly from Russia. Similarly, the Shenyang J-31 uses the very same RD-93 turbofans as those found on the JF-17s/FC-1s. Presently, China accounts for 46% of Ukraine’s annual exports volume. Therefore, it is not Russia, but Ukraine & some Baltic States that have helped China reverse-engineer several types of Soviet-era military hardware.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Anon@10.34PM: As I’ve explained above, it is almost impossible to reverse-engineer any piace of hardware originating from Russia. And since Ukraine has never had any involvement with the Su-35BM programme, China will never be able to reverse-engineer any part of the Su-35BM. Furthermore, it is the PLAN that wants the Su-35BM to counter the procurement of F-35 JSF by Japan’s ASDF. Development of small arms has never been a problem in India. It is the manufacturing component that has always lagged behind due to extremely poor QA & QCs, something that even the DRDO now acknowledges. The IN’s reqmt is for LPHs, not LPDs & therefore the LPH will displace something closer to 30,000 tonnes. Project 17 FFG is definitely a few notches above the Type 054A FFG in terms of both mission sensor suite & weapons package. Kaveri would have been good in the early 1980s for combat aircraft, but not today.
Wankel engine option is good for tactical MALE-UAVs, but the future lies in turbofan-powered UAVs that they can loiter at higher altitudes & can have faster reaction times when required to be present in a particular area. On paper, prop-fan sounds good, but presently there is neither the financial base nor the human resource base reqd for conducting R & D in such areas in India.

To Anon@2.36AM: Limitations vis-à-vis which other combat aircraft? There’s combat range, or combat radius, and there’s ferry range. Overall-range = combat radius x 2. The IAF’s choice would still have been the Rafale, because the F-35 JSF works best only as part of an overall network like Cooperative Engagement Capability that is available to only NATO member-states, Israel & Japan.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To RAW13: You’ve come around as being yet another entity that has proven that “assumption is always the mother of all fuck-ups”. For I’ve never ever claimed that HMS Sheffield was sunk in any bay or cove in or around the Falklands. What I was alluding to (something that you’ve evidently failed to grasp) was the standard naval deployment tactics adopted by the Royal Navy in lieu of launching amphibious assault & vertical envelopment operations. Furthermore, it would be ill-informed on your part to assert that warship vulnerabilities to ASCM strike prevalent in the 1980s are still prevailing in the present-day period. Again, navies make investments in carrier-borne AEW & C platforms just to ensure that hostile airborne platforms do not even get the chance to launch their ASCMs, be them subsonic or supersonic. And as for your delusional claim of a USN Ticonderoga-class cruiser (Aegis is the combat management system, & not any class of warships, grow up!!!), I won’t dignify your ill-conceived rant with any comment.
WRT weapons of Chinese origin, the FC-1 was indeed a paper design from the mid-1980s (born as the Super 7, then crawling as the Super 7 & finally jogging as the FC-1) till 2000. Nor is the production history that glorious, considering that even after importing 100 RD-93s, less than 35 FC-1s/JF-17s have been produced between 2003 and now. Lastly, there’s a lot more that one can tell about a missile by just looking at it, like the CM-400AKG’s poster showing the missile with extended control-fins on the main body & four tail-fins, while the full-scale mock-up of the missile shown alongside a PAF JF-17 shows the missile with much smaller control-fins on the main body. Now, only someone with peanut-sized brains will demand respect for a weapon shown by its OEM with such design inconsistencies, wouldn’t he?
Regarding Iron Dome, of course less than 20% of the rockets were intercepted, since the remaining 80% were way off their target & either fell harmlessly in uninhabited territory or into the sea. And contrary to your absurd claims of Iron Dome being an utter failure, only 48 hours ago IAI had invited all Israeli-based journalists to visit its facilities just to show them how IAI’s personnel were working round-the-clock to deliver several additional EL/M-2084 MMRs recently ordered by the IDF—something which was telecast worldwide. WOW respect man!

Anonymous said...

You wrote " In terms of offense, long-range MBRLs can be targetted by NLOS-BSMs like Prahaar & its planned follow-on variants."
What is the planned follow-on variant and its features ?

And is there any other MBRL/MLRS other than that 120km range being developed ? When is the follow on order for more Pinaka is gonna be placed ? What are we doing to improve the accuracy of these systems and are we going for sensor-fuzed rockets also ?

Textron is making some other changes in its indian subsidary. What are they offering to indian armed forces ? Is GD offering us something ? Also how significant is CBU-105 sensor fuzed munitions in the IAF's operational doctorine and does it give IAF a significant edge over its rivals ?

Can you tell us more about DRDO's proposed anti-radiation missile ? And do you have the picture of India's Nirbhay cruise missile ? Is there a plan for a sea-skimming missile also ?

wHEN CAN WE EXPECT THE TESTING OF aKASH MK2 AND Pinaka mk2 ? Is the program for indigenous QRSAM abandoned (Trishul and then Maetri)?

If Snecma-GTRE deal is not stuck, is there any other option for India ? Can we get help from Eurojet ? Is there a thrust vecoring in the present version of Kaveri ? I am asking because GTRE's plan was to build an engine with thrust vectoring and which will help tejas to achieve supercruise at all altitudes.

How many UAV programs are going or planned by INdia other than Rustam family, NIrbhay, AURA and some mini UAV's like Netra ?

What is IN doing about the ship based rotor UAV ?

Did Tata signed an agreement with Israeli Urban Aeronautics for UAVs ? If yes then are they planning to sell us UAVs like airmule ? Look at this picture :

Anonymous said...

" The only sure-kill option against ARMs or standoff PGMs is the directed-energy weapon & nothing else can be realistically expected to become a substitute. "

Any progress on this end ? Our LAser projects are all meant for civilian purposes and scientists think if it can help military than it will be two birds killed with the same arrow.

"IA will place orders in future for Barak-2."
They issued a global RFI or RFP (i don't remember which one)in the beginning of this year for MRSAM. I think they will test all of them but as you said most likely it will be Indo-Israeli MRSAM. We have to note this point that IA hasn't selected a QRSAM/SRSAM yet, the reports of Spyder procured by IA is wrong. There were plans but in 2009 but nothing happened and thayts why IA also issued RFI for QRSAM/SRSAM as well as VSHORADs after General VK SIngh's famous letter to PM. VSHORADs trial is already over and now all the data will be compiled and studied for tewchnical evaluation. I think by the end of next financial year this deal will be signed and it will go upto 5 billion$ (VSHORAD deal). Air defence gun system like skyranger will not be procured by IA anytime soon. If i am wrong please correct me.

Anonymous said...

" The IN’s reqmt is for LPHs, not LPDs & therefore the LPH will displace something closer to 30,000 tonnes"
What even mISYTRAL WON'T MEET THEIR REQUIREMENT ? lOOKS LIKE ONLY Canberra Class from Navantia could meet the requirement and its ggod that Navantia is offering it to IN. If that happens then i think IN should also consider nansen class design for P17a FFG considering S80 will be selected for P75I.

