Total Pageviews

Monday, January 7, 2013

Snapshots Of DRDO Exhibits At ISC's 'Pride Of India' Expo In Kolkata

Shown below is the latest data on the EMB-145I AEW & CS platform and its related ground-based support infrastructure.
 Will upload the narratives later tonight. There's plenty to write about.

130 comments:

Bhaswar said...

Prasun Sir,

Is that an early variant of the Arjun MBT in the second last pic? If yes then when was the picture taken? It seems to be from the early 90s by my guess.

On a side note, has the design for the Project-17A frigates been frozen, any ideas on when the shipyards will start the production process for them?

Thank you for spending your valuable time in answering my queries.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To BHASWAR: Yup, it was one of the earliest prototypes of Arjun & the photo was of the late 1980s. There are several more photos of all the prototypes of Arjun MBT that are contained in a special commemorative book on the Arjun MBT that was brought out by DRDO last year. Of course, there will be several ‘horrible’ internet chat forums whose members have already started masturbating after blindly assuming that the photo shows the Arjun Mk2 (godforesaken morons!!!). All designs of indigenously-built warships are not frozen even after hull fabrication has begun, & the P-17A FFG is no exception. Certain bad habits of the IN’s Naval Design Bureau do tend to linger on.

mrsingh1987 said...

hi Prasun,
1. Sudarshan LGB seems to have landed with in 2-3 meters of target and bomb size sees to 500 kg but that target is still intact were real explosives used in test or was it just to check accuracy? Pic just shows dust flying due to impact.
2. How does DRDO hand grenades compare to best in world?
3. Any reports on CL-20 explosive production?
Thanx

rammy said...

Prasun K. Sengupta, what is the status of the MSMC??

Pradeep said...

Hi Prasun,

The Anti tank guided missile does not seem to be the Nag missile. What missile is this ? Is this the MANPADS type missile supposed to be developed by DRDO ?

Thanks

Jagdish Vadivelu said...

Did Trishul SAM project reviewed , if yes why? if no then why DRDO is fooling around with trishul pic in expo

Pradeep said...

Prasun,

Any updates on the MSMC trials, is this likely to be inducted or the import lobby at work.

Thanks

ken said...

sir cant wait for your report way too exciting. but how much of these are in production and agni 5 & 4 is not in those so it is yet to be accepted even those in trial like arjun mk 1A is not in these. but LGB kit is meaning that it has matured?? but the http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-ggglPga5nAo/UOqQdO8pcJI/AAAAAAAADGU/yCfcfHgtMMg/s1600/Sudarshan+LGB+Poster.JPG show the target being missed by a long distance for LGB?? any thing new after Trishul being closed as a technology demo. proj.

Anonymous said...

Sir is the MMW Seeker shown in the expo meant for Nag ATGM?

Anonymous said...

Hi Prasun da

Is it really necessary for DRDO to produce new artillery systems..Can such towed guns be supplemented by pinaka rockets or any rocket artillery system...IA can have M777 light weight guns+guided long range rockets+self propeled guns.Ur views.VMT

Mr. Ra 13 said...

Excellent as it is.

What is the rate of firing of the Multiple Launcher System.

ladakh said...

Tell me in % terms the amount of millitary assets china has deployed against india specifically in chendu and lanzhou millitary regions in consideration to pla and plaaf.

Bhaswar said...

Prasun Sir,

Q- If the NDB is the cause for the delays in our ship-building projects and ventures then would one be correct in stating that the shipyards and manufacturing infrastructure present in our country is adequate to meet the IN's demand at the current time and in the near future or are there issues in that area too?

Q- Could you elucidate upon the effects of the recent news about the cuts in the defense budget (stated to be around 10,000 cr.) on our force modernization plans. As in are you aware of any specific acquisition or "make/build" projects which are going to be affected by the cuts. In absence of any specific knowledge or information, given your experience and expertise, could you venture an informed guess as to which projects will be affected?

Q- Will the IA, IN and IAF bare the brunt of these cuts equally or at least not in a vastly disproportionate manner or is one service going to be affected significantly more than the others?

