Total Pageviews

Friday, December 7, 2012

Interesting Comparisons

I thought it might be an interesting exercise to compare the contents of the mottos of both the PLA China Air Force and the Indian Air Force (see below).  
Also, it does appear that in the newly-created template on ‘Basic Doctrine of the Indian Air Force’ that appears on the IAF’s official website, on page 98 of the downloadable PDF file (, the caption is erroneously given as: “Maintenance Air Warriors servicing Su-30MKI”, when in reality the photo shows a MiG-29B-12 and its Phazotron NO-10 Zhuk air-intercept radar (see below).
As the saying goes, the devil always lurks within the details.


KSingh said...


Will the major IN bases like INS Kadamba and Project Varsha(Karwar) have adequate protection from coventional and assymetric threats. Ie will there be SAMs, fighter cover, submarine nets/mines. And will there be protection from sea-borne terrorists and land based terror attacks?

Having such bases is great but you have to be able to protect the bases otherwise you are merley putting all your eggs in one fragile basket and are invtiing crippling attacks. Are such bases vulnerable to PNS MERHAN type attacks??

KSingh said...


In your past post you had said the comisioning ofn the first P-15A was delayed becauase of a lack of personal- are serious steps being taken by the IN to increase their man-power and assure such delays are not encountered again???!!

+ What fighter do you see flying off the IAC-2? And will it have EMALS ro just the standard Steam-catapults?

KSingh said...


why was there no MARCOs demo in Mumbai on Navy day this year? I was looking foreward to this!

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To KSINGH: Of course, there will be. Air-defence is & will be provided by IAF. As for protection from asymmetric threats, it is virtually impossible to protect installations located within a metropolis or urbanised localities. This also includes most air bases that are co-located with civilian airports & make use of common runways. Consequently, the concerned security outfits like MARCOS & GARUD can only be reactive & not pro-active.
As for delayed sea-trials of newly-built warships due to shortages of trained & skilled manpower, unfortunately they still exist & that’s why there has been no word of the first Project 15A DDG & first NOPV undergoing sea-trials with their commissioning crew-complement. Te only way out of this is to increase the training capacities of existing naval training establishments.
By the time IAC-2’s hull-construction begins in the following decade, E-MALS will be the only viable system. As for on-board MRCAs, I will not rule out either the Rafale or FGFA.
Why no MARCOS demos or Naval Bands this year anywhere in India? Because of the 7-day official mourning period due to the passing away of former PM I K Gujral.

Anonymous said...

On air defence for bases though no clear cut Roles and Missions have been yet defined in toto the IAF is responsible for air defence of bases/cities and ranges are increasing.
Recently media reported NSA took on the task to define the role of Attack Helicopters and transferred it to Army for the to be acquired Apache AH-64E but there is no final clarity. The Navy will have to live with this and for the Presidential Fleet Review the IAF missile squadron moved for air defence of Vishakapatnam and now IAF have the mobile SPYDER and Akash.

Anonymous said...

Hi Prasun sir,

Tejas is never designed to be a 5 generation aircraft. Can it become a true 5 generation fighter by incorporating 5 generation sensors and avionics with out having a true 5 generation airframe, reduction of radar cross section, IR reduction features (at the engine exhaust), Weapons Internal bays etc that were part of the modern 5 generation designs. Albeit Tejas comes under the category of Light fighter under 18000 tons of MTOW.

IAC 2 is scheduled to enter IN service some where around 2020 (The same time FGFA entering into IAF service). Bus sir, INS Vikramaditya is supposed to serve IN for at least 20 - 25 years from the Induction. Considering the IN tradition of keeping its old ships in active service by prolonging its service like by major over hauls and refurbishments (Like INS Viraat) it will at least be serving IN well beyond 2040 (My be by replacing mig 29k's with more potent 5 generation platforms).

Anonymous said...

Sir will LCH have a rotor mast-mounted EO sensor?

Anonymous said...

Prasun Da,

Did you see the motto of the PLA. It says its, "Dream, LIABILITY , Honor"

LIABILITY!!! Freudian slip, perhaps.

I guess Truth always Triumphs....

Mr. Ra 13 said...

The motto of CAF appears to be philosophical and for enjoying the job. The motto of CAF appears to be rigid and duty bound having one eye to the target.

Mr. Ra 13 said...

Sorry for the typo!
The motto of CAF appears to be philosophical and for enjoying the job. The motto of IAF appears to be rigid and duty bound having one eye to the target.

The CAF may have to be content with the ‘liabilities’, because all the ‘missions’ and ‘responsibilities’ are with the CCP.

accidental loser said...

hmmm...... seems so. thr's still no known mentions of such advanced ESMs. BTW sm tyms ago u said tht lockheed's JAGM is d 1st 2 use multiple seekers. bt thr's 1 literature whch says GBU-39/40 series hv these as of nw. may b incorrect, m nt sure.
Maybe BOEING's JDRADM can well b devloped with dual seekers. bt my question is whn 1 wud require blast frag typ warhead fr anti air ops & tandem metal jet typ pentrator 1s fr ground targets, how wud 1 single missile combine both these warheads!!!!!

abs said...

aproposto your reply in the previous thread, I would like to ask you a few more things.
1)While predicting that the IAF would not be able to sustain air-superiority over the PAF beyond 3 weeks,what impediments in the IAF did you think of to be not able to sustain air superiority for long periods of time vis-a-vis PAF?
2)Many analysts have commented on how the IAF needed 70 plus squadrons to cater for war on two fronts.What do you think would the ideal numbers be for IAF to sustain an air campaign along two fronts while simultaneously providing SUSTAINED air superiority over the tactical battlespace extending to about 150km-200km?
3)By when would the IAF's fleet strength reach such levels?

abs said...

I was going through the first few pages of the basic doctrine of the IAF and found they have spoken vastly of the importance of SEAD for sustaining air superiority.
I doubt whether such kinds of SEAD missions would be flown by the IAF against the PLA, while against Pak I believe the political will would in all probability be lacking to use such means of force for fear of escalation. Is that why so far the IAF has not been inclined to procure dedicated electronic attack aircrafts like what their Chinese counterpart is doing and what the USAF heavily depends upon???

Also do take a loot at this and give in your views regarding the emerging roles that are being envisaged for the AMCA?

Anonymous said...

Hi Prasun sir,

Is it like Tejas is going to achieve a maximum degree of reduced radar cross section radically with newly designed conformal weapons bays (Like the one on F 15 SE fighters) to carry limited Air to Air missiles and Air to Ground bombs. Can these conformal weapons bays (mounted under the wings unlike the conformal fuel tanks mounted above the wings saving the under wing pylons/area to carry more weapons) drastically reduce the radar cross section of Tejas when compared traditional weapon mount on under wing pylons...

Also the new generation AESA radar can be comparable to the radars mounted on contemporary 5 generation fighters like F 35 Lightening II (Its operational statistics of search and track of VLO aircraft along long distances (A BVR scenario))... VMT in advance prasunji...

Anonymous said...

Were these Conformal Fuel tanks and Conformal Weapons Bays were part of the Super Sukhoi deals (The aircraft is nearly costing $100 million per aircraft). If not the case then how is this fighter going to achieve reduced radar cross section and other reduced signatures when the weapons mount is traditional type (Weapons mounted on under belly pylons and under wing pylons). VMT in advance prasun sir.

Rahul said...

Hi Prasun, Are any efforts being made to quicken the induction of Barak-2,LR-SAM inti IN,IAF service ?

What is the likely induction date for AD-1,2 ?

IAF places a huge importance on SEAD for achieving air-superiority. But there arent any dedicated EW assets in our inventory . The only ARMs IAF possess is Kh-31P with 70 km range.The nos of Kh-31P in IAF service is less than 100. Jaguar strike acs dont use any ARM. Are there any ARM for Mirage 2000 ? Are new ARM for Mirage 2000 being procured as part of upgrade deal ?Further there are no escort jammers in IAF service or are they ?

What efforts are being made by IAF in incraesing its SEAD,DEAD capabilties ? Is there plans for buying ARMs for Jaguar, Kh-31PD for Su-30 and support jammers like El-8251,Rafale Skyguard for our strike acs. Russians have support jammers for Sukhoi-30MKI. ? Why didnt IAF procure them as part of Sukhoi deal ?

RWR gives warning of lockon. It also provides warning of incoming active BVRAAM. But its gives no information about the range of incoming missiles & no warnong against IR guided passive BVRAAM. So, MSWS are required. When MSWS are to be present in why isnt there any MAWS as part of MiG-29 UPG ?Arent they worth protecting ? What exactly were IAF planners thinking when finalising the upgrade package? MAWS are required for air-superiority acs also in BVR duels,counter air operations . In the war for superiority prventing attrition will count above all and having MSWS on every acs along with suitable RF jammer will make all the difference.
Absence of MAWS, internal RF jammer in DRAIN 3 upgrade is discerning and will be deeply felt during actual missions even if they are to be escorted. Besides ELI-568 , are any jammers like ELT-553 are to be included in any upgrades?

I dont want to contradict anything. I have visited OLS-30 OEM website. There it is mentioned that its purpose is passive air-air detection and ranging. Nothing was mentioned about FLIR raster imagery of terrain below and forward. Do you possess any excluisve OEM literature about concerned product stating its abilty to produce FLIR imagery whicg arent meant for distribution to public.

Anonymous said...

To abs, Prasun sir has said that IAF can achieve offensive air superiority if coventional air war drags for more than 3 weeks. He didn't say that IAF won't be able to hold air-superiority beyond three weeks..

Anonymous said...

hai prasun. Wat is the status of spyder sam induction?

Anonymous said...

1.WASS C303 is an active torpedo decoy system for surface ships.