Anonymous said...

Hi Prasun
Thanks for maintaining a wonderfully informative blog.
I have a few questions, if you don't mind-
1. How does the Tamir interceptor missile compare to Barak 8?
2. Is the El\M 2084 configurable with Barak 8?
3. What is the current range of our LRTR radar ?
4. Is India acquiring x-band radars? Also is there a program to develop indigeneous long-range x-band radars or multiband radars?
5. Is India developing any CIWS like Phallanx or laser based system like THEL/Skyguard?
6. What is the status of mmwave seeker developed by India? Has India developed any electro-optical missile seeker?
7. Can Barak-8 counter missiles like carrier killer DF-21D?
8. Even with a network of Akash SAM batteries, is it possible to defend them from longer ranged A2G missiles or smart bombs? Why is India not purchasing systems like S-400 which can potentially eliminate aircraft -based threat due to long range?
Thanks again. Awaiting your response,

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

Read this:

It does appear that while some 'desi' folks from India's national dailies are taking cues from this thread, regretfully they're still focussed only on Pakistan.

Kaushik said...

"Unlike ballistic missiles, against which DRDO claims to have a fairly good anti-ballistic missile shield..."
We Indians are an optimistic lot. That is supposed to be good. Isn't it? :)

Anonymous said...

Hi , This is way off topic but I ant to know this.

1.The present production standard Rafale , is it a scaled down variant and smaller than Rafale A technology demonstrator ?

2.Does the production standard Rafale have smaller wingspan,smaller wingarea , smaller radome than technology demonstrator or the exact area & wingspan wings are there in production standard Rafales

3.Rafale is nearly a ton lighter than tech demonstrator . Is this due to reduction in size of airframe and wings ?

Anonymous said...

Sir, Item 117S engines may be different from AL-31FP but it has all-axis TVC and is already operational and in service production. IAF Sukhoi-30 cab be fitted with these engines instead.

What is the difference between service life extension and TTSL extension. IAF Su-30 have logged 1500 fight hours. There is 1500 fight hours still left. Why go for service life extension when you can still use the aircraft. Service life extension can be done after completing 3000 hours.

Wont the Sukhoi have a 6000 hr TTSL after life-extension as said in Super Su-30MKI: From Air Dominance To Air Supremacy. They are presntly undergoing routine overhaul only .
When will these acs start arriving ?

Sujoy Majumdar said...

Prasun Da ,

Thanks for sharing the ToI link on the Iron Dome . This is what happens when Desi journalist blindly copy from your blog.Does our Desi journalist realize that the cost of 1 Iron Dome missile is $50,000 which are being used to intercept $2,000 rockets fired by HAMAS ? That too it's NOT one shot one kill . The Israelis are firing at least 2 Iron Dome missiles to intercept one incoming rocket .

How will India afford such a costly system ? The best way to target the LeT is to cross the border and kick some a$$. However, for this our politicians need b**ls which they haven't grown yet .


abs said...

Could you tell us if stealthy air intakes for the definitive PAK-FA/FGFA is being reasearched upon along with stealthy exhausts?

And regarding the Iron-Dome article in TOI, have you read how many foolish and false claims they have made??
"Iron-Dome is an answer to the Nasr" being the most ridiculous of them.

Anonymous said...

Dear Sir

Please answer my question

We NEED TWO more squadrons of SU 30mki at JAMNAGAR along with dedicated AWACS support BEFORE Indian Navy can enforce a naval Blockade on Pakistan

OR Do you think that MiG 29 K
will be ABLE to knock out the JF 17 ARMED WITH CM 400 AKG

Rahul said...

Hi Prasun, Under the pre-planned upgrade programme what are the improvements in Tamir interceptor ? is the range of Tamir increased from 6 km ?

Inertial navigation is available in some Smerch rocket rounds. It is just a matter of time before inertial nav coupled with GLONASS,GPS find its way into Pak MLRS stocks. They may well have them now. Guided long range MBRL are incapable of terminal evasive manuvers but they can be programmed to follow an offset course and correct the course near to target to fool Iron Dome .

Iron Dome can be programmed to intercept all threats which have approached very near to target. In this way it is less likely to be fooled and will be capable of intercepting NLOS-BSM.

As Tamir is a hit-kill missile a small warhead is enough for destroying cruise missiles.

The desi media is repetedly saying that Iron Dome is also able to intercept 155 mm shells. And it will be able to deter conventional artillery strikes.??

How usefull will be Iron Dome in our case when we face long range MBRL strikes ? Iron Dome can be deployed to protect airbases close to border, supply and ordance depots .

What happened to plans of procuring 2000 Skyranger SPAAG ? As Rheinmetall was blacklisted what is the substitute to Skyranger ? Is AHEAD type projectiles under developement in Russia ?

Is today's endo-atmospheric interceptor test involving hit-to-kill approach succesfull ?

Sayan said...

Sir , China has reverse-engineered AL-31F turbofan and is producing WS-10 turbofans. Russia in all probabilty will supply a simplified version of Su-35BM . Who knows,the Chinese may well put together a large team to reverse-engineer the avionics , sensors , radar Irbis E . They may even hire Ukrainian and other Baltic states engineers to help them with reverse-engineering. They are scouting for avionics for their J-20 and J-31.

Irkut Delivers First Su-30SM Fighters to Russian Air Force. What are the differences between IAF Su-30MKI and Su-30SM ?

India test-fires ballistic missile interceptor. What is the result of this test ? Did the new hit to kill AAD-1 interceptor find its mark ?

$1 billion Indo-Russian defence deal in pipeline? What is this upgrade buzz about ?

Anonymous said...

Sir , Whats this ? A few days ago Dr V.K Saraswat had said that the interception would be more accurate and the interception was to be made in hit to kill mode. The target missile would be coming with a higher velocity. But the recent DRDO statement revealed "The Radio Frequency (RF) seeker tracked the Missile & Onboard computer guided the Missile towards the Target Missile and hit the target. The Radio Proximity Fuse (RPF) exploded the warhead thereby destroying the target missile completely." This is contradictory . What really happened ? Is this a new interceptor missile ?

Anonymous said...

Dear Prasun,can you parse this press release? Thanks


Friday, Nov 23, 2012

The Interceptor Missile AAD launched by the Scientists of DRDO from Wheeler’s Island, Odisha successfully destroyed the incoming Ballistic Missile at an altitude of 15 Kms. The interception took place at 12.52hrs. The target missile, a modified version of Prithvi, mimicking the enemy’s ballistic missile, was launched from Launch Complex III, Chandipur.

Long Range Radar and MFC Radar located far away could detect the Missile from take-off and tracked it through its entire path. The total trajectory of the incoming Missile was continuously estimated by the guidance computer and subsequently the AAD Missile was launched at an appropriate time to counter and kill the ballistic missile.