Q- What should be the number of the tankers that the IAF should operate by 2025 in your opinion?

Q- Has the NDB's proclivities also led to a delay in the construction of the two additional Arihant Class Submarines, that is to say that is the NDB tinkering with the design of these specific subs even though their construction has allegedly commenced?

rad said...

HI Prasun
The jerks have published a pic that depicts the LGB missing the target .But drawing a straight line of the of the flight path of the LGB in the previous pic shows that it could have hit the target at the bottom.

The MMW radar occupies a large portion of the depicted missile , i wonder where the warhead will be placed and how the jet of the shaped charge will penetrate all this electronics to hit the target .Will not the jet of molten metal be diverted or the warhead efficacy be reduced?
The laser guided anti tank missile looks like a re engineered version of the lahat.

Has the army shot down the MSMC?.The concept seems ok but the engineering and ergonomics looks hand made. My suggestion would be to employ H&K to re-engineer and de bug the gun , or re caliber the
HK MP5 to 5.56x30mm. Royal ordanance did the same consultation with HK to improve the SA_80 and now they have a successful gun.

DAshu said...

what Trishul is doing there ? That project got a new life or wat?

DAshu said...

once you said TTP is the creation of US but below link says something else

http://www.rediff.com/news/report/taliban-vows-to-unleash-jihad-in-kashmir-implement-sharia/20130108.htm

Anonymous said...

goodness me, some of the twits posting here would stretch the patience of anyone half knowledgeable. Kudos to prasun for putting up with their whining.
"LGB missing" - it did not miss! All LGBs have a circular error probable, ranging from 10-30 m for non GPS assisted ones, within which if the bomb falls, the primary target is destroyed once the explosives do their job. In this test, clearly, the Sudarshan was launched without any HE and still came well within 10 m of the target, which in real life would devastate the target with its HE warhead!
At least learn something before shooting your mouths off ignoramuses!

bradshaw said...

Hi Prasun da,

Regarding the recent RFP issued FOR PROCUREMENT OF
MEDIUM RANGE ANTI SHIP MISSILE FOR NAVAL SURFACE PLATFORMS ( 120kms range ).

Can you please let us know why it is required and why MoD is wasting so much money when 290 kms Brahmos is already operable in numbers on many ships and harpoons already procured for JAGS.

First i thought it might be for the MRH or other aerial platforms like Tupolov's or IL-38 as a replacement for sea eagles.But the RFP clearly mentions the mode of firing should be from a ship only.

http://tenders.gov.in/viewtenddoc.asp?tid=del539136&wno=1&td=TD

bradshaw said...

Or it might be for small boats/ lighter ships like Saryu class which cannot take the weight of Brahmos ??

Gessler said...

Some good news about the Tank-EX project -

http://www.tejwebworld.com/tank-exthe-future-mbt-for-india/

As you had already stated, the tank must be upgunned if to please IA, and upgunned it was! From 105mm to the same 120mm rifled gun as Arjun Mk-1.

Congrats on hitting that one on the spot.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To MRSINGH1987: What must be noted is that when guided PGMs or even ASCMs or NLOS-BSMs are being flight-tested, they are NEVER armed with live warheads. If live warheads were to be used, then there would be no forensic evidence left at all about the CEP. That is why the visuals of the Sudarshan LGB shown on the poster can depict the CEP so clearly. Had a live warhead been used, there would have been nothing left of not just the target, but also its surrounding area, rest assured.

To PRADEEP: That is the CLGM, which is a 120mm multi-role missile capable of being launched from both 120mm MBT gun-barrels, as well as from manportable launchers. Development of this missile was initiated in 2005 for the Arjun MBT project & it was meant to be both an anti-armour round as well as an anti-helicopter round. Since the CLGM could not be delivered in time for the Arjun Mk1A’s user-trials, the LAHAT had to be imported from IAI as an interim solution. In future, however, the CLGM will: 1) Replace the LAHAT on Arjun Mk1A MBT 2) Replace the Milan-2 & Konkurs while using the existing manportable launchers of the Milan-2 & Konkurs; & 3) It is also being evaluated by the IA as a possible substitute for the existing NAMICA-launched NAG ATGM.
MSMC trials are on-going, but the good news is that the CAPFs like CRPF, BSF, CISF & NSG are extremely satisfied with its performance & large orders are most likely to be issued by these CAPFs.