2. Do all Delhi class DDG have Ellectronica TQN-2 ESM systems in addition to Ajanta mk2 ?

3. How many Delhi class DDG have Thales towed array sonar ? What low frequency TAS will Kolkata class DDG have ?

4. Delhi class DDG have 24+24 9831M Shtil sams plus 32 Barak-1 SAM. Kolkata class has only 64 sams. The no of sams should be same.

5.All eng , production, fabrication data , knowhow of Arihant class hull , combat management system, blueprints for PWR, sonars are all sourced from our traditional ally ?

6. Are Russian eng , technicians present at SBC , Vizag to oversee the trials ?

7.Why aren't there any MAWS , Ir jmmers in AN-32,Il-76 ? These slow flying acs need IR jammers , MAWS for their protection.

8.When will INS Sindhugosh be decommisioned ? Isn't it possible to increase its service life again through a mid life refit ?

9. MiG-29K has 1/4 RCS of MiG-29. After upgrade will IAF have same RCS as MiG-29K ? Why aren't they being fitted with maws?

Anonymous said...

Prasun da,

You have written earlier that any stealthy aircraft can always be detected by ground-based or airborne radars when operating in the bi-static mode. Stealth aircraft are detected by L-BAND & S-BAND radars and less extent by X-BAND radars and the information is given to the interceptor aircraft via data link. The interceptor aircraft can then know the position of the aircraft without detecting it itself.

Stealth aircraft would have come in handy if such L-BAND & S-BAND radars can be jammed which is impossible as of now. So my question is what is the purpose of investing so much in stealth when such aircraft can easily be detected by such radars? I think France have done the right thing by going for active stealth in Rafales which can carry more weapons than a F-35 and costing half of it. What do you think?

Can in near future signals from such L-BAND & S-BAND radars be jammed? If yes after how many years? It will be a revolution then.

MBDA's DDM-NG passive missile approach warning system on the Rafale is a Infra red based MAW system while MILDS AN/AAR-60 missile approach warning system(MAWS)is a Ultra violet based MWS. You have earlier told that all new missile approach warning system(MAWS) are UV based. Why MBDA is still making Infra red based MAW system?

Thank you.

Sayan said...

Sir , India, Ukraine to ink defence, N-pacts. What is the porpose of defense pact with Ukraine ? What defense products are being purchased from Ukraine ? IAF An-32 are presntly being overhauled by Ukraine .

Ukraine sources its nuclear reactors, materials from Russia. So, whats the great deal of a nuclear pact with Ukraine ?

Whats the status of Su-35 deal for PLAN ? Will it have same sensors , avionics as original Su-35?

sntata said...

Dear Prasun,
What is all this noise in defence circles about IN defending country's 'strategic interests' in South China sea, knowing fully well that China is very sensitive about it? Is it due to US pressure? I think India should wait at least a decade, after strengthening its infrastructure in border areas and full modernisation of its defence forces, before it can indulge in such plans or become an ally of US.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Anon@11.49AM: Weapons in internal bays for RCS reduction will be a crucial parameter only in the first 96 hours of an offensive air campaign. After that, even F-35 JSF after that will be able to carry weapons in external hardpoints since by then hostile air-defence networks will be wrecked or rendered inoperable. Consequently, if during the first 96 hours of an air campaign the FGFA is heavily utilised, then in the following 10 days Tejas Mk2, Su-30MKI, MiG-29UPG, Mirage 2000UPG & Jaguar/DARIN-3 will all be able to operate with impunity. In terms of its mission sensor & integrated self-defence suites & cockpit avionics, it is indeed possible now for the Tejas Mk2 to have the same type of hardware as that now being seen on fifth-generation combat.
IAC-1, not IAC-2, will enter service by 2020. IAC-2’s detailed design will begin only by 2015 & construction won’t begin until 2019 at the earliest. INS Vikramaditya may well serve until 2033.

To Anon@12.11PM: Not in its present design configuration.

To Anon@12.21PM & Mr.RA 13: Dream & Liability definitely don’t sound right & those who came up with such Freudian slips ought to be consigned to the gulags in northwestern China!

To ACCIDENTAL LOSER: I had said that JAGM will be the first weapon to use tri-mode sensors. Dual-mode sensors are already proliferating on weapons like AASM, like combinations of IIR & GPS, laser-guided & GPS, etc. As for warheads, no one has as yet come up with one unitary PGM containing more than one type of warhead.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

TO ABS: 1) Not “IAF would not be able to sustain air-superiority over the PAF beyond 3 weeks’, but “Offensive air superiority is maintainable against the PAF only if any conventional high-intensity conflict drags on for three weeks”, meaning only after the first 3 weeks of conflict will attrition take its toll on the PAF, thereby enabling the IAF to achieve air superiority ONLY if the IAF has 55 combat aircraft squadrons. At 39.5 combat aircraft squadrons, the IAF will not enjoy any numerical superiority over the PAF. 2) A two-front war being waged concurrently is an impossibility right up to 2024, by which time the IAF is expected to deploy 55 combat aircraft squadrons.
As for SEAD, the IAF document refers to the increased usage of EW self-protection pods & escort jammers. But in a future conflict, DEAD missions will take precedence over SEAD missions, & the first weapons to be employed in the war will be anti-radar loitering drones like HARPY & HAROP. Folliwing this, IAF combat aircraft equipped with ‘SIVA’ direction-finding pods will be used to zero in on hostile radar emissions so that ARMs like Kh-31P Kryptons & ALARMs can be accurately vectored toward their targets.
Regarding the ADA/DRDO visual, it is clearly evident that the AMCA is being marketed as a replacement for Jaguar IS, Mirage 2000UPG & MiG-29UPG.
Lastly, & most importantly, it is impossible to accurately predict future battlespace scenarios in the absence of a comprehensive appreciation of the future geo-strategic & geo-economic appreciations at the grand strategic-level. It is only after such appreciations emerge will it be possible to issue iron-clad national security postures, warfighting directives & warfighting doctrines (I’ll try to dwell upon all these in the near future based on recent geo-strategic developments that have taken place). Only after all this has been articulated will it possible to draft & implement focussed & purposeful armed forces modernisation programmes. Right now, the way things are proceeding, all efforts now amount to only “arming without aiming”.

To Anon@2.53PM: The Tejas Mk2 will indeed be capable of carrying PGMs concealed within conformal bays coated with RAM that are slung under the wings. In terms of RCS of the airframe, the figure will be far lesser than those of the Mirage 2000UPG or MiG-29UPG.

To Anon@3.22PM: No, they are not. Actual costs of the Super Su-30MKI have not yet been revealed, & will be known only on December 24 when President Putin arrives in Delhi.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To RAHUL: AD-1 & AD-2 will definitely enter service between 2015 & 2020. Mirage 2000UPGs & Rafales will both have ALARMs. EL/M-8251 escort jammers are in service. OLS-30 IRST sensor can only look up & down in the forward hemisphere of the Su-30MKI. For generating imagery of the terrain below, two extra sensors are reqd for belly-mounting & these sensors were developed for the MiG-35, but not for Su-30MKI. But even on the MiG-35, such imagery is shown on an AMLCD, & not on the HUDWAC.

To Anon@10.18PM: 1) C-310 is for warships, C-303 is for SSKs. 2) Yes. 3) All P-15 DDGs have THALES TAS. P-15A DDGs too will have the same system. 4) No, P-15A DDGs will have more SAMs due to the more compact VLS fitment. 5) Yes. 6) Of course. 7) Why should they need such hardware if they’re not being exposed to hostile AAA? 8) It will be decommissioned 15 years after its last mid-life refit. 9) Yes. MAWS will be fitted in-country on the underwing pylon’s aft section, same as that on Super Su-30MKI.

To Anon@10.28PM: Low-observability techniques like airframe-shaping for reduced RCS are best employed against less-sophisticated adversaries, i.e. for waging asymmetric warfare. Consequently, stealthy combat aircraft will be very effective against Iran, but hardly effective against Russia. Active stealth-related avionics is far less expensive to develop & much easier to retrofit on to existing combat aircraft. Even today L-band & S-band signals can be jammed, but the jamming platform has to be huge like a B-52. DDM-NG was of late 1980s vintage. IR-based MAWS is highly vulnerable to false alarms being generated by flares being dispensed. UV-based MAWS does not generate such false alarms.

To SAYAN: Ukraine & Russia are now the best of friends since a pro-Russian person is now the President of Ukraine. Various items are being procured from Ukraine, like R-27 family of BVRAAMs & VK-2500 engines for Mi-17V-5. Su-35BM contract has yet to be inked between Moscow & Beijing.

Mr. Ra 13 said...

India should become an alley of US at least after it successfully tests it's own Thermonuclear device and is not banned from anything.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To SNTATA: As I had explained in the previous thread, only two of the three blocks awarded to OVL fall within the disputed area. These two blocks have already been abandoned by OVL, meaning there’s no need for the IN to defend anything in the first place. On the third block, commercial exploitation of hydrocarbons is already well underway & China has never protested about this since it was never inside the disputed area. The IN’s CNS therefore said that India like all other countries, including China, was only interested in seeing that freedom of international navigation through one’s EEZ was allowed & guaranteed without any constraints being imposed by anyone anywhere in the South China Sea. Unfortunately, his remarks were misinterpreted & REWORDED by the stupid & blinkered ‘desi’ journalists. There was no pressure by the US or anyone else. After all, just as China views this particular area in the South China Sea as being disputed, India too views ‘Azad Kashmir/POK’ & the Northern Areas as being disputed territory & therefore protests the presence of any country, including China, that has a presence in these two areas under Pakistani control. In the past, whenever special operations forces personnel from the US, Turkey, Malaysia, China, etc went to the SSG’s training establishments in POK or NA, India had made official protests to all these countries, & continues to do so.