The Ring Laser Gyro based Navigation System in Target, Fibre Optic Gyro based INS in Interceptor, Onboard computers, Guidance systems, Actuation Systems and the critical RF Seekers used for the terminal phase have performed excellently. The AAD Missile system initially guided by Inertial Navigation system was continuously getting update of the target position by the Radar through a data link. The Radio Frequency (RF) seeker tracked the Missile & Onboard computer guided the Missile towards the Target Missile and hit the target. The Radio Proximity Fuse (RPF) exploded the warhead thereby destroying the target missile completely.

In this mission, a special feature of intercepting multiple target with multiple interceptor was demonstrated successfully. An electronic target with a range of 1500 Kms was launched and the Radars picked up the target missile, tracked the target missile subsequently & launched an electronic interceptor missile. This electronic interceptor missile destroyed the electronic target missile at an altitude of 120 Kms. All the four missiles were tracked by the Radars and all the guidance and launch computers operated in full operational mode for handling multiple targets with multiple interceptor. All the four missiles were in the sky simultaneously and both the interceptions took place near simultaneously. This has proved the capability of DRDO to handle multiple targets with multiple interceptors simultaneously. The complete Radar Systems, Communication Networks, Launch Computers, Target update Systems and state of the art Avionics have been completely proven in this Mission.

Kumar said...


From the AAD test infrared vid (, it looks like the target missile was able to withstand the kill or the AAD missed the target.
The target missile seemed intact.

What you say?

G said...

@ RAW13

In addition what the answer given by Mr Prasun

1) USS Stark, its a Oliver Hazard Perry class Frigate (not a Aegis cruiser/destroyer) though advance at that time... inquiry put the blame on the captain on not have the systems on full auto

2) INS Hanit - Here equip with Barak missile system, again here the system was not full auto (reason being - chance of friendly fire their IAF) and also being very close to the shore, which they had intelligence that the Hezbollah have CM capability but the captain didnt act on it

sntata said...

Dear Prasun,
"India on Friday demonstrated its capability to intercept multiple missile attacks when an a real interceptor destroyed an incoming target missile in endo-atmosphere at a height of 15 km over the Bay of Bengal and another simulated 'hostile' missile was killed in exo-atmosphere at 120 km almost simultaneously." wide:

Looks as if things are moving fast in ABM defences, don't you think?

Anonymous said...

Wow Prasunji, you blasted off RAW13sky high.

Anonymous said...

Sir, a couple of questions

1) Will the P-28 corvettes accompany carriers as part of their CBG?

2) Is IN interested in ship-based version of LCH combat helo?

3) Some peoples claim that CJ-10K cruise missile has 2,500km range and Mach 2.5 speed/ Is this true? Whats the status of this missile?

4) What SAM has better interception capability against inbound ASCMs as well as ASBMs? Barak-8 LRSAM or HHQ-9?

5) You've told me prviously that Nirbhay will be a strategic missile that carries miniature nuclear warheads. Does this mean India has already perfected miniature tactical nukes of sub-kiloton yield?

6) Whats the highest-yield nuke presently active in Indian inventory? What is its yield?

7) I've heard that India has enough Highly Enriched Uranium (HEU) and Weapons-Grade Plutonium (WGP) to synthecise upto 230 warheads of 50kt yield. Can you confirm this claim?

Anonymous said...

F 35 Limitations Vis a Vis Rafale(except cost and induction dealys)??VMT

Anonymous said...

which one is better for IA..Laser guided RBS 70 ng or heat seeking mistral or Igla S.?What is difference between SHORAD ,MRSAM LRSAM.A typical SHORAD range is 15 km whereas MRSAM 40 and RSAM atleat 70..Why procure 10-40 KM Short range SAM S, when u have 70 Km LRSAM.What is that shorad can do but LRSAM cannot...VMT

Pierre Zorin said...

raw13...could it be short for reallyawanker #13? LoL
Prasun why is it I hear no mention of any Russian involvement in howitzers? Do they no longer use howitzers so India can either get ToT or licence manufacture?

Anonymous said...

I remember a few months back you said the design of P17a isn't finalised yet. Is the design of P17a finalised and if yes can you post the design ?
We learned the composite technology from Kockums, an we expect a warship like Visby but larger anytime soon ?

Any IN helicopter and ATGM deal likely to be signed by MOD anytime soon ?

IA got approval for attack hrelicopter but i presume IA also wants helicopters like Mi17V5 and Chinook and that too in very big number. Has MOD gave them the permission ? If not then has IA asked for it yet or when arfe they gonna ask ? If permission granted what kind of requirement does IA has and especially the quantity ?

cAN WE PURCHASE cHINESE CHOPPERS ? Chinese have build a 20 ton heavy lift chopper with Russian help.

Who is building India's BMS ? Any private player ? Does arjun mk2 have a different turret ?

Anonymous said...

Uptill when DRDO will be conducting these phoney launches ?When will the target missile be solid fuelled Agni series instead of liquid fuelled slower Prithvi missiles . When will the hit to kill missile be tested ?

Anonymous said...

Prasun da,

1) Why haven't we released any good images of Arihant SSBN as yet? Even china released good pics of their SSBNs.

2) Does Prithvi-II have a maneuverable warhead?

3) Whats the status of the Dhruv Mk-4/Rudra attack helo? Can you provide me a list of all the types of FLIR/EO-type sensors present on Rudra and the aramament?

4) How does Rudra compare against the armed version of Harbin Z-9?

5) Can Rudra take a sling load of a jeep and carry troops inside at the same time?

Anonymous said...

1.Do INS Ranvir and INS Ran Vijay have 12 Brahmos missiles of which four are in slanted launchers and other 8 vertically launched ?

2. Besides which other Rajput class DDG have Brahmos on board ?

3. How many Rajput DDG have Barak-1 CIWS ?

4.The deal for more Barak-1 CIWS is it cleared ?

5.Is it possible for IN to buy INS Ckakra 2 completely ?

6.Will IN specific P-8 have Northrop Grumman DIRCM and Raytheon TRD as mentioned in a past thread ?

7.How far IN has proceeded with upgradation of mission management system and mission sensors of its 8 Tu-142 ? Will Sea Dragon have AESA radar ?

8.IN has shortlisted two platforms for evaluations: Bombardier Aerospace’s Q-400MPA (fitted with a mission management system-cum-sensor suite supplied by ELTA Systems), and Airbus Military Aircraft’s C-295MPA. Will IN proceed with this or order more P-8I ?

9.Will the Navy upgrade 16 Sea King MK42B and 28 Ka-28PL ?

10. When will an initial 16 10 t MRH and 14 t 12 MRH be bought ?

11. What is FOC of Barak-2 for Navy and Barak-8,LRSAM for IAF ?

12.IAF must purchase PAC-3 in quantity to protect its and IA's vital installations from NLOS-BSM,TBM,MRBM , ALCM,LACM massed fire assaults.
THAAD is also desirable.

13. Yesterday's BMD test wasnt exactly of hit-to-kill type . Watch the thermal video.

14. Is there laser warning sensor in MSWS of Sukhoi-30 ?

Gessler said...