To JAGDISH VADIVELU: No, the Trishul’s mock-up was exhibited only for ‘nostalgic’ purposes. In today’s world when fire-and-forget SHORADS (using either IIR or active X-band seekers) is the global norm, there’s no room for Trishul-type semi-active SHORADS, rest assured.

To KEN: What must be noted is that when guided PGMs or even ASCMs or NLOS-BSMs are being flight-tested, they are NEVER armed with live warheads, n ot just in India, but worldwide. If live warheads were to be used, then there would be no forensic evidence left at all about the CEP. That is why the visuals of the Sudarshan LGB shown on the poster can depict the CEP so clearly. Had a live warhead been used, there would have been nothing left of not just the target, but also its surrounding area, rest assured.

To Anon@9.12PM: Not for Nag, but HELINA air-launched ATGM, which may well have a range of 8km (something like the Brimstone) when launched from a Rudra-type helicopter-gunship, or up to 15km when launched from a combat aircraft.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Anon@1.10AM: There is a reqmt for naval 155mm/52-cal artillery gun & it would have been far better if the DRDO had joined forces with the IN to co-develop such a system, because there is a definite & defined reqmt for such a weapon. Trying to develop a towed ATAGS that will see the light of day only after nine years will not impress either the MoD or IA, both of which are most likely to either call for competitive bidding when seeking such towed howitzers, or settle for the 155X45 version developed by OFB.

To Mr.RA 13: Firing rate of Pinaka-2 MBRL will be the same as that of Pinaka-1. Originally, the IA insisted on acquiring a 40km-range version of the 37.5km-range Pinaka-1. But then HEMRL succeeded in developing higher energetic propellants that could propel a slightly lengthened Pinaka-1 rocket out to 60km (57.5km being a more realistic figure) while using the same TEL. That’s when the IA re-drafted its GSQR & opted for the re-engineered Pinaka-1 rocket with 60km-range; & also mandated the ARDE to develop a brand-new MBRL capable of launching 300mm rockets out to a distance of 120km.

To LADAKH: Percentage terms in terms of what? Ore-deployed assets or assets held in reserved in the interior? Because unlike India, China has never forward-deployed its warfighting assets anywhere near the LAC. At most, only a Border Defence Regiment of the PLA at any time is deployed against an opposing IA Infantry Division.

To BHASWAR: The existing consolidated shipbuilding infrastructure of both MoD-owned shipyards & private-sector shipyards is more than adequate for fulfilling all the reqmts of the IN & ICGS. It is acute lack of naval architects within the NDB & the total lack of an independent warship design consultant that is responsible for unacceptable delays in the indigenous design & development of new-generation warships. By 2025, the IAF should be operating well over 20 aerial refueling tankers at the very least. NDB was NEVER involved with the ATV project & the S-2 & S-5 family of SSBNs have NOT BEEN designed by the NDB. They’re all imported designs of Russian origin from the RUBIN Central Marine Engineering Design Bureau.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To RAD. No, the Sudarshan LGB NEVER missed its target. What must be noted is that when guided PGMs or even ASCMs or NLOS-BSMs are being flight-tested, they are NEVER armed with live warheads. If live warheads were to be used, then there would be no forensic evidence left at all about the CEP. That is why the visuals of the Sudarshan LGB shown on the poster can depict the CEP so clearly. Had a live warhead been used, there would have been nothing left of not just the target, but also its surrounding area, rest assured. The MMW radar-armed HELINA will be similar in terms of design principle to the Hellfire/Brimstone. The CLGM is NOT the same as LAHAT. In future, however, the CLGM will: 1) Replace the LAHAT on Arjun Mk1A MBT 2) Replace the Milan-2 & Konkurs while using the existing manportable launchers of the Milan-2 & Konkurs; & 3) It is also being evaluated by the IA as a possible substitute for the existing NAMICA-launched NAG ATGM. MSMC will be ordered in very large numbers by most CAPFs.