“The future warfare will be fought remotely and will be contact less, without using conventional weapons but instead using directed energy weapons”, said Dr V K Saraswat, SA to RM, while addressing a galaxy of scientists and engineers at Microwave Tube Research and Development Centre (MTRDC), a DRDO Laboratory at Bengaluru, on the occasion of MTRDC Day celebration on 16 November 2012. He emphasised the need to develop high power microwave (HPM), high power laser (HPL), directed energy weapons (DEW), and terahertz devices.
----------------------Looks like the ‘Bhagwan aur Vigyan ka Pujari is getting closer to my POV.

Mr. Ra 13 said...

I wish to reiterate your perfect theory on development of Tejas-Mk2>>
"Instead of going that far & speculating about the AMCA, it will be much more worthwhile to focus on the Tejas Mk2 & try to incorporate as many technologies related to fifth-generation MRCAs as possible on the Tejas Mk2 itself. After all, one must not forget that in terms of the kind of composites-based materials used for airframe construction, the Tejas Mk2 is already in the same league as fifth-generation MRCAs. Consequently, all that’s reqd for the Tejas Mk2 to truly emerge as a fifth-generation MRCA is the incorporation of new-generation avionics like IRSTs on the nose & behind the cockpit for 360-degree situational awareness, AESA-based ELT-568 jammers, cockpit with panoramic AMLCDs, customised secure data-links for communicating with AEW & CS platforms, & twin overwing sleek conformal fuel tanks like the ones developed for the Rafale. All such pieces of hardware are ALREADY available as of now & therefore can be easily incorporated into the Tejas Mk2 airframe, thereby giving the aircraft fifth-generation multi-role combat capability."

Hope they accord full emphasis on this theory.

Ravi said...

One of the toilet newspapers of India, Hindustan Times, mentioned present India's Chief of Naval Staff as "Nirmal Verma". See this journalist is so much ignorant about who are all sitting in important places in India?

I am thinking about the editor of this newspaper. How big this asshole fool is? Not going through the articles properly given by the fellow journalists. Putting $3000 jacket & tie will note make a person gentleman. But still the editor will survive and get a Padma Bhushan, and the journalist will get a promotion.

Desi Yellow Journalists ko Jai!

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Mr.RA 13: May all our very best wishes & hopes regarding Tejas Mk2 & Tejas Mk1 LIFT indeed come true. VMT.

To RAVI: It’s not just the Editor, but also the Desk Editor (in-charge of proof-reading the scripts) & News Editor (overall responsibility of all the contents of the print-edition of that day) that ought to offer their unreserved apologies. The same goes for the Editor of THE INDIAN EXPRESS, a self-confessed defence buff, who on a Walk-The-Talk programme with Dr V K Saraswat on NDTV had claimed that Rheinmetall had supplied the 120mm cannon for the Arjun MBT. And believe it or not, of all magazines, FORCE’s show report on DEFEXPO 2012 too repeated this very same mistake! And the very same Strategic Affairs Expert of TIMES NOW who regularly spits venom against Pakistan was in Islamabad on December 5 co-anchoring an ‘Aman ki Aasha’ programme for TIMES NOW.
See this:

Anonymous said...

Why the heck every newspaper in India are putting the su-30 numbers @ 272? MMS had already signed a deal for 42 last time he visited russia. The new batch of 42 fighters to be procured when Putin comes will bring the total number to 311! (minus the 3 that crashed). They're such idiots they think it's the same deal.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Anon@6.06AM: That's because these bloody idiots have lost count of the number of times follow-on Su-30MKI orders have been placed, & they're also too lazy too call up the Chief PRO at IAF HQ in order to confirm the correct figure. Since they can't obviously do the math, they ought to check out this database:

Anonymous said...

Not “IAF would not be able to sustain air-superiority over the PAF beyond 3 weeks’, but “Offensive air superiority is maintainable against the PAF only if any conventional high-intensity conflict drags on for three weeks”.
Who said that ? No one can predict this considering IAF has quality and PAF has number and when i say that, i mean they are operating at a level lower that upgraded Mig21. You cannot predict what a Rafale or Super Sukhoi is gonna do. Hell who knows, if a single Super Sukhoi could even take down half a dozen F35. Both Rafale and Super Sukhoi are the wild cards here.

"A two-front war being waged concurrently is an impossibility right up to 2024"
Please tell us some more on this. Why is that?

"by which time the IAF is expected to deploy 55 combat aircraft squadrons"
Right now maximum sanctioned strength of IAF is 41 squadron and to maintain its edge, they need atleast 39.5 squadron. IAF submitted a proposal later last year to increase the maximum sanctioned strength to 45 squadron. While the rate of induction is too slow considering the rate at which old squadrons are retiring, IAF hopes to achieve the strength of 42.5 squadron only by 2022 and that too only if everyone stick to their delivery schedule and deals signed at the right time, which never happens in India.
No one in delhi is giving sanction of 55 squadron fleet in the first place and even if they do iaf won't be able to acquire so many aircrafts so quickly.

Only hope for India is that MOD place the follow on order also for Rafale and let those 63 rafale be built simultaneously in France and similarly India places an order of 42 Pakfa and insist on Russia to build them for us at the earliest or just increase the Super Sukhoi by 42 more and let them be built in Russia because HAL is caught with everyone of its finger in one cookie jar and now they are not able to pick even one cookie.

You also said that P75I will include 9-10 SSK but you said the same for P75 (Correct me i am wrong). Are you sure about this p75i PROJECT ?

When can we expect the deal for 4 LHD to be signed ? Whjo is the favorite considering HSL is gonna buil 2 of these i don't think they have collaborate with anyone else except the russians unlike MDL, GRSE, Cochin and Goa shipyards.

Do you think India is facing so much problems in naval shipbuiling because we have so many naval companies while France, Germany, Spain, Italy, Britain etc have only one or two ? Should we put all naval shipyards and form them as one or two companies and then enlist them on NSE/BSE after some disinvestment ?

" The Tejas Mk2 will indeed be capable of carrying PGMs concealed within conformal bays coated with RAM that are slung under the wings."
Are their conformal bays in Tejas mk2 ? Also is it wise to have confomal weapon bays on a small aircraft like Tejas ? It could carry only a couple of weapons unlike F15 which is a huge aircraft. Wre could have done this on Super Sukhoi.

"In terms of RCS of the airframe, the figure will be far lesser than those of the Mirage 2000UPG or MiG-29UPG."
Whats new ADA and HAL are gonna do for Tejas mk2 for reducing RCS which they have already done for Tejas mk1 ? Tejas mk1 have intensive amount of carbon fibre. All they can do is increase the percentage of carbon fibre from the present level and use intensive radar absorbent coating like the ones on stealth air-crafts and may be internal weapon bay.

rad said...

HI Prasun

Recent reports say that russia has opened its glonass system to india, especially the precession code . Is there some thing more to it ? we are developing our own system , or for the want of money,or to wean us away from the western gps.

abs said...

thanks for correcting me.
I think you are correct, cuz a sizeable amount of IAF assets would also be called upon to provide support for BAI missions especially in the initial periods of a war, to cater for the Indian Army's inadequacies in tube and rocket artilery.

I would like to ask few more things,
1)could the usage of choppers and helicopter gunships like dhruv and AH-64D Apaches for Battlefield Air Strike missions suitably be more effective and desiarable than the usage of A-10 warthogs and Su-25s.
Already, before the MOD directive of attack helicopters being transferred to the IA, I think the IAF was moving onto the usage of choppers solely for carrying out BAS missions.While fixed wing assets would be used for counter air ops and BAI and deep interdiction purposes.
2)In the context of BAS and BAI missions, are there any plans for using seek and destroy UCAVs(rotary winged or otherwise) for carrying out both BAS and BAI missions which would deliver PGMs. This would add greater lethality and also free up greater assets of the IAF for more important tasks like air superiority and deep interdiction.
3)IF the above is NOT, then could you tell us how the Indian Army and the IAF would be using the UCAVs they seek to procure? Could the UCAV be a variant of the Rustom-H/2?
4)A few months back you had said that the orders for large scale UAVs and UCAVs would be placed only when the necessary surveillance and reconnaissance network is developed. How long will it take?
5)I think the IAF would only be sanctioned to have 45 squadrons if not 42.5 by 2025. Hence I would like to know how you arrived at such a figure? and could you give us a break up on the number of aircrafts of eah type that are likely to be in IAF's inventory?

abs said...

6) Also, are there any such plans, like the ones you have mentioned above, regarding the LCA's further transformation into a greater fifth generational capability a/c?? IF that is the way forward then the tejas MK2 would turn into a huge boon form a bane :)
Thanks in advance from the bottom of my heart :)

Anonymous said...

1. MAWS will be fitted in-country on the underwing pylon’s aft section, same as that on Super Su-30MKI.. What do you mean by same as that on Sukhoi ? Won't MILDS maws be fitted in a distributed manner on the airframe like Su-30MKM of Malaysia ? Lots of space is there in Sukhoi airframe .

2. Previously when asked on whether IAF was interested in fitting MAWS you said no. Which ans to take ?

3.MAWS. are not fitted on just aft of underwing pylon but also at the front. In total there are 4 maws on two pylons for full hemispherical coverage . You posted pic of one such maws in a previous thread.

4. Will the same arrangement of maws that is on pylons be present in. Jaguar IS ?

5.How many Barak-2 will each Kolkata class DDG have ?

6.If all R&D and fabrication data of Arihant.was sourced from Russia , why was a 80MW PWR chosen instead of higher power one ?

7. Won't there be any maws in MiG-29K ? What internal jammer it uses ?

ravi said...

1. What is area Neutralizing capacity of Smerch MBRL and is pinaka mbrl area neutralizing capacity is 1000 m X 800 m or 3.9 sq km ?

2. What missiles are in service of Indian Army and Indian air force..?

Anonymous said...

Your link says the last contract of 42 fighters integrated with Bramhos missile & IRBIS radar. How come?

Also I do not understand why all the major forces around the world are trying to get hand on atleast one fifth-gen fighters except France?