Prasun saheb,

1. Is India planning to buidl 12 conventional submarines based on the ToT received under Project-75I?

2. Will Type-209 SSK be upfraded with Stirling AIP?

3. Will the supersonic LRCM missile have an SLCM version as well?

4. How many Arihants are we gonna build in total?

5. I think S-80 Super Scorpene will win the P-75I, any progress on this matter?

6. Whats DAE's progress on developing 200MW PWR for future nuke subs?

7. I have recieved info that Arihant's noise-reduction and cavitation tech is similar to the one on Akula-I/II is this true?

Mr. Ra 13 said...

When Indian roads and bridges are utterly finding it difficult to tackle the ~ 65T Arjun Mk1A, then how they will tackle the ~ 70T 1800 HP FMBT.

Anonymous said...

Prasun you were bang on target when you broke the news about Brahmos' range extension by increasing the fuel load. For another new missile being developed now called "Brahmos Mini" will be retain the current speed, range and warhead size while being shorter and A TON LIGHTER!! Apparently it will be used by Rafales and Mig-29Ks.

Do you have some more news about this missile?

PS: Is it true Airbus A330 has been chosen as DRDO's next awacs platform?


Anand said...

Hi prasun,

Your comments on the recent BMD test by DRDO.What is this electronically simulated target missile?V.K Saraswat again claims that the missile shield is ready to be deployed in final operational configuration in the capital..



Samar said...

Iron dome is costly why can't we have some thing like one from Finmeccanica´s Oto Melara SpA the Porcupine (or Porcospino) counter rocket, artillery, and mortar (C-RAM) protected weapon system. We can any way have radars and may modify rapid gun systems of russian and US origin currently with us.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Anon@6.41AM: 1) As per present plans, the 150km-range Prahaar NLOS-BSM will morph into one more variant: a 280km-range NLOS-BSM that uses the same inertial-navigation system & terminal guidance system (X-band SAR) as that on the Prahaar. 2) Only a 120km-range MBRL is being developed by DRDO. Accuracy of Pinaka Mk1 is already greatly improved by the IMI-supplied TCS. However, due to the blacklisting of IMI & BEML/TATRA, the Pinaka Mk1 & Mk2 programmes as well as BrahMos-1 Block-3 will suffer a lot since no one in MoD is placing orders for more BEML/TATRA-built motorised TELs. Therefore, for as long as an alternate TEL is not selected & ordered, it will be impossible to series-produce additional Pinaka Mk1s & BrahMos-1 Block-3s. 3) What else Textron Systems ought to offer in return for purchasing less than 600 CBU-105s? Only additional hardware coming to India due to this deal is the Raytheon-built interface box that will be fitted on to the Jaguar IS so that this aircraft’s weapons pylons can be adapted to carry the CBU-105s. 4) The proposed ARM will use the same missile-body as that of Astra Mk1. 5) There are no plans for developing sea-skimming ASCMs.6) Trishul SHORADS was like the Abhay FICV project, i.e. only a technology demonstrator, both of which failed to meet their R & D objectives. 7) GTRE-SNECMA deal is not stuck at all & it will be part of the industrial offsets arrangements related to the Rafale M-MRCA deal. IAF never specified TVC for Tejas Mk2. 8) TATA-Urban Aeornautics deal was just an MoU, not a binding contractual agreement to co-develop UAVs like MULE.

To Anon@6.54AM: Some preliminary R & D work in this area is now underway, since the IN wants a laser-based CIWS to be indigenously developed.

To Anon@7.10AM: All contenders from Spain, South Korea, Germany & France are offering LPHs. Mistral definitely qualifies as a LPH. P-17A FFG’s design will be an iteration of the P-17 FFG. Choosing a new FFG design will only push its procurement process by at least another decade.

To KAUSHIK: 1) Barak-8 is a 70km-range SAM while the Tamir is an inexpensive anti-MBRL interceptor. 2) EL/M-2084 MMR works with both Barak-2 MR-SAM & Barak-8 LR-SAM. 3) Same as that of the EL/M-2080. 4) All airborne multi-mode radars on board combat aircraft operate in X-band. 5) No. 6) MMW seeker’s development began only three years ago & it will be ready for field-tests by 2015. Optronic seekers are under development for AD-1/AD-2 interceptor missiles. 7) There are no known ballistic missiles to exist that can target a moving aircraft carrier, leave alone the DF-21D. 8) Akash SAM was never developed for intercepting ASMs or PGMs. Any LR-SAM works only against high-flying bombers like B-52s, & will be totally ineffective against low-flying combat aircraft & bombers. 9) DRDO has only succeeded in developing a laboratory-level customised theatre missile defence simulation system over a 10-year period. It is still a long way away from developing a deployable TMD system.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Anon@12.29PM: Any technology demonstrator will have to be heavier & bigger as it has to carry several on-board test-and-telemetry tracking equipment.

To Anon@12.46PM: Except the KLIVT all-axis TVC nozzles on the RD-33s of the MiG-29OVT, no other Russian turbofan or combat aircraft has all-axis TVC nozzles. 117S turbofan from MMPP Salyut offers only 16% increase in maximum thrust, whereas the uprated AL-31FP from Rybinsk-based NOP Saturn will offer 20% more thrust. After 1,500 hours, it is time for TBO, which aims at extending the service-life by another 1,500 hours in order to reach the TTSL figure. Even after half-life of 1,500 hours, the airframe’s service life has to be extended by replacing all the corroded airframe parts/components. For undertaking TTSL extension, the entire airframe has to be X-rayed to determine the scope of airframe refurbishment & component replacement that’s reqd. This will be possible only after a Su-30MKI airframe attains the 3,000-hour flight-time. After this, the airframe will be sent to NAL for exact determination of TTSL extension & the scope of MRO to be undertaken. Therefore, on paper, the TTSL extension remains the targetted figure of 3,000 hours, but this has yet to be finalised & may go up to even 4,000 hours, meaning a Su-30MKI may stay in commissioned service for up to 7,000 hours. Routine overhaul comprises only checks & components replacement & is done within the air base itself. TBO requires depot-level MRO facilities of the type not yet available in-country for the Su-30MKI.

To SUJOY MAJUMDAR: What has to be borne in mind is the cost of acquiring & deploying the rockets by Hamas. US$2,000 is only the cost of assembling the rocket. To that one must add the procurement, transportation & mobilisation costs & the risks associated while procuring such rockets.
Therefore, in the end, a rocket launched by Hamas costs much more than $2,000.

To ABS: Several low-observability features not yet seen on PAK-FA prototypes will find their way into the FGFA. As for the ‘desi’ news reporters, they obviously have never seen the Nasr/Hatf-9 nor can they distinguish between NLOS-BSMs & MBRL rockets. Hence their inability to draft a coherent news-report. Shit happens!