To DASHU: No, the Trishul’s mock-up was exhibited only for ‘nostalgic’ purposes. In today’s world when fire-and-forget SHORADS (using either IIR or active X-band seekers) is the global norm, there’s no room for Trishul-type semi-active SHORADS, rest assured. Don’t worry about the TTP, since it poses a far greater danger to Pakistan’s ruling feudal aristocracy than to even a wild boar located in J & K.

To Anon@12.25PM: Such ‘whining’ can be excusable, since there are many who do not know exactly what are the procedures/protocols employed during the flight-test phase of guided PGMs. That’s what I’ve tried to explain & reveal in my above-mentioned comments.

To BRADSHAW: As the RFI (not RFP) clearly states, the ASCMs are required for installation on board existing warships, meaning those that are still armed with Termit-type ASMs. Therefore, the to-be-acquired-ASCMs will be going on board the existing project 16 FFGs, Project 25 corvettes & Tarantul-1 corvettes—vessels that cannot possibly accommodate the BrahMos (clearly an overkill for such vessels) in large numbers on board. Saryu-class NOPVs or for that matter any other NOPV should NEVER be armed with such ASCMs. As the name suggests, these are patrol vessels & therefore should never be classified as principal surface combatants.

To GESSLER: Tank EX was from the very outset armed with a 120mm rifled-bore gun. It was never upgunned, nor has it even been evaluated to date by the IA.

Anonymous said...

Sir is the real Arjun MK-II the one that's been shown on the " F blog " or there's another one with a redesigned turret and everything that's yet to be shown??

ken said...

sir, that is some quality work seems that the aerodynamic profile of rustrum 2 has been changed and as fas as kaveri goes are the specs. intended ones or achieved ones. really looking forward for ur next post

ken said...

also sir you are yet to post on radar front any thing new and intresting

Sujoy Majumdar said...

Hi PrasunDa,

You must have seen the RFP for medium range missiles that IN has come up with . Which companies do you think will be the likely contenders ?

Regards,
Sujoy

Anonymous said...

1. Sir what will be the external stores capacity of Tejas Mk-2? 5,000kg or 5,700kg?

2. Will it have retractable refuelling probe?

3. I have read you saying to some quiry that the frameless canopy of Tejas Mk-2 is ready and awaiting production, thats good news, but can you tell if whether it will be a clear-glass canopy or will it be tinted with gold-color tints to reduce RCS?

4. Is any other IAF jet other than Tejas Mk-2 planning to employ the Cockpit-NG?

5. What company has developed the frameless canopy?

6. How many hardpoints will Tejas Mk-2 have? 8 or 9?

Thanks in advance.

ladakh said...

Sir, whichever recently printed chinese political maps I have with me one striking thing is common in all, indian held arunachal pradesh,barahoti and demchok areas are being shown as integral part of peoples rebulic of china.Since ceasefire ended back in 2008 and china wages a war today to reclaim these so called its lost territories how many division(15000 8000 troops) and millitary jets it can deploy to achieve its final objection and whether india can stop chinese millitary or will suffer another millitary humiliation similar to 1962.Thank you.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Anon@4.04PM: The real Arjun K2 MBT has yet to be unveilled & no photos of it have been made public thus far.

To KEN: There were no new revelations on the radar front at the DRDO expo.

To SUJOY MAJUMDAR: Likely contenders will include MBDA, Boeing, Tactical Missiles Corp, Novator JSC & Kongeberg Defence.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Anon@7.17PM: 1) It is likely to go up to 6,200 tonnes. 2) Yes. 3) Gold-colour tinted. 4) No. 5) HAL. 6) 8.

Sujoy Majumdar said...

Thank you PrasunDa .

So Israeli companies like Rafael might not compete , right ?

Regards,
Sujoy

Gessler said...

Sir thanks for the info on Tank-EX. I have come across a couple of online friends of mine saying that TANK-EX, if enters production, will be called Arjun Mk-1B. Is that true? do you have have any news regarding the name issue?

Anonymous said...