Anonymous said...

Hi Prasun da:
Few queries:
1)Is the Eurofighter with thrust vector better then Su 30MKI in A2A combat ?
2)Recent reports that IA might select Spike ATGM over Javelin after US refused TOT..are they true?Do u think Spike will be finally selected..
3)Given the delay in IN IAC-1..Dont you think there is a need for Buying A aircraft carrier from abraod..From France, UK or Russia..

Anonymous said...

""4) No, P-15A DDGs will have more SAMs due to the more compact VLS fitment.""

So how many SAMs does P-15A carry? P-15 carries 80 total.

Anonymous said...

Hello Prasun saheb,,,

1) What exactly is the status and operational capability of Chinese BMD technology?

They claim to have shot down ICBMs, what is your take on that matter?

Can Chinese ABMs effectively intercept Indian missiles like Sahurya or Agni-3/5?

2) I think Arihant-class SSBN with 12 x K-15 missiles will be a potent threat for Pakistani targets like Karachi or Gwadar, what do you say?

3) I think in times of war, the Gwadar and Karachi ports and naval bases should be destroyed ASAP to prevent PN from stopping IN's blockade plans. Is it possible for PN AIP-equipped SSKs to remain submerged long enough all throughout an event of an all-out war? How many days is the extended submerged endurance period of PN subs?

4) Do the 6 x Qing SSKs PN is recieving come with Chinese or German AIP module?

When could the first Qing SSK be handed over to PN?

5) Whats the status of the IRNSS system and the GAGAN GPS-aided navigation system?

6) Does the Agni-5 have quasi-ballistic properties?

7) Whats the progress on the K-4 3500-km SLBM? When can we expect a pontoon-based test?

8) Any news regarding CFTs for Tejas Mk-2? And what of the frameless canopy progress?

Rahul said...

Hi Prasun, When were El-8251 escort jamming pods procured ? I thought they would be procured after Darin 3 upgrade of IAF jaguars. Which platforms carry this pod ?

Su-30 is an excellant platform for executing SEAD & DEAD missions. But why didn't IAF procure Russian escort jamming pods for SUKHOI-30?Why weren't any Kh-31PD type arm procured. Only 10 Harpy drones are being acquired . The no of Harop drones in service is not very high. With such meagre resources how can DEAD missions be conducted in nos & effective manner .Why isn't there any dedicated EW assets with IAF ?In the opening phases of op desert.storm around 800 arm were launched besides many anti radar drones and decoys.

When talking about flir imagery of terrain below, I meant terrain forward to the ac. What I wanted to ask was that just as PIRATE , Skyward are able to generate raster scan Flir imagery of the forward terrain for navigation in white out conditions and terrain following fight path, is OLS-30 also able to accomplish this ?

Has IA signed any contract for latest Russian Mango APFSDS rounds ? How many were contracted for .

Pls post project Sanjay .

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To RAVI: 1) That data is available at the website of SPLAV, the Russian OEM for Smerch-M. 2) For which role?

To Anon@2.48PM: That data pertaining to BrahMos & IRBIS is wrong. The numbers pertaining to the Su-30MKI orders placed to date are correct.

To Anon@7.17PM: 1) EF-2000 does not as yet have TVC nozzles. They are still under development. 2) Those reports are not true. 3) Absolutely not.

sntata said...

Dear Prasun,
Thanks a lot for your thoroughly objective reply. May I take this opportunity to give my opinion that your views are one of the most [sometimes most irritatingly so] objective and devoid of jingoism and personal likes and dislikes? Scientists are supposed to achieve this objectivity, but in 99% of cases they don't. It is, I think is a Spiritual quality.
Now coming to V.K.Saraswat's futuristic defence scenario regarding 'high power microwave (HPM), high power laser (HPL), directed energy weapons (DEW), and terahertz devices', don't you think India should have a reliable high-tech partner to share both technology and financial funding? I think Israel will be the best bet. I recall Abdul Kalam Sir suggesting in Israel some time last year or so that India and Israel should collaborate in high-tech areas of futuristic defence projects.

Anonymous said...

Hi Prasun sir,

Considering the smaller size of Tejas mkII (Light fighter class) and its delta wing design (as opposed to the swept wing configuration), Is it possible to accommodate two bulky Conformal Weapons Bays on to Tejas air frame? If accommodated where can it possibly be... It will be by all chances be creating more drag and reduces the lifting area under the wing which in all aspects will be limiting the flight performance of the fighter. Is it the case like only FGFA and Rafale will be primarily engaged in offensive sorties to achieve the air-dominance and Tejas Mk-II, Mig 29 UPG, Mirage 2000-5 will be engaged in Defensive sorties protecting the air bases and other key infrastructures from invading hostile air crafts in the initial phases of the war...

Does Rafale also posses "Conformal Weapons Bays"? Although the final configuration of Super Sukhoi is not available, How does it fare in comparison to F 15SE.

Regarding Indian SSN designs. Is it more viable for India to use the Same Arihant hull features (with minor modifications) and incorporate as many technologies from Barracuda designs in it to convert it into a top notch SSN which would be displacing between 6000 to 8000 tons (amid developing and incorporating a more powerful reactor and high capacity boiler designs to generate more power for achieving speeds in excess 35 Knots) bring it near to Akula III or Yasen class. Whats your opinion on this Prasunji. VMT in advance.

Anonymous said...

Hi Prasun da

1)Reg. the IA SHORAD competition..though SPYDER has a good chance to win..But dont u think Russian vityaz will be a better option..It can carry more then 8 missiles against SPYDER s 4..It Has 2 types of missiles ..One with 10km range and other with 40 can cover a lot area in air defence ....Ur thoughts...
2)EF 2000 with thrust vector(after it is developed) Vs SU30MKI..Which one u think will be better in A2A combat...VMT

ravi said...

Missile's for conventional role i.e, to strike infrastructure in Tibet if possible authentic range also...?

Anonymous said...

Hi Prasun,

Do you see a twine engined Tejas in future (like Mirage 2000 -> Mirage 4000)?
Or its a dead idea given that India will eventually procure Rafale, FGFA and AMCA?

Thanks in advance.

Anonymous said...

1. What's the relation between fitting MAWS in an aircraft with technological advances ?

2. If Sukhoi-30MKM can have maws in the airframe whatever gen they may be why can't the Sukhois of IAF ?

3. What's the additional advantages of fitting maws on pylons ?

4.Tejas mk1 will also have maws. Rafale alreadycomes with an advanced maws. So there's no need of specifyinh maws.

5. No maws fitted in aft section give full hemispherical coverage. A pic from a previous thread shows a pylon fitted with 2 maws one a front and another at back.

6.IAF had specified maws for Su but where they are to be fitted was not specified.

ravi said...

-->>>That data is available at the website of SPLAV, the Russian OEM for Smerch-M

No i searched there it is not mentioned that's the reason i asked you..!!!

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Anon@7.41PM: 1) Since China started R & D work on BMD technologies since the 1960s, it is quite advanced in this area & has now in a position to field systems capable of neutralising TBMs & NLOS-BSMs like Shaurya & Prithvi. More importantly, it is also quite advanced when it comes to cruise missile defence. 2) Any Indian IRBM or MRBM or even TBM is most unlikely to attack Gwadar. Insyead, targets will include Karachi & Islamabad. For targeting such cities with SLBMs, one will at the very least require SLBMs with 3,500km-range. The K-15 TBM regrettably does not fit the bill. 3) Post-May 1998, war-plans of India have changed & it is no longer politically possible for any Indian govt to ask the IN to undertake maritime blocades of ports like Karachi. Any AIP-equipped SSK can stay submerged for up to 28 days. 4) All six Qing-class SSKs will have China-built AIPs using Stirling Engine-type power generators developed by China. First Qing SSK for PN should be deliverable by late next year. 5) GAGAN is already being activated in stages, while IRNSS is delayed by two years since the first GPS satellite (of 7) was due for launch in 2010. K-4 is still a few more years away. It won’t be available before 2018. 8) No new developments concerning CFTs for Tejas Mk2 MRCA.

To RAHUL: The initial EL/L-8251 jammers were procured as far back as 2009 for systems integration with Su-30MKIs. More than 40 Harpys were procured in the late 1990s while Harops number 10 but this number will go up in future. OLS-30 offers the same type of forward FOV image generation capabilities as other IRST sensors. But that is still not enough for terrain-hugging navigation.

To SNTATA: VMT for your valued observations. Yes, the truth does appear irritating at many a time, just as a mirror shows one only the reality & does not reflect anything else. As for directed-energy weapons, both Israel & Russia are extremely advanced in such areas, apart from the US. In fact, by the mid-1980s itself, the Soviets had an airborne high-power microwave laser system mounted on a specially configured MiG-31 that was developed for flying at high altitude at Mach 2.8 while approaching an AEW & CS platform & then focusing the laser beam on the AEW & C platform’s rotodome in a look-down shoot-down mode, thereby rendering the AEW & CS platform’s on-board sensors totally ineffective. It was this weapon system that was offered to the IAF in case the PAF went ahead to procure E-2C Hawkeyes in the late 1980s. For developing ground-based static high-power lasers capable of countering supersonic/hypersonic PGMs, the DRDO can achieve this on its own since miniaturisation is not a challenge in this area. But when it comes to developing such systems for installation on warships, miniaturisation is a must (as also is the case when developing road-mobile systems for air-defence against massed attacks by MBRLs) & this is where there’s plenty of scope for joint R & D with both Israel & Russia.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Anon@8.55PM: Conformal weapons bays need not be bulky since small-diameter PGMs are now available, like the AASM. Tejas Mk2, MiG-29YPG & Mirage 2000UPGs will be dual-role, i.e. providing defensive counter-air sweeps as well as providing battlefield air-interdiction coupled with tactical air superiority. Rafale does not possess any conformal weapons bays. Thus far, F-15SE & Super Hornet are the only legacy aircraft that have been shown with conformal weapons bays. The F-15SE won’t be as potent as Super Su-30MKI since the former doesn’t have the kind of distributed IRST sensor & AESA antennae architectures, nor does it have TVC nozzles.
As for SSNs & SSGNs, the programmes will stay totally separate, i.e. there will be no cross-transfers of technologies from either Russia or France. Even if Barracuda-type SSNs are built in India using French technological assistance, there won’t be any technological overflows to the Arihant family of SSGNs, since both the Russians & French will have iron-clad restrictions in place. It is for this very reason that the IN wants the DAE to design an indigenous 200mw PWR that can be used by both SSGNs, SSNs & SSBNs in future.