To Anon@4.43PM: For knocking PNS Mehran out of action, all that one requires is a Battery of BrahMos-1 Block-2 deployed in the Rann of Kutch & protected by a Battery of SptDer-S SHORADS. One doesn’t require 2 squadrons of Su-30MKis to neutralise just six JF-17s armed with CM-400AKGs

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To RAHUL: The Tamir is a scalable product whose range can be increased up to 14km if desired. Course-correction in the terminal stages (5km away from the target) in the powered mode will not produce any radical changes in flight trajectory of an incoming MBRL rocket. NLOS-BSMs, on the other hand, adopt a low-level depressed flight trajectory that in the terminal stages undertakes a pop-up manoeuvre in order to adopt the top-attack mode, all this being done in order to reduce exposure-time to the defending air-defence radars. Consequently, for air-defence against both terrain-hugging cruise missiles & low-flying NLOS-BSMs, the use of aerostats housing radars like EL/M-2084 is a must. While on paper missiles like Tamir can intercept 155mm rounds, in pracrice, 155mm rounds do not arrive sequentially above their targets. Up to five 155mm rounds can land at the same time due to MRSI capability, thereby complicating the interception process. It is for this reason that directed-energy systems like HP lasers offer the best quick-reaction solution when it comes to intercepting incoming 155mm artillery rounds or even 81mm/120mm mortar rounds. The latest AAD interception test was not a hit-to-kill event. Instead, as the DRDO’s press-release stated, warhead detonation by achieved by RFO-based proximity fuzes.

To SAYAN: That’s not true, since the WS-10 is still a generation behind the AL-31F. Su-30SM doesn’t have canards, while Su-30MKI does. That’s about the only difference. The latest BMD test involved the very same AAD interceptor missile, not the AD-1 or AD-2.

To Anon@6.57PM: The latest BMD test involved the very same AAD interceptor missile, not the AD-1 or AD-2.

To Anon@7.12PM: Firstly, the DRDO-released video of the interception clearly showed that the AAD interceptor’s warhead was detonated through proximity-fuzing & it wasn’t a hit-to-kill event. Secondly, incoming Prithvi-based target missile’s terminal velocity was way below that of an incoming solid fuel-powered missile, as clearly shown by the video-clip. Thirdly, it is still highly premature to claim that A) the special feature of intercepting multiple target with multiple interceptor was demonstrated successfully. B) This has proved the capability of DRDO to handle multiple targets with multiple interceptors simultaneously.
All claims about four ‘electronic’ targets being successfully engaged at an altitudes of 120km by ‘electronically generated’ interceptor vehicles only prove the fact that the DRDO’s BMD launch control centre’s (LCC) architecture, inclusive of the launch control section, simulation section & shadow mission control centre (MCC) section, is just an end-to-end theatre missile defence simulator that was acquired by the DRDO from Israel’s Tadiran Electronic Systems almost a decade ago (see: Undertaking such laboratory-level electronic interceptions with imported & expensive hardware is fine for technology demonstrations, but not for operational air-defence networks where actual battlefield conditions, vagaries of the weather & EMI considerations have to be factored in for demonstrating the robustness of the air-defence network. Until, this happens, nothing else done so far conclusively proves the DRDO’s capability to handle multiple targets with multiple interceptors simultaneously. In short, yet another tall claim without producing conclusive evidence.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To KUMAR: The proximity fuzes & warhead section of the AAD worked fine (in all probability destroying the inbound missile’s on-board navigation systems), but it has to be borne in mind that the targetted missile never even had the same terminal velocity as that of a solid fuel-powered missile.

To SNTATA: In reality, what’s moving ahead at a breathtaking pace are new initiatives aimed at mesmerising the mango-man’s mind (inclusive of the ‘desi’ news-reporters) with vivid claims on virtual-reality interceptions. In reality, neither the long-awaited PDV nor the AD-1 or AD-2 (which by the DRDO’s own admission will form the definitive interceptor-missiles for India’s BMD system) have materialised as yet. Only after these three new-generation interceptor-missiles are subjected to actual test-firings against solid-fuelled ballistic missiles like Agni-1 & Agni-2 will one be able to compile a realistic appreciation of the true capabilities of a TMD/BMD system.

To Anon@12.37AM: One reaps what one sows.

To Anon@1.02AM: 1) Of course not, since P-28 ASW corvettes are meant for patrolling only the approaches to harbours & ports. 2) Yes, theoretically. 3) CJ-10K is subsonic with 1,500km-range. Several of them are stored in Sichuan province. 4) Definitely Barak-2 & Barak-8. HQ-9, S-300, S-400 & S-500 are all optimised for use against high-flying subsonic bombers like B-52s. 5) Yes, a long time ago. 6) Boosted-fission unitary warhead of 150kT yield. 7) Not yet. But India desires to build up its fissile materials reserves up to 5 metric tonnes.

To Anon@2.11AM: 1) Mistral will be much better than RBS-70. 2) LR-SAM’s range can go up to 120km. LR-SAMs are reqd to force the attacker to descend to lower flight altitudes where the SHORADS is more effective. LR-SAM typically does not have to engage in high-g manoeuvres at medium or high altitudes but has high lateral acceleration out to 80 g, whereas SHORADS has to engage in high-g manoeuvres in low and medium altitudes.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To PIERRE ZORIN: I guess RAW13’s outbursts are a classic case of xenophobic nationalism triumphing over proud patriotism. Russia is indeed developing new howitzers, though only of the tracked self-propelled types. A decade ago, Uraltransmash JSC had proposed to India the sale of MSTA-S tracked self-propelled howitzers equipped with 155mm/52-cal barrels made by BAE Systems/Bofors. I’m now told that a newer proposal calls for mounting the MSTA-S’ turret on the hull of a T-90S MBT but using the 155mm/45-cal barrel that’s already been developed by OFB for the 155mm/45-cal towed howitzer that’s now undergoing firing trials for life-cycle validation at the DRDO’s PEE in Balasore. On paper, this sounds like an excellent proposal & something that’s achievable with a high degree of Made-in-India content.

To Anon@8.11AM: Only the conceptual design has been finalised by the IN’s Naval Design Bureau & it features a broader beamwidth, plus a new-design main mast housing the EL/M-2248 MF-STAR volume-search radar. Below the bridge will be the VLS cells for eight BrahMos & 24 Barak-2 MR-SAMs. Those are the only new design enhancements. The rest stays the same as that of the P-17 FFG. Kockums never supplied any composites-related technologies, but pre-fabricated composites-built panels hull-sections. MoD hasn’t yet approved the IA’s request for procuring medium-lift/heavylift utility helicopters. China has never said no to any Indian MoD request for procuring Made-in-China military hardware. In fact, in the late 1990s & 2003 China had even made detailed technical & financial offers for supplying IA with several types of small arms. Prime contractor for BMS is BEL. Private-sector is involved in development of operating software packages. For Arjun Mk2 the CVRDE had planned to incorporate sloped frontal turret-armour built of composite-laminate materials, & not ERA tiles of the type seen on Arjun Mk1A.

To Anon@8.32AM: Good questions indeed.