"The real Arjun K2 MBT has yet to be unveilled & no photos of it have been made public thus far."
Who gives a shit ? From what i have seen in Arjun mk1a, its just like poor quality t90(i meant era tiles arragement) and if CVRDE needs israeli help to build such a peace of shit then we are really in a big trouble. Still arjun mk1 design is already very good so whatever mk2 will be, it will be better than other tanks in south asia but its nothing compared to Leopard or Merkava.

If arjun mk2 has a turret like Merkava or new Leopard then its a different matter.

Anonymous said...

Hi Prasun,

what is the actual maximum thrust of kaveri engine. some say it 45 kn (dry), and 70 kn (with afterburner), your picture of kaveri says 52 kn(dry) and 81kn(with afterburner)... whats the actual values....

also what is the status of KMGT... havent got much information about it from anywhere...

VMT in advance

A G

Anonymous said...

also what are the difficulties with kaveri engine.. why its max thrust cannot be increased... is it due to design that it can't be increased or due to some super alloys that india is not able to produce... if it's alloys then can't MIDHANI produce such alloys...

VMT in advance

A G

Anonymous said...

Hello sir,

1) Does J-10B have retractable or non-retractable refuelling probe?

2) Thanks for the good news on MSMC. Any possibility for export?

3) How many T/R modules does the Vixen-850E radar have approx?

4) When is the first P-8I Neptune coming to India?

Ju² said...

Hi Prasun,
Ajai Shukla affirms that Snecma and GTRE have stopped negotiations to cooperate on the Kaveri development... Rather surprizing while the media reported a few months ago that an agreement was about to be signed. Reality, brainwashing or misunderstanding?

Anonymous said...

Hi Prasun da

2 Indian soldiers killed and mutiliated today..What according to u should India do now...Pls comment....

Has anyone seen Mr.Shukla s in NDTV debate today......

Anonymous said...

Sir does PAK-FA have a rear-facing radar located in the tail cone or not? Some say yes some say not.

Gessler said...

Hello sarge...

1) HAL has announced its gonna reveal the completed HAL Rudra helicopter gunship at Aero India 2013. Has Rudra got its FOC as yet?

HAL is saying it will commence the first deliveries to IA's AAC in this fiscal year (before March 2013). Is this news verifiable?

2) Will Rudra's stub wings on the production variant look any different than the prototypes?

4) What is to be the maximum dry thrust of PAK-FA's supposed 176kN turbofan engine?

Will IAF FGFA have the same engine?

5) Ive heard Tejas Mk-2 will have a stretched tailfin, is that true?

6) Can the Harbin Z-9 straddle slung payloads like a 4x4 jeep?

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To SUJOY MAJUMDAR: I don’t see the Israelis having any weapon system comparable to Exocet, Harpoon or Club-N.

To GESSLER: The Tank EX does not have any name since it was never sanctioned for development in response to any stated reqmt or GSQR issued by the IA. It was the product of the DRDO’s in-house technology demonstration initiative.

To AG: The figures of 52kN & 81kN were the desired thrust-levels on paper. 45kN and 70kN is what has been achieved in actual flight-tests to date. KMGT is still undergoing endurance tests at a test-cell in Vizag. The shortfalls in thrust outputs are due to design & development shortcomings, which are logical for a country that has never before developed such turbofans. Therefore, it has been a process of learning by trial-and-error. Complicating matters further has been the MoD’s inability to provide the necessary funding required for R & D, as a result of which till this day the GTRE does not possess a high-altitude engine-test facility, when such a facility should have been in place more than a decade ago. The of course there’s the funding shortages issue, due to which cutting-edge R & D in super-alloys is not possible either by GTRE or by MIDHANI. One therefore cannot expect miracles if only peanuts is made available by way of funding for such highly ambitious R & D projects. The same holds true for the future as well & no amount of industrial partnerships with foreign OEMs will be of any help.

To Anon@9.18PM: 1) Non-retractable. 2) Too early for entertaining exports. Just fulfilling the reqmts of the CAPFs alone will take 7 seven years. 3) No idea. 4) By March.