To Anon@10.34PM: 1) Purely from a cost-effectiveness standpoint, it will be better to stick to the SpyDer-SR, since RAFAEL already is committed to an appreciable industrial offsets programme with BEL as of now. Procurement of a brand-new SHORADS will only further complicate & delay the procurement process. If a TVC-equipped EF-2000 is pitted against a Super Su-30MKI, the latter will still prevail due to its superior on-board sensors & its two-man crew.

To RAVI: Presently, the IAF has no tactical ALCM capable of reaching targets deep inside Tibet. As for the IA, there’s 290km-range BrahMos-1’s Blocks 2 & 3, while the Prahaar NLOS-BSM & air-launched BrahMos-1 are in the pipeline, as are 600km-range ALCMs for the rafale & Su-30MKI.

To Anon@11.27PM: Twin-engined Tejas Mk2 is a dead idea.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Anon@11.31PM: 1) It’s simple: MAWS could be fitted on the Su-30MKM in only certain areas of the airframe since at that time there wasn’t any pylon-based MAWS available. Today it is. 2) There are a lot more avionics LRUs on the Su-30MKI than on the Su-30MKM. For instance, Su-30MKM does not have HUMS on-board. 3) Only advantage is that one has more internal space available for fitment of avionics like ELT-568 AESA-based jammers & a second rearward-looking IRST sensor. 4) There’s no MAWS on Tejas Mk1, only the R-118 RWR. 5) There’s no need for full hemispheric MAWS coverage since AAMs & SAMs will be approaching from either below, or from the front, or from the rear, but never from the top. 6) MAWS for Super Su-30MKI upgrade package clearly specified the sensor installation areas & only after that was a pylon-mounted installation designed by DARE.

To RAVI: The dispersion footprint of Smerch-M will more or less be the same as that of Pinaka.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

At last someone has spoken the truth:

F said...


There are several array and 'pyramids' fitted on the Su-30MKM to give all round warning. How does a pod mounted MAWS provide 360 degress coverage?

Have you noticed that the RWR arrays fitted on vertical stabilsers of the Hawks and MBB-339s are much larger than those fitted on other Western aircraft? Is there any particular reason for this?

Apart from having an all glass cockpit and newer avionics, for dedicated LIFT what advantages does the MBB-339CM give over the Hawk 100?

Do the F/A-18Ds have a HUMs?

Why are there silver colour heat resistant panels mounted over the gun bay of the Su-30MKI and the Su-30MKM and not on other aircraft?

Was it you who mentioned to me many years ago that apart from integration problems with NAUTIS, a factor that delayed the delivery of the KD Lekiu was that during trials in the North Sea, water entered the open hatch of the Bofors Mk2?

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To FARIS: It doesn’t. Full hemispheric coverage is not required, since there are no top-attack weapons meant for use against combat aircraft. Advance warning is required only for missiles approaching from the sides & rear & below, while the IRST provides warning about AAMs coming head-on & that’s why active internal jammers meant to counter BVRAAMs are always typically located in an aircraft’s wing-root area & rear fuselage. No particular reason as such for larger antenna apertures of RWR sensors for the Hawk Mk108 & 208s & MB-339CMs. No great differences between the Hawk Mk108 & MB-339CM, since both are advanced jet trainers, not but exactly LIFTs. F/A-18Ds don’t have HUMS on-board. Those are titanium panels that are not painted since the paint will come off any way. No, that wasn’t me. Sea water entering a naval artillery gun’s turret is unlikely to cause any severe delays. It was the also not any problem with the NAUTIS-F combat management system (CMS) as such, but the problems with Marconi 8251 fire-control systems for VL Seawolf & their integration challenges with the NAUTIS-F CMS that were the main causes for delayed deliveries.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To FARIS: Read this:

Anonymous said...

"It was this weapon system that was offered to the IAF in case the PAF went ahead to procure E-2C Hawkeyes in the late 1980s."
Why didn't we procure it ? It could have help us in furthering our research in this field. Also can't it be used for now considering PAF has more AWACS (on order + in service) than us ? Its still state of the art and i am sure Russians would have built some newer version of this weapon system.

"For developing ground-based static high-power lasers capable of countering supersonic/hypersonic PGMs, the DRDO can achieve this on its own since miniaturisation is not a challenge in this area."
Its not true. We already have developed some pretty powerful LASERs. Problem is the project is not meant for defence use. Also we haven't build the laser powerful enough to be used as an offensive or defensive purpose. But according to estimates that laser will be big and its rate of fire will be way to less to be used as a weapon as it will take time for it to recharge.
All this is the case if the same platform is used as that of KALI project. Things could change if drdo starts working on some totally different kind of laser.
Miniaturization for indian KALI project is a problem because this project wasn't meant for defence purposes but when a powerful enough version of KALI is built drdo wanna use it for defence. Similar problem is going on for military use of space, very few people in the sapce community in India is excited about militarization of space and so drdo is not able to find necessary help from isro.

We would really like some info on Euronaval 2012. Especially if there's something related to iNdia ? Both DCNS and fincantieri has built AEGIS like warship based on FREMM and it is most likely be used for their BMD program. MBDA is also building ASTER family interceptor for BMD program. Is india seeking some help from them ? Is their some indian plan to have such kind of capability because i think all our P17, P17a, P15, P15a warship can be used for Ballistic missile defence instaed of designing a whole new class.

Does IN has a requirement for SMX-26 submarines ? If yes then are we gonna procure them ?

"As for SSNs & SSGNs, the programmes will stay totally separate, i.e. there will be no cross-transfers of technologies from either Russia or France. Even if Barracuda-type SSNs are built in India using French technological assistance, there won’t be any technological overflows to the Arihant family of SSGNs"
All these will be build in HSL ? Can they handle it ? Will their be two separate lines for SSBN and SSN ? Or we will wait for first projectto complete and then work on second will start ?
We all know SSN will be escorting SSBN but what about SSGN, what will be its role ?
Is Arihant class be used as SSGN in future ?
How many submarines can HSL build simultaneously at the same time after modernisation program ?
Whats the progress of supersonic SLCM which we were building with the help of israel ?

Hypersonic missile project called ‘Air launched article’. What is it ? According to reports its a hypersonic 200 km range missile under the k family of missiles meant for Su30 mki.

"It is for this very reason that the IN wants the DAE to design an indigenous 200mw PWR that can be used by both SSGNs, SSNs & SSBNs in future."
Thats a wise idea as it would also reduce the overall cost. Is the design of this rector gonna be dirrent or its just gonna be a biggedr version of whats on Arihant ? Has the work on this project stared ? When could it be ready ?

Anonymous said...

You probably are not aware of difference between slogans, insignias and mottos.
Here is the IAF motto
The PLAAF motto you posted is actually.........
I'll tell you tomorrow.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Anon@10.21AM: Why wait till tomorrow? Trying to figure out the difference between a motto & slogan? Or trying to figure out whether a motto inscribed within an insignia cannot be supplemented by another motto? Or are you trying to figure out who's consistently inconsistent: you or the IAF or the PLAAF?

Anonymous said...

Heard of PLAAF Sky Wing Air Demo Team?

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Anon@11.23AM: Why jumping from one topic to another? Being consistently inconsistent yet again, are you?

To Anon@9.50AM: How can a fully developed product that is acquired off-the-shelf with tamper-proof control mechanisms enable anyone to further R & D on directed-energy weapons? Lasers already developed to date are all industrial-level systems & were not developed by DRDO or anyone else strictly for military applications. Militarisation of space is a non-issue since the day the ISRO-made TES overhead recce satellite was launched & deployed. Expos like EURONAVAL showcase only the latest warship-related technologies & solutions. Marketing updates & information are not always emanating from such expos. Neither MBDA nor THALES or anyone else will be involved in the IN’s futuristic principal surface combatant procurement programmes—notably the P-15B DDG & P-17A FFG—since the IN has already zeroed in on the Barak-2/ELM-2248 MF-STAR combination. Naval BMD in the Indian context isn’t reqd since the targets for such ballistic missiles are all located within the Indian landmass & there are no deployment constraints when it comes to fielding land-based BMD systems. Solutions like Barak-2/ELM-2248 MF-STAR combination will be equally proficient against NLOS-BSMs.
SMX-26 SSK is far too futuristic for the IN. I very much doubt that HSL will be able to handle SSN construction, since it takes more than 6 years to master the art of fabricating such vessels. Therefore, in all probability, Larsen & Toubro will continue to be the sole builder of all nuclear-powered submarines, with the SSBNs coming out from the western seaboard, while the SSNs could emerge from the new shipyard off Chennai. The Arihant-class S-2, S-3 & S-4 submarines will in all probability become SSGNs armed with Nirbhay SLCMs & BrahMos-1 Block-1 ASCMs AFTER the S-5, S-6, S-7 & S-8 SSBNs are commissioned into service between 2025 & 2035. Not supersonic SLCM or hypersonic air-launched article, but 600km-range supersonic nuclear warhead-armed ALCM (like the French ASMP) which is being co-developed by DRDO’s ASL & RAFAEL of Israel (just like the Barak-2/Barak-8 projects). Preliminary design work on the 200mw PWR has already begun at BARC, but the DAE has stated that R & D work will take 15 years to reach fruition.