To Anon@10.20AM: 1) Of course they were released. One of them is on a UPA government’s performance track-record booklet published three years ago. More will be published in similar booklets when the time draws near to the 2014 general elections. 2) No, since the Prithvi is a single-stage NLOS-BSM & the entire missile-body stays as one unitary unit until warhead detonation. 3) Definitive prototype of Rudra is now being prepared for user-evaluations, which will last for almost a year. The FLIR turret on the nose will be from HALBIT Avionics. LWR is from Saab while MAWS is the MILDS-F. 4) Rudra has more on-board sensors for self-protection & is more agile, while the Z-9WE is heavier, lacks sensors like LWR & MAWS, but carries eight ATGMs, as opposed to four on the Rudra. 5) No.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Anon@12.21PM: 1) Yes. 2) None. 3) Only 2. 4) Not yet. 5) No. 6) Yes, IF the IN wishes to order them. 7) No contract has been inked so far. 8) Irregardless of which turboprop-powered MRMR/ASW platform is chosen, the IN will definitely procure additional P-8Is. 9) It appears unlikely. 10) Next year, at best. 11) 2014 for Barak-2 naval MR-SAM & 2015 for LR-SAM for IAF. 14) Yes.

To GESSLER: 1) No, only six. 2) No. 3) Can’t say as of now. 4) Three (03). S-2, S-3 & S-4. 5) Things are moving ahead & by next March one will see concrete progress. 6) Still evolving the conceptual design. 7) Can’t say for sure. It’s very much possible, though.

To Mr.RA 13: One hopes that by 2020 at least & also beyond 2020 one will see some tangible improvements/enhancements being made to India’s border roads transportation networks. That’s the best I can come up with, being the pessimistic optimist that I am. (LoLz!!!)

To RKM: Range extension of up to 550km applies to only BrahMos-1 Block-3. Range for BrahMos-1 Block-1 & BrahMos-1’s Block-2 stays at 290km. BrahMos-1’s ‘mini’ version will be lighter since it will have a smaller solid-fuel rocket booster. Only Su-30MKIs & MiG-29Ks will be qualified to carry such air-launched missiles, & not Rafales. As for the choice between B.787 & A330-200 for a new-generation AEW & CS platform to be developed by CABS, the latter’s choice would be logical.

To ANAND: Outlandish claims being made by officials with no accountability & no supporting technical audits of their R & D forays, to say the very least. In reality, neither the long-awaited PDV nor the AD-1 or AD-2 (which by the DRDO’s own admission will form the definitive interceptor-missiles for India’s BMD system) have materialised as yet. Only after these three new-generation interceptor-missiles are subjected to actual test-firings against solid-fuelled ballistic missiles like Agni-1 & Agni-2 will one be able to compile a realistic appreciation of the true capabilities of a TMD/BMD system.

Anonymous said...

@ Prasun
how is DRDO's AIP project going on? Last defexpo some navy commander had said it was undergoing testing. No news since. How long will the testing phase last? Any updates?

Anonymous said...

Thanks for the reply. I'd like to say how much i appreciate your blog as you take the trouble to at least give a reply to the queries here unlike broadsword and livefist who not only won't answer anything but can't even be bothered to @ LEAST PUBLISH questions.

anyway @ topic - wouldn't it be better for DRDO to select the dreamliner as it is newer and has better technologies? Who selects the platform DRDO or IAF?

Thanks again

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Anon@2.48AM: Defence Research & Development Organisation’s Ambarnath-based Naval Materials Research Laboratory (NMRL), along with the Kochi-based Naval Physical and Oceanographic Laboratory (NPOL), has since 2002 been developing the fuel cell-based system that is now is undergoing shore-based laboratory tests, totally oblivious to the fact that the IN HQ has officially mandated that any AIP system selected by the IN has to be a ‘proven’ system, meaning it must already be in use by an operational navy. Due to this reason alone, the DRDO-designed fuel cell-based system gets disqualified. Furthermore, the fuel cells, storage batteries & fuel cell-powered electric motor all have to undergo at least eight years of endurance tests, a time-period the IN cannot afford to wait for. Consequently, in conclusion, thi9s will end up as being yet another technology demonstrator project at the Indian taxpayer’s cost.

To RKM: VMT. It’s the IAF that chooses the airframe & therefore it wants a ‘legacy’ platform, i.e. something that has been proven for at least a decade in service, which is not the case with the B.787 Dreamliner.

Anonymous said...

"totally oblivious to the fact that the IN HQ has officially mandated that any AIP system selected by the IN has to be a ‘proven’ system, meaning it must already be in use by an operational navy. Due to this reason alone, the DRDO-designed fuel cell-based system gets disqualified. "
Why DRDO cannot test it on some old to be soon retired IN submarine and then sell it to Vietnam or some othereatern Asia or Latin American navy ?

"TATA-Urban Aeornautics deal was just an MoU, not a binding contractual agreement to co-develop UAVs like MULE."
I only asked about possible sale my friend and never said or asked about co-development. Tata is not their to develop a small UAV, so everybody knows they can't be part of co-development but can fund or even purchase a small company like Urban Aeronautics if they see market and profit.

"Mistral definitely qualifies as a LPH."
Nobody said it doesn't. We said it might fall short of 30000 ton requirement that you wrote.

"DRDO has only succeeded in developing a laboratory-level customised theatre missile defence simulation system over a 10-year period. It is still a long way away from developing a deployable TMD system."
Who said that ? You just assumed because it does the same job ? Do you really think anybody is gonna tell anyone about the projects like BMD ? Just for the sake of all the computer engineers, you can do alot more today with simulations. There's always a difference in real test and simulation but in case of a ballistic missile, you don't have to worry much.

"Trishul SHORADS was like the Abhay FICV project, i.e. only a technology demonstrator, both of which failed to meet their R & D objectives."
Trishul wasn't a technology demonstrator like Abhay. Trishul was a failed project and it would have entered into production like Akash and NAG if succeeded.

"the Pinaka Mk1 & Mk2 programmes as well as BrahMos-1 Block-3 will suffer a lot since no one in MoD is placing orders for more BEML/TATRA-built motorised TELs."
Tata is building TELs now. Don't expect Congress MOD to do any deal hat would bring TATRA scam back to light. They are still haunted by Bofors case.

"As per present plans, the 150km-range Prahaar NLOS-BSM will morph into one more variant: a 280km-range NLOS-BSM that uses the same inertial-navigation system & terminal guidance system (X-band SAR) as that on the Prahaar."
I don't think there is a second follow on. Prahar accoding to drdo newsletter has a range of 15-250 km.

"There are no known ballistic missiles to exist that can target a moving aircraft carrier, leave alone the DF-21D."
Just like you say we really won't know for sure because nobody tested. Secondly if DF21 was just a BM, nobody would have shed any sweat but defence analyst of the west and India fears it might be Quasi ballistic missile, which put some uncertainity about its interception.