To JU2: GTRE was talking to SNECMA because that’s what the IAF wanted in order to cut short the R & D period & therefore the IAF had proposed a probable way out under which critical elements of the Kaveri like the core & customised turbine blisks would be reqd to be imported off-the-shelf if reqd from SNECMA Moteurs for fitment on to the turbofan. The IAF had proposed this since its No1 priority was to accelerate the development of Tejas Mk2. The GTRE’s No1 priority, on the other hand, has been to acquire the core technologies competencies associated with new-generation military turbofans. Such conflicting priorities could never have been reconciled & therefore the consequent compromise formula has been to stick to the F414 for all Tejas Mk2s & LCA (Navy) Mk2s, thereby leaving GTRE free to continue its R & D work on developing a futuristic 98kN-thrust turbofan by 2025.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Anon@10.51PM: What India will do is what she had always done in the past when such incidents had happened, i.e. blow hot-and-cold for a while & wait for the passage of time to make this a non-issue. And the ‘desi’ mass-media too will act in a similar manner & highlight the instance of only the late Capt Saurabh Kalia’s dastardly mutilation, when in fact, as was revealed by former COAS Gen V P Malik on NDTV yesterday, it was not just Capt Kalia, but all other members of his patrol too that were tortured & their bodies mutilated. So why is only Capt Kalia’s mutilation being highlighted, & not those of the members of the same patrol party? Then there was another incident in February, 2000 when the late Ilyas Kashmiri had led a raid on the IA's ‘Ashok Listening Post’ in the Nowshera sector to kill seven Indian soldiers. Even then, Kashmiri had taken back to Pakistan the head of a 24-year-old Indian jawan, Bhausaheb Maruti Talekar of the 17 Maratha Light Infantry, as a trophy to brandish. So, between mid-1999 & 2000, the NDA-led GoI of that day did absolutely nothing to either deter such heinous & illegal acts or to seek justice in appropriate international forums, & consequently even this present-day UPA govt will likely do the same. Already, there’s talk emanating from within India of sorting this issue out at the diplomatic & political levels, i.e. no wrap on the knuckles & no serious efforts aimed at seeking justice, leave alone a proportionate retaliation. This will only serve to further weaken the morale of the IA’s soldiers on the frontline & further reinforce the already prevailing defensive mindset.

To Anon@1.38AM: NO.

To GESSLER: 1) FOC? It hasn’t even come to the IOC stage yet. The first prototype of Rudra, to be showcased next month at Aero India 2013, will be delivered this fiscal year to the IA’s AAC for flight-trials, which will last for at least a year-and-a-half (since the order for imported ATGMs has not yet been placed & if placed this year, will hopefully arrive by late 2014), following which the Certificate of Airworthiness will be issued by CEMILAC sometime in the latter half of 2015. Only after this is done will the AAC place firm orders for 114 Rudras. And only after the first eight units have been delivered by 2016 will the sequential IOC & FOC processes commence. 2) Let’s wait & see what’s unveiled next month. 4) No idea, but powerplants for the PAK-FA & FGFA will be the same. 5) No. 6) Of course. Z-9 is just a Made-in-China AS.365 Dauphin-2.

Anonymous said...

"What India will do is what she had always done in the past when such incidents had happened, i.e. blow hot-and-cold for a while & wait for the passage of time to make this a non-issue."
I absolutely agree with you if this would have happened 2 moths back or 2 months after but with the recent controversies like Delhi gang-rape, corruptions, crusaders like Ana Hazare, this incident could end up critical if it gets the attention like rape case.
We have to admit, the responce was to barbaric from Pakistani side and it might act as a match to an already accumulated kerosne. Also social media is very critical and has the power to do anything within days.
Its possible we might see escalation from indian side just this once.

India's increased stature which we saw by the end of the year among south asian, south east asian countries is at stake and if India will not take necessary action action Pakistani side, this might be seen by other nations in the region that India is not a shoulder for them to cry if Big Brother China bullies them.
In short this time the whole world is watching India. India cannot act irresponsible and start a war and it can neither sit aside and give a green side to untamed men on the other side of LOC that they can do whatever they want.