Anonymous said...

It was a hint for you.
This is the slogan and wing insignia of PLAAF Sky Wing Air Demonstration Team.
Here is a picture only for you.
As the saying goes, the devil always lurks within the details.

Anonymous said...


1. The best MAWS arrangement on Sukhoi-30 is in RMAF Su-30MKM. One MAW-200 turret is situated under the nose and another aon the upper surface of fuselage just before the tails. They provide full hemispherical coverage both horizontally and vertically.

2. The MAWS in RMAF Su-30MKM are very small and wont require much space. That much space is available in Su-30mki. These maws are more compact than MILDS-F. IAF ought to have proceeded with such a MAWS distribution on fuselage.

3.As for space for avionics, when ELT-568 will be installed, Russian internal RF jammer will be discarded. This will free enough space for the jammers.

4.The LCA's EW suite is developed by the DARE, named ''MAYAVI'', has a Radar Warning Receiver (RWR), Missile Approach Warning (MAW) system, self-protection jammer, Laser Warning Radar (LWR), and chaff/flare dispenser.

5.Why did IAF previously decided not to fit its Sukhois with MAWS. RMAF had taken right decision.

6.Where will the TRD and small TsNIIRTI expendable rf decoys be mounted in Su-30mki ?

7.Delhi class DDG have 24+24 983M1 Shtil MRSAM and 32 Barak-1 for missile defense. Kolkata class DDG is supposed to have 64 Barak-2.

8. I have read many times in various sites that Su-30 has better sustained and instantaneous turn rate than F-15 at low speeds but F-15 is better in terms of acceleration and turns at high speeds. Su-30 ought to have similar turn rates,agilty like F-15 at supersonic speeds.

9.Why cant a fully loaded IL-76 land or takeoff from Leh ? If it can fly at 30000 ft with full payload why will it be unable to takeoff with such payloads at 10000 ft.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Anon@12.08PM: Not only are you missing the woods for the trees, but you're also trying to compare apples with oranges, i.e. slogans with mottos.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Anon@1.41PM: Super Su-30MKI will not just have MILDS-F MAWS, but MSWS, which includes laser warning receivers & therefore requires far more internal stowage space. Then there’s additional internal space reqd for processors & wiring harnesses for distributed AESA arrays for both ELT-568 & L-band wing-mounted AESA T/R modules. ‘Mayavi’ was the never the same for any integrated EW package. Neither DARE not BEL uses this term. Only the term MSWS is used, be it for Tejas Mk1/2 or the EMB-145I. Expendable decoys will be carried in underslung pods. IL-76MD IF re-engined with PS-90As, will be able to takeoff from Leh with full payload.

Anonymous said...

Sir, Rs 1,500 cr more for combat aircraft Tejas as HAL fails to meet What's this all about ? As far I know HAL has already established a production line of Tejas mk1 for annual production of 8 aircrafts. Is the Rs 1500 cr earmarked for expanding this production line for more fighter production per year ?

How were the LSP produced if there was no production line ? HAL has production line for Sukhoi. Then using that technology why can't HAL build a production line for Tejas? Why is theproduction limited to 8 acs only ?

Who will come in rescue of HAL ?IAF has placed orders for 20 Tejas mk1 only.

An upgrade programme for the Navy’s Sea Kings also hangs fire, and is currently being fought between AgustaWestland (OEM) and Israel Aerospace Industries. ? IN is going for upgrade after all.

Anonymous said...

Sir in your September 2008 thread "Project 15A DDG detailed" at the trishulgroup website, you had stated the following -

"The weapons package will include twin 24-cell launchers carrying 48 Barak-2 vertically-launched 70km-range surface-to-air missiles, twin 16-cell launchers carrying 32 Barak-1 anti-missile missiles, 16 BrahMos vertically-launched MRCMs housed within a VLS cell built by Larsen & Toubro, and one Arsenal A-190E 100mm main gun."

Link: -

Given today's info, its certain that P-15A DDG (Kolkata-class) will carry more than 48 (64 according to Wikipedia) Barak-2 70-km SAMs and 32 Barak-1 12-km SAMs.

But recently Ive heard you say that P-15A wont have any VLS cells for Barak-1 as Barak-8 can manage both fleet air defense and ship-defence against inbound ASCMs effectively. Are you absoluetly sure of this statement?

Because wherever I look on the net, it says P-15A carries total 96 SAMs (64 Barak-2 and 32 Barak-1) and 16 cruise missiles (BrahMos Block-I).

Do you have official info from MDL that the ship has only 64 VLS cells for SAMs. nor 96?


Btw, can the Barak-2/8 intercept supersonic/high-supersonic missiles like YJ-12 (cancelled project, but just for the knowledge) and CM-400AKG?

How good is the Barak-1 in comparison to the SM-2/3 Evovled Sea Sparrow Missile (ESSM) used on Aegis-equipped warships like USS Lasen?

Anonymous said...

If Tejas Mk2 will have limited 5th gen capability shouldn't we mass produce it to reach 55 squadrons? Heck maybe even MAlaysia or Vietnam could buy a squadron or two in the future.

Btw Saraswat and Subramaniam have always said that multiple countries have repeatedly made their interest known regarding the LCA.

Any idea who these countries might be?

Anonymous said...

Sir, Thanks for all the ans. Last time.
MAWS of midls-f have the same size as IRST or even smaller. They just need to be scab fitted onto the airfame. Negligible internal space required. All Sukhoi will not have l band aesa. Only few. F-18 Super hornets offered to India had MAW-200 type fitted on the airframe. Which pylon will have maws fitted ? Will these pylons be permannently fitted to the ac and will be there during training sorties or deployed only during hostilities. Can you give URL of the page where the maws arrangement of SUPER SUKHOI-30 is given , where pylon attachment is stated. A pic is worth a thousand words. Which is a better system MILDS-F or MAW-200. Bel brochure gives milds detection range as only five km. MAW-200 is said to have a very long range by using some focal arrays and sampling techniques. It is rumoured to use the latest tech in UV maws field.

abs said...

1)I was referring to the comparisonal efficacy of platforms like A-10 warthogs vis-a-vis AH-64D Apaches during the Close Air Support ops?
2)In future high altitude conflicts would the IA use rotary winged assets for CAS or leave it for the IAF, who would use their fixed wing assets?
3) In between 2014, when the ISAF withdraws from Afghanistan and 2025, do you foresee any Indian combat operations in Afghanistan, especially in a scenario where Pakistan tries to destabilise the Afghanistan in order to gain strategic hold over Afghanistan? The efforts of Pakistan would be to strongly undermine the AF govt.

4)About India's definitive BMD programme,Do you think
a) The interceptors would have the capability to neutralise maneuvering warheads where lots of counter measures including chaffs and flares and decoy warheads would be used?
b)Do you think the interceptors would ever be used against missiles like shourya,Agni-1/2?? else a lot of questions would remain unanswered.

5)IF the Tejas MK2 is meant to be used solely for BAI missions not extending beyond 100 kms from the place where contact battle is in place, then the usage of conformal fuel tanks and multiple IRSTs might not be of much help with regards to the operational profile of the air craft.

Anonymous said...

I think when 4th and 5th SSBNs will be inducted S 2 will be dedicated to training of crew alone, and S-3, S-4 will be turned into SSGNs. I also think S 5 and S 6 SSBNs will have displacement of 8,000 tons at least and at max of 12500-12680 tons. what do you think about it?

Anonymous said...

Continued > I think that 4th and 5th SSBNs will carry at least 8 K 4 SLBMs ( if they weigh 8,000 tons to 10,500 tons) or 6 K 4 missiles and 4 K 6( SLBM version of Agni 6) missiles.

Anonymous said...

Sir who developed the R-118 RWR on Tejas Mk1?

Rahul said...

Hi Prasun ,The initial EL/L-8251 jammers were procured as far back as 2009 for systems integration with Su-30MKIs. Were more EL/L-8251 escort jamming pods procured ? How many approx were ordered to date ? Are these jammers only for mki ? After Jaguar DARIN-3 upgrade wont more such jammers be ordered ?

In recent times were any ARM for Su-30 ordered ? Why is IAF not very keen on purchasing long range Kh-31PD ? No orders for this were placed till date .

IAF senior officials still now refers to Jaguar as DPSA. Can the fitment of maws, rf jammer,laser emission warner and TRD be expected ?

As part of upgrades for Sukhoi will AASM type standoff PGM be ordered ? Can R-77,R-27 intercept LACM,ALCM using BARS as fire control radar ? R-77 is said to be able to intercept SAM .

Recently Dassault Aviation has asked MoD what will be the role of HAL in the MMRCA deal ? Why such ques? Do Dassault thinks HAL will be unable to pull such a job like precision manufacturing of Rafale, will not be able to absorb all ToT and delay the production process.

Anonymous said...

Hi Prasun sir,

By far HAL is by far the second largest ship building facility (With its natural harbor gift and a little good favor from Govt and Navy, it can become the largest in the country surpassing CSL) which is already embarked on building submarine fleets. Will it be a wise decision for Navy to make this ship building yard fully capable in constructing India's SSBN's, SSN's after completing S2, S3, S4 subs... Visakhapatnam is also the home for NSTL a premier Naval lab. Is it also wise to develop a single ship yard in specializing in an area like Nuclear subs instead of distributing them as mentioned by you SSBN's from western coast and SSN's from new plant in Chennai.

Regarding the Miniatured nuclear reactor inside Arihant submarine. Which generation it belongs to? Is it in the same league 3rd generation nuclear reactors now deployed on latest submarines which doesn't require refueling during the subs life time...