"GTRE-SNECMA deal is not stuck at all & it will be part of the industrial offsets arrangements related to the Rafale M-MRCA deal. IAF never specified TVC for Tejas Mk2."
Nobody said IAF specified TVC for Tejas, its DRDO's own smugness. IAF wants super-cruise feature.

Anonymous said...

"What else Textron Systems ought to offer in return for purchasing less than 600 CBU-105s? "
I think you misunderstood me. I said what is Textron offering to Indian armed forces, (nothing to do with CBU) in general. Like other US companies Textron must have some products they want to sell to India ? I am asking this because Textron has recently increased its presence in India.

"As for the choice between B.787 & A330-200 for a new-generation AEW & CS platform to be developed by CABS, the latter’s choice would be logical. "
I think the best platform for India's AWACS will be Gulfstream. Considering the aircraft is way too good, higher speed, higher service cieling, economical (Airbus platform itself is gonna cost 150 million, can you imagine IAF procuring AWACS worth 200 million$, that too from DRDO ? also IAF needs close to 20 such systems) and lastly i don't think India will build it without Israel's assistance and they have AWACS based on Gulfstream.

Anonymous said...

Sir what is the current achieved TBO of Kaveri engine?

And the maximum thrust achieved so far?

Anonymous said...

Sir , How was the MiG-21 bison flown that it remained relatively intact after crash. A great thing for the pilot to retrieve the ac and prevent a write-off .

What was the reason behind the crash ?

Two Su-30 acs had to switch engines while taking off from Pune due to minor snags in the engine . What were these snags ? Why had they gone unnoticed during regular maintenance ? Now, will a strict checkup of all Sukhois be done to find and correct the snags in the engines ?

Pune based Sukhoi squadron's acs have gone for overhaul in Russia. Which squadron's ac was this ?

Anonymous said...

Sir, The marketing brochure from KNAAPO for Su-35BM mentions all axis thrust vectoring.

After this, the airframe will be sent to NAL for exact determination of TTSL extension & the scope of MRO to be undertaken. Why will NAL determine the exact amount of TTSL extension. It must be done by OEM Irkutsk. TTSL can be extended according to the requirements of the customer.

Airframe TTSL can be extended no of times. F-15E has TTSL of 12000 hrs. The same can be done with IAF Sukhois.

Besides each IAF Sukhoi-30 aircrew logs in 170 fight hours. So in 10 years it is 1700 flight hours. So if Sukhoi-30 is to remain in service for 40 years it must have TTSL of 7000 hrs.

Newbuild Su-35 have improved TTSL of 6000 hrs. So why can't the Su-30 now being manufactured or manufactured from the time when Su-35BM went to production have a TTSL of 6000 hrs ?

Is zero-lifting and ttsl extension same ?

Sohom Dev said...

The IR video probably showing a proximity fuse interception and after the interception some thing resembling the simulated ballastic missile flying its trajectory. Well i played the video with 0.25X speed and have come to such conclusion . cau you please enlighten me ??

Rahul said...

Hi Prasun , If IA procures Iron Dome don't you think they will go for 14 km range version of Tamir interceptor . What's the warhead weight of improved Tamir ?

If previous warning of NLOS-BSM is avaialable or if it can be detected from a distance it wull be possible to intercept it with Iron Dome 2 and with minor modifications to Tamir missile .

Only two aerostat mounted AIRSTAR radars are present in IA & IAF inventory. More are required. Why aren't any efforts being made to buy more of them ? Can we hope for a contract being signed for this in the coming days.

If Rheinmetall hadn't been blacklisted, IA would have ordered some Skyranger units. They make excellant C-RAM units. With their AHEAD rounds they would have provided some C-RAM protection apart from being able to shoot down subsoinic terrain hugging cruise missiles. A last line defense of all sorts of air threats.Missiles could also have been integrated into them. Making intercepts with guns is much more economical.

Already four regiments of Spyder-SR are already operational with IA. 4 regiments mean 288 missiles.How many Python-5 & Derby were bought in total ?

Why do Akash official website give the range of Akash between 25-30 km ? Can Akash intercept subsonic terrain hugging & supersonic cruise missiles ?

Sayan said...

Sir, Army scuttles Arjun trials to push through T-90 purchase. A proposal from the tank directorate for Arjun trials in Punjab has been placed on the backburner after instructions from the Military Operations (MO) Directorate. Is this true ?

354 T-90MS are to be bought for China front.

These new tanks will supplement the 1657 Russian T-90S, and 2414 T-72M tanks already deployed on the Pakistan border.1657 T-90 haven't been ordered. Are 2414 T-72M present in IA inventory ?

With the Arjun’s performance established, the army is now arguing that the 60-tonne Arjun is too heavy for the soft soil of Punjab and J&K; it must therefore be confined to the deserts of Rajasthan. You have already cleared this part. So no need to expain here.

Is it correct that T-90S have repeatedly malfunctioned in the high temperatures of the deserts and T-90S delivered from HVF Avadi have proved to be less reliable than those delivered by Russia.

Indian Air Force to replace Avro aircraft soon: Official . What ac is the likely replacement ? HAL doesnt overhaul any Su-30 . It is stated here that HAL & 11 BRD will overhaul Su-30 . Does this mean that MRO facilities have been set up by Irkut in Nashik.

Anonymous said...

I read on your thread a comment by an anon user regarding to range of Brahmos
Have you earlier posted a related article if yes, then plzz....
let help me get it
Since I heard about Brahmos, I was very much pissed of knowing its range to be just 290km.
It has a distinctive speed advantage but its range is not strategic if it has to be used in Land Attack role ,ll' you please help me with some knowledge about this..?

Mr. Ra 13 said...

Arjun-Mk1 has a lower ratio of Weight/Support area and a higher ratio of Power/Weight than T-90. Then how Arjun can be inferior to T-90 on the soft soil of Punjab & J&K. Will Arjun tend to slide down on the slopes of such soft soils?

I mean I want India to purchase or produce or upgrade as many T-90AM as much it requires on all the fronts. But Arjun need not to be undermined in such manner.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Anon@7.40AM: Textron Systems has only recruited a new CEO & this doesn’t translate into the company upgrading its presence in India. This same company had a very bad experience in India in the early 1990s when it found out that its hydropneumatic suspensions that were sold to CVRDE for the Arjun Mk1 were crudely reverse-engineered & that’s why till this day these reverse-engineered hydropneumatic suspensions are still being subjected to improvements by local vendors that never had any previous experience in developing such systems.
When it comes to futuristic AEW & C platforms, the IAF is not looking beyond eight A330-200-based platforms, although the desirable figure remains 12. G-550 AEW & CS is deemed as being not suitable for long-endurance missions of the type envisaged by the IAF.

To Anon@11.27AM: Life-cycle tests reqd to validate the Kaveri’s TTSL are still continuing.

To Anon@1.10PM: It could well be that the MiG-21 Bison undertook a belly-landing. When operating out of runways that are shared by air bases & civilian airports, there will always be tikes when military turbofans of combat aircraft will suffer from FOD. That is why it is preferable to operate frontline combat aircraft out of runways that are solely for military flight & are not shared with civilian air transportation aircraft. The problem therefore is not with engines, but with the standards of runway maintenance. No 20 Sqn was the first to convert to Su-30MKis.

To Anon@1.44PM: IRKUT Corp is not involved in airframe TTSL extension since the Russian Air Force hasn’t specified it. Since the IAF wants such extension, it is better that NAL does it in cooperation with IRKUT Corp, just as in case of the MiG-29B-12, it was NAL & not MiG OKB that did such work. Zero-lifing & TTSL are the same. Su-30MKI’s airframe TTSL may well be equal to that of the F-15E since most of the Su-30MKI’s airframe is built with high-strength titanium-alloy.

To SOHOM DEV: The very same thing happened in early 1991 when MIM-104 Patriot PAC-1s tried to intercept incoming R-17E SCUDs & Al Husseins. What happened then was that the Patriots only caused the inbound ballistic missiles to break up into two parts, resulting in greater damage being caused on the ground. It is for this reason that the DRDO is working on IIR seekers for its planned AD-1 & AD-2 endo-atmospheric interceptor-missiles that will cause near-total destruction of the ballistic missile’s body, instead of just breaking them into two or three parts.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To RAHUL: All those issues are now being worked out in the labs of RAFAEL. However, for NLOS-BSMs, the Barak-2 will be a far better option. Total reqmt for aerostat-mounted radars is 60 for all three armed services. However, imported procurements are being withheld due to DRDO’s insistence that it will be able to develop such an aerostat (capable of mounting imported radars). Skyranger is already operational with the PAF & had the blacklisting nor taken place, then Rheinmetal, through TATA, would have supplied IAF & IA with its 35mm rapid-dire cannons. Presently, Akash can’t intercept terrain-hugging subsonic cruise missiles or supersonic cruise missiles & one should not expect it to do so since it was never originally intended to use Akash for such purposes.

To SAYAN: Not 354 T-90MS for the China front, but for the western front, & then transferring the existing 354 T-90s now deployed on the western front to the China front. Only 1,900 T-72M1s now remain. Neither the T-90S or the T-90MA are originally designed to operate in the Thar or Cholistan deserts during daytime & therefore such MBTs are best used after dusk & till dawn, with attack helicopters & helicopter-gunships being used during the daytime. Depot-level MRO facilities are now being created at the IAF’s Nashik-based 11 BRD & at various HAL facilities in Koraput, Korwa & Hyderabad.

To Anon@1.27AM: Not in a dedicated thread, but in the comments section of a thread sometime last year itself, when a BrahMos-1 Block-3 was test-fired in top-attack mode. BrahMos-1 was never developed as a strategic weapon for land-attack & therefore a range of 550km is the best that it can offer. For conventional land-attack, a range of more than 600km is not necessary in India’s case & therefore ALCMs & SLCMs with 600km-range envelope will be more than enough.

To Mr RA 13: I just can’t figure out what all this talk of soft-soil in Punjab or Jammu is all about. Either the folks making such ill-informed remarks know zilch about geology, or are just trolling around. The fact remains that the Shakargarh Bulge (i.e. the so-called working boundary between the IB & LoC) is the only ideal battlefield to the north for armoured assaults, but then again a compilation of destroyed MBT statistics incurred from the war histories of 1965 & 1971 clearly illustrates the fact that massed armoured thrusts by both sides were never attempted & are unlikely to be attempted in future simply because the fog of war is cleared a lot in present times due to the availability of ISAR assets like overhead recce satellites & UAVs. Consequently, what is of essence today is the ‘TEMPO’ of battlespace engagements, which can be sustained only by either fast-moving & coordinated formations of Brigade-size, or through massed vertical envelopment by attack helicopters of AAC operating under the IAF’s tactical air superiority umbrella.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Anon@7.37AM:
1) Why DRDO cannot test it on some old to be soon retired IN submarine and then sell it to Vietnam or some othereatern Asia or Latin American navy ?----------------------------------How can DRDO rip open ANY submarine when it does not have the engineering blueprints or technical expertise to do so & then re-assemble the submarine, especially those of Soviet or German origin? Furthermore, there is no such entity as a generic AIP module, since all existing AIP modules have been specifically designed to fit into the hull of specific SSK hulls. Therefore, a fuel cell-based AIP cannot go into SSKs built by DCNS or Kockums, while a MESMA cannot go on board SSKs built by HDW/TKMS or Admiralty Shipyards.
2) I only asked about possible sale my friend and never said or asked about co-development. Tata is not their to develop a small UAV, so everybody knows they can't be part of co-development but can fund or even purchase a small company like Urban Aeronautics if they see market and profit.--------------------------If the idea was to sell its UAVs, then Urban Aeronautics would never have inked any JV MoU with TATA during DEFEXPO 2008 & would have instead teamed up with a MoD-owned DPSU for just marketing purposes. And TATA has already developed 3 types of mini-UAVs.
3) Who said that ? You just assumed because it does the same job ? Do you really think anybody is gonna tell anyone about the projects like BMD?--------------------------------Had you visited DEFEXCPO 2012 & seen the various DRDO-made charts explaining the BMD programme’s objectives & mechanics, you wouldn’t have made such an ill-informed remark. One more thing: I never make any assumptions about such subjects.
4) Trishul wasn't a technology demonstrator like Abhay. Trishul was a failed project and it would have entered into production like Akash and NAG if succeeded.-------------------------Every DRDO-led R & D project always commences as a technology demonstrator & unless & until certain verifiable R & D milestones are met, the projects are quietly terminated, like those concerning Trishul, Abhay, Mihir dunking sonar & Nagan ATAS.
5) Tata is building TELs now. Don't expect Congress MOD to do any deal hat would bring TATRA scam back to light. They are still haunted by Bofors case.------------------------Not only TATA, but also Mahindra Defence & Ashok Leyland. However, when it comes to 8 x 8 TELs capable of corss-country mobility, competitive bidding as mandated by MoD’s DPP is mandatory & TATA will therefore have to compete with the likes of URAL, KAMAZ & TATRA, a process that will be extremely time-consuming.
6) I don't think there is a second follow on. Prahar accoding to drdo newsletter has a range of 15-250km.---------------------------------------No one has to date developed a do-it-all NLOS-BSM. Different designs with different range envelopes & different terminal guidance systems are therefore the global norm for NLOS-BSM & therefore India can’t be the exception.
7) Nobody said IAF specified TVC for Tejas, its DRDO's own smugness. IAF wants super-cruise feature.-----------------------------IAF has never specified siper-cruise for Tejas Mk1 or Tejas Mk2.

Anonymous said...

ok so considering the fact that a follow on version of the radar present on the emb-145I will go on the airbus, I wonder how good the radar built by CABS actually is.

when will the emb-145 be inducted into the IAF?

Sohom Dev said...

Sir, thank you for ur reply !!

Play Angry-Bird Game said...

nice blog