Is it also wise for India to embark on 4 aircraft carrier with nuclear propulsion and sizes/weighs similar to IAC2 in different dock yard (Like HSL). It will give Indian Naval Design bureau a chance to design such a complex vessel starting now instead of dreaming and embarking some where in the middle of 2040's when our neighbor would have already procured some expertise on it (Even after starting/realizing constructing aircraft carriers and inducting into their navy). By this way India could embark on designing new generation of aircraft carriers which could replace all the existing perceived designs. It will also give the Navy 2 small and 2 large aircraft carriers.

Also the 4 LPD's the IN is trying to acquire. Will it be hosting any fixed wing aircrafts? like the F 35 Lightening II or the Naval Tejas MkII fighters? (Like on America class amphibious assault ships). Since IN have plans to order around 45 Naval LCA's, only 8 are currently enlisted to be flying from IAC1, where are the others going to fly from?. And the LPD's currently IN is researching, will they be comparable to America class amphibious assault ships?? VMT in advance prasunji...

Anonymous said...

** Sorry for the type, the Yasen class is mentioned as sporting 4 generation nuclear reactor with the core life of about 25 - 30 years. How does Indian Arihant nuclear reactor fare compared to the one on the Yasen class. VMT in advance prasunji...

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Anon@2.07PM: Why do you sound so surprised??? What HAL had built & what was shown during the staged ceremony early last year (the Tejas Mk1’s IOC ceremony tamaasha) were just two workshops where final-assembly (done manually without any prescribed QA practices required for mass industrial-scale final-assembly) of up to four aircraft at any given time could take place. Just go to Chennai & see how Hyundai automobiles are built & assembled & that will give you a good idea of what full-scale industrial production is all about. All PVs & LSPs were manually assembled, which is all right for small batches of aircraft. But when it comes to producing 150 new-generation combat aircraft, the entire production facility can easily be a mile-long. In case of the Su-30MKI too, only the final-assembly line is in Nashik where only 12 aircraft can be assembled per annum & it was never designed to undertake large-scale production. This final-assembly line it receives the fully-built engines, accessories, instrumentation & avionics from other HAL Divisions in Koraput, Lucknow, Kanpur, Korwa & Hyderabad. In case of Tejas Mk1 & 2, given the need to accelerate series-production, a single integrated & environmentally controlled final-assembly facility is required, the kind of which does not exist anywhere in India. All of HAL’s final-assembly lines are geared up for only doing aircraft refurbishment & retrofits for aircraft like Jaguar & Mirage 2000.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

continued from above....
As far back as 2005 it was well-known that given HAL’s future preoccupation with aircraft/helicopter design & co-development (with the Tejas Mk1/2, IL-214 MRTA & FGFA), HAL would be reqd to initiate Greenfield projects for four distinctive areas: helicopter final-assembly; combat aircraft final-assembly; ginal-assembly facility for flying training aircraft like BTTs & AJTs; & transport aircraft final-assembly. Obviously all three cannot be done at a single location in Bengaluru. Consequently, while the existing facilities in Bengaluru ought to have been restructured for undertaking only refurbishments/upgrades of in-service combat aircraft & flying training aircraft plus series-production of UAVs, land should have been acquired at other locations in or around Bengaluru, Lucknow, Nagpur, Kanpur or Hyderabad for setting up brand-new final-assembly lines for products like Dhruv/Rudra, LCH, RSH/LOH/LUH, HTT-40 BTT, Tejas Mk1/2, IL-214, & FGFA. I have been writing about this since 2005 & had in the distant past also stated that the existing premier aircraft & systems testing facilities like NFTC & ASTE were severely compromised from both technological & security standpoints due to their present locations within a metropolis. It is fairly easy for anyone to take advantage of the EMI factor & hack into telemetry tracking data-links used for monitoring all kinds of flight-tests in & around Bengaluru. Ideally, by 2002 the NFTC & ASTE ought to have re-located further down south in either Tamil Nadu or Kerala & be co-located at a brand-new IAF base that’s dedicated exclusively for experimental flight-tests & evaluations, systems integration tests, & for RCS measurement-related R & D. All the R & D labs & design houses could well have stayed behind in Bengaluru. Had such a roadmap been devised & implemented along with empowering HAL’s management with total financial autonomy (via strategic divestments), most of the mess one is witnessing today could well have been avoided. But I was well aware by 2005 that within a decade HAL will be severely hamstrung, especially financially, & no one in-charge, not even from the IAF, would be able to produce the kind of miracles that everyone now desires. Instead of waiting in vain for such miracles, the country’s decision-makers ought to have read the writing on the wall & subsequently should have taken decisions based on logical reasoning & financial viability. Alas, that is still not happening. Consequently, Sir Ratan TATA was spot on when he recently said: “The defence sector could be the new, new growth sector of India, but it probably won't be".

Anonymous said...

Reading your comments above Prasun da...One word can be said "Shit happens only in india..God knows why Govt does not allow FDI even 49% whereas they can fight in parliament over 51% FDI in retail..Ratan Tata is right..What was the Govt. and HAL doing so long..another Idiot HAL chairman Tyagi and coupled with AK antony just ruining everything and lack common sense..

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Anon@2.29PM: There’s a heaven-n-earth difference between what was the case in 2008 & now. Warship designs keep getting altered & that’s why a P-15A DDG costs an astronomical US$960 million (225% project cost escalation). The final design-configuration of P-15A DDG was shown by MDL during DEFEXPO 2012 & it clearly showed the final fitments of weapons & sensors. THERE WAS NO BARAK-1!
Barak-2 will be able to intercept any inbound supersonic ASCM out to a distance of 6km (I’ve already repeated this several times already!!!!!) Barak-2 is a full generation ahead of ESSM.

To Anon@2.47PM: See this:

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To ABS: 1) Attack helicopters like AH-64 are good close air-support providers only if & when they are
armed with guided-missiles of 10km/15km-range & armed with blast-fragmentation warheads (instead of shaped-charge anti-armour), but Mi-25/Mi-35Ps equipped with unguided rocket pods & guided-missiles of 10km/15km-range & armed with blast-fragmentation warheads are extremely good CAS providers when it comes to targetting dug-in infantry forces in the plains & deserts. I for one will therefore be inclined to retain the Mi-25s/Mi-35Ps in service for at least another 15 years by upgrading their powerplants (i.e. replacing the existing TV3-117 engines with VK-2500s) & further improving their night-attack capabilities. Based on lessons learnt from the two military campaigns waged in & around Chechnya, Russia has come up with the Hermes-A helicopter-launched laser-guided missile that has a range of 20km (something similar to the Raytheon AGM-65 Maverick). One Mi-25/Mi-36P can carry 16 such missiles, which can be guided to their targets with hand-held laser target designators. The Rudra, if equipped with Hermes-A, will be able to carry four such missiles. Compared to fixed-wing aircraft like A-10s or Su-25s, heli-borne CAS is cheaper to deliver & is also more time-responsive, since helicopter-gunships do not require faraway air base-based infrastructure of the type reqd for fixed-wing combat aircraft. Consequently, the sensor-to-shooter loop is dramatically diminished if helicopter-gunships that are always co-located with friendly ground formations are used for CAS. All that’s reqd for such helicopter-gunships in the rear areas is free availability of fuel & weapons reloads & response time is less than 10 minutes, compared to between 30 minutes & 45 minutes reqd for a CAS aircraft to reach wherever it is reqd. In addition, with helicopter-gunships synchronising their targetting capabilities with friendly infantry forces carrying laser target designators, the chances of blue-on-blue engagements (& there were several of them in 1965 & 1971 for which the IA has never forgiven the IAF) are almost nil.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To ABS: 2) The principal lesson learnt during OP Vijay & OP Safed Sagar in 1999 was that in forbidding heights, the best CAS is always delivered by field artillery when supported by precision targetting via hand-held laser target designators that also have built-in thermal imagers for target detection/acquisition. Such target detection/designation aids are also useful for vectoring Army-operated UCAVs (that are more cost-effective) equipped with 150kg LGBs or PGMs like Hermes-A or AASM. Hand-held laser target designators in possession of IA’s Ghatak Platoons can also be extremely effective when used along with laser-guided 81mm & 120mm mortar rounds. But in case of waging wars over high-altitude terrain in places like Aksai China or Chumbi Valley where Indian forces are perched at higher altitudes & can look down on hostile concentrations of infantry, artillery & armour, fixed-wing combat aircraft armed with laser-/IR-guided PGMs & guided by IA’s ground-based target designation teams will be the preferred option.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To ABS: 3) On the contrary, as I had alluded to previously, China & India have had dramatic convergence of views regarding the future of both Afghanistan & Central Asia & it seems that the new Chinese leadership too wants continuity on this issue (& hence the recent invitation to NSA Shiv Shankar Menon to visit Beijing for official consultations) & also wants to successfully conclude border demarcation negotiations with India, especially with regard to Aksai Chin. It is Beijing’s desire, therefore, that by 2014 as ISAF withdraws from Afghanistan, both China & India play the leading role in stabilising the whole of Central Asia. This is the new grand strategy whose details are now being worked out. This is logical, since both India & Pakistan cannot undertake complete dispute resolution regarding J & K unless the LAC issue with China is first sorted out, especially regarding Aksai Chin. Once LAC demarcation with China is achieved, then automatically issues like Siachen & the entire future status of J & K will be speedily resolved (based on Musharraf’s four-point formula, which calls for the abolition of LoC & the entire state of J & K inclusive of Northern Areas being jointly overseen & secured jointly by India & Pakistan, meaning the borders becoming irrelevant). It is for all these reasons that all stakeholders in Pakistan too have realised that what’s reqd most is a regional solution, as opposed to a bilateral India-Pakistan solution that often seems elusive. Now, with China’s active backing & encouragement, even the Pakistan Army has been pressurised to formally realised that Pakistan can prosper only if all its immediate neighbours too can prosper (which is what Pakistan’s President Asif Ali Zardari has been saying from day 1 of his presidency). Now, with all stakeholders in Pakistan (ruling coalition, the opposition political parties & the armed forces) all on the same page (thanks to the behind-the-scene efforts of China & India), the stage is now set for a grand regional bargain/reconciliation with India (including the formalisation of a bilateral restraint regime codifying a verifiable balance of conventional/strategic forces of the two countries), irregardless of who comes to power in Pakistan after the 2013 general elections. If everything happens as per the agreed-upon choreography, then this could well be the trump-card for the UPA govt to win the 2014 general elections & could well earn the Nobel Peace Prize for both Dr MMS & President Zardari, or whoever becomes the next President or PM of Pakistan.
When (& no longer if) all this happens, it will undoubtedly transform the entire geo-strategic & geo-economic landscape of the entire sub-continent & Central Asia. It was for this very reason that I had stated earlier above that in view of the far-reaching transformations expected in the near future, India needs to do some much-needed strategic visioning & come up with a Strategic Review which articulates the country’s new national security paradigms, from which will flow out new national & regional security postures, & which in turn will demand new warfighting doctrines reqd. Only once all this is achieved will one be able to articulate specific short-term/medium-term/long-term force modernisation programmes & the consequent military-industrial roadmaps reqd for meeting the targets of such force modernisation programmes, i.e. no more arming without aiming. That is the very least that I expect as of now.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To ABS: 4) Any interceptor warhead equipped with terminal-stage IIR sensors will have some capability to distinguish between decoy warheads & actual warheads. To ensure full credibility of such interceptors—be they PDV or AD-1 or AD-2—realistic flight-tests against solid-fuelled missiles like Shourya & even Agni-3 will be imperative.
5) That depends on the distance between the tactical battle area & the air base hosting the Tejas Mk2. If air bases close to the border are targetted by cruise missiles, then it would seem that all frontline IAF combat aircraft assets will have to be relocated deeper within the hinterland, which in turn will require either conformal fuel tanks for extending the aircraft’s combat radius, or having on-demand aerial refuelling support, which is unlikely since only 6 IL-78MKIs are available & in future 10 MRTTs will arrive. However, 16 aerial refuelling tankers too will be grossly insufficient to cope with the IAF’s sortie surge rates.

To Anon@4.28PM & 4.33PM: S-5’s design has already been frozen & finalised. Read this:
It says: DRDO’s Kochi-based Naval Physical & Oceanographic Laboratory (NPOL) has released the first definitive illustration of the next-generation S-5 SSBN, which externally bears a close resemblance to the Project 667BDRM Delta IV SSBN. The illustration, carried on a brochure of the NPOL-developed submarine sonar suite (SSS I-12), which is still under development for the S-5, which will carry twelve 6,500km-range SLBMs. Thus far, India’s MoD has sanctioned the fabrication of only three SSBNs: S-2 (Arihant), S-3 and S-4. Financial sanction for fabricating the S-5’s hull has yet to be obtained. The double-hulled Project 667BDRM Delta IV SSBN has an operational diving depth of 320 metres and a maximum depth of 400 metres. The propulsion system allows speeds of 24 Knots (44kph) submerged while using two VM-4 pressurised water reactors rated at 180mW that drive two GT3A-365 turbines each rated at 27.5mW.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Anon@8.57PM: DARE.

To RAHUL: No more than 25 EL/L-8251s have been procured. They’re for Su-30MKIs, the 17 Jaguar/DARIN-2 tandem-seaters & in future the Mirage 2000UPG. After DARIN-3, Jaguars will not be involved with escort jamming sorties & will instead become only battlefield air interdictors, a role previously played by MiG-23BNs & MiG-27Ms. Su-30MKIs are now the principal DPSAs. Kh-31Ps are lethal ARMs even today. AASM will be procured for Rafale & Tejas Mk2. For Su-30MKI, a rocket-powered version of the Sudarshan LGB is being developed. Any IR-guided AAM can intercept a cruise missile in flight. BVRAAMs can intercept cruise missiles when they are not in terrain-hugging mode. HAL is presently totally ill-equipped to undertake the licenced final-assembly of Rafale-type combat aircraft, leave alone licenced-manufacture. The problems are two-fold: lack of finances required for industrial modernisation & lack of highly skilled human resources. That’s why even the Mirage 2000 upgrade programme will take such a long time to be concluded.

To Anon@12.21AM: Vizag is today a heavily congested port & will get more congested due to growth in merchant marine traffic-levels. It is therefore totally unwise to have either a nuclear-powered submarine production facility in Vizag, or home-port such submarines there. No single yard in India can possibly fabricate both SSBNs & SSNs within the reqd timeframe. Hence, there’s a need to mentor & nurture yards that are specialising in a particular type of vessel construction. Arihant’s PWR is not even MILSPEC. The PWR was originally designed for nuclear ice-breakers & hence it is taking such a long time to validate the performance parameters of this design when encased within a submarine’s hull. The PWR of Arihant has a lifespan of only 10 years. Ideally, a 60,000-tonne IAC-2 ought to be nuclear-powered. IAC-2 ought to be build at a yard that already has prior experience in fabricating aircraft carriers. HSL should instead be tasked with producing submarine tenders & doing periodic refits of warships. The 4 LPHs will all house only 12-tonne NMRHs (& not 10-tonne NMRHs of the type destined for FFGs & DDGs).

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Anon@1.05AM: Regretfully, the country is being governed by jokers (maskharon ka mulk)! How else can one explain why India’s foremost industrial house decided to opt for China—and not India— when opening a second assembly-line for Jaguars & Land Rovers? It is no use blaming officials like the present HAL CMD or anyone else from the IAF who aspires to be the CMD, for such officials are mere tools & not strategic decision-makers. This entire tamaasha is the handiwork of the successive Govts of India & the MoD. None of them looked beyond five years & no one within the govt is even bothered to take up the issue of bipartisan long-term economic planning beyond 5 years that require iron-clad commitments for non-lapsable military-industrial financial support. Leave alone common sense, even a sense to read the writing on the wall is totally absent!!!

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Anon@1.05AM: Just note who ridiculous the following 2 statements (from:
1) P Subramanyam, who runs the LCA programme, explains that nobody realised that setting up a production line was a technology by itself.-------------------------------------Didn’t anyone from ADA or the IAF ever visit the final-assembly lines of Dassault Aviation, Eurofighter GmBH, Boeing, Saab Aircraft BV or Lockheed Martin just to get an idea of what exactly does it take to produce a fourth-generation combat aircraft??? For God’s sake, there are even documentaries on this subject made by DISCOVERY Channel & posted on YouTube!!!

2) Air Marshal Pranab K Barbora, who retired as the IAF vice-chief two years ago, summarises the Air Force’s viewpoint: “HAL’s assembly line expertise is outdated by at least three decades. They have done nothing to upgrade their technology. Setting up a modern assembly line for the Tejas is far beyond HAL’s capabilities.” Barbora says this is why the IAF lobbied hard to post a serving air marshal as HAL chief.-----------------------------------AM (ret’d) PKB ought to realise that even serving senior IAF officials are clueless when it comes to military-industrial issues, even though they may be great thinkers & operational conceptualisers. For instance, the IAF’s still-serving AM who was nominated by the IAF for becoming the next CMD of HAL had, in the final week of last month, said at a seminar on the 1962 War & Role of IAF in New Delhi that the Shenyang J-31 would be the PLA Navy’s principal carrier-borne MRCA, & lo and behold, just two days later video-clips of the first two J-15s landing on & taking off from Liao Ning were broadcast worldwide!!!

Anonymous said...

"Vizag is today a heavily congested port & will get more congested due to growth in merchant marine traffic-levels. It is therefore totally unwise to have either a nuclear-powered submarine production facility in Vizag, or home-port such submarines there. No single yard in India can possibly fabricate both SSBNs & SSNs within the reqd timeframe. Hence, there’s a need to mentor & nurture yards that are specialising in a particular type of vessel construction."
HSL and LnT tie-up could help them utilize the new LnT yard in TN for SSN purpose. Not to mention if LnT gets the necessary technical know-how to build SSN, they will churn out SSNs sat the ate that will even amaze Chinese.

"The 4 LPHs will all house only 12-tonne NMRHs (& not 10-tonne NMRHs of the type destined for FFGs & DDGs)."
HSL or MDL is gonna build them ? How many 12-ton NMRHs will be procured ? I think IN already issued RFI/RFP.

"Didn’t anyone from ADA or the IAF ever visit the final-assembly lines of Dassault Aviation, Eurofighter GmBH, Boeing, Saab Aircraft BV or Lockheed Martin just to get an idea of what exactly does it take to produce a fourth-generation combat aircraft???"
No, that these iddiots do every couple months. But they are sent to learn, instead they think they are send for vacation.
Do you remember when US ambassador to India said the same thing, at that time HAL people's feeling got hurt and they claimed they know everything. i REALLY AGREE WITH THIS PERSON

Anonymous said...


1. R u saying that we will be locked into a bilateral strategic restraint regime with Pakistan ?

2. Does this mean that programs like the Agni V and 6500 km SLBM stand cancelled under such a regime ?

3. What about the need for a credible deterrent vis a vis China ? If locked into a puny nuclear arsenal with Pak, wont we be left naked against a much larger PRC arsenal ?

4. Or is it that the strategic restraint regime allows us enough leeway to buildup our long range deterrent ?

F said...

Sorry Prasun, still about very clueless regarding the tinanium heat resistant panels over the gun bays of the MKI and MKM? Why are such panels not needed on the MiG-29 and on Western made aircraft?

Praveen Singh said...

Thanks for sharing such wonderful information about eSMS Campaign Management Services.I read your articles very excellent and the i agree our all points because all is very good information provided this through in the post.

Praveen Singh said...

I really appreciate your Post. the post has excellent tips which are useful. this post is good in regards of both knowledge as well as information eSMS Campaign Management Services