Anonymous said...

Is PakFa developed enough to participate in Aero India 2013 ?

I am not sure how trustworthy these reports are since i got this info from wiki but i have to ask.
Is India and Russia both developing one prototype each for FGFA ? I mean is it possible that FGHFA could be a whole new indian design and then Russia producing it with 25% parts from indian sides like avionics, cockpit etc. ?

Also can we expect more on AMCA, AURA, Rustam 2 and may be armed Rustam 2 during aero india 2013 ? Can we also expect unveiling of FGFA, Super Sukhoi and Brahmos 2 designs ?

Is it true that drdo labs are working on 4 AMCA designs and 2 out of them will be chosen to develop 2 prototypes for AMCA program ?

Also i hear nval version of AMCA is confirmed as Navy is actually investing money in this project ? Will that means no to naval FGFA for IN ?

Anonymous said...

Indian Navy released proposal for medium rang anti ship missile

which missile will be best suitable /which are the other missiles coincide with this requirements

mayank raj said...

hello sir...
1. What are the differences in lch and rudra...??? When are they really able to get inducted in IA and IAF...???
2. I am sure u have heard what those son of a ***** have done on loc with indian shouldiers ...?? What is india going to do....just sitting duck....or ....???
3. I heard on some site that arjum k2 is to be in trials this year...?what is this k2.??
4. Has sudarshan completed its trails or is still a long time for induction...??
5. I am 18.5years now.... I want to join army ....what are the thing i have to do for it...??
6. Tejas has some problems going on what are they....??some thing i only know is its fuel leaks...rest u tell me....??
Thank you sir....

SherKhan said...

I personally detest beheadings and taking trophies. The retaliation however was just a matter of time. IA initiated an escalation by raiding a PA post. OK lob a few mortars over, send few more shells but they sent a raiding party!!!

Whoever authorised that raid knew full well what the response would be and the impact of the consequential crying.

Put this into the context of when IA helicopter landed in Pak. It was returned refueled, its occupants fed and alive. The question that should be asked, ratherthan following the herd, is:

What was the motive of the IA raid in the first place?

Anonymous said...

Prasun Da,
When would the production of Pinaka mk-2 start?
Will its production rate be 5000 rockets per year?

SK said...

Prasun,
With ref to your previous answer that IN uses Shipboard Helicopters for over the horizon tracking and guiding ASM's.

1) Is IN looking at other alternatives such as UAV's (Ship launched and recovered) for over the horizon targeting cues. Also Shore based HALE UAV's which have greater payload/endurance can offer extended detection ranges.

2) What about shore based AEW&C platforms like IL-76/A330 based Phalcons. They have exceptional range. Surely a Phalcon flying over/near Western Coastal states can detect a ship sized targets easily in Arabian Sea and provide targeting cues at greater ranges then the ship based helicopters. This way targets can be engaged at far greater distance then the present 290Km range of Brahmos Mk1. IN needs couple of Phalcons for both Eastern and Western Seaboards.

3) In a networked environment IN can make greater use of its resources. Where does the IN stand today with-out the dedicated satellite.

Mr. Ra 13 said...

They are saying that now they will talk properly with Pakistan666. Problem is that they will not be able even to talk.

Gessler said...

Some development on the front of canisterised launch of Agni-V, now scheduled for June 2013.

http://www.google.co.in/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=Soaring+high&source=web&cd=15&cad=rja&ved=0CIQBEKkCMA4&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.frontline.in%2Fstories%2F20130125300112200.htm&ei=VnntULnIMsasrAea0YGYCg&usg=AFQjCNHJMcgMrYdWDOCcIcPz6-ws9Ocrnw&bvm=bv.1357316858,d.bmk

Any comments?

Mr. Ra 13 said...

Is it possible that some of the suitable border pakistani posts are being manned by LeT terrorists.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Anon@7.48AM & SHERKHAN & Mr.RA 13: Before jumping to conclusions based on sketchy reports, here’s what I can say had happened from a factual standpoint, based on inputs that I have received thus far & I hope that the same FACTS do appear in the mass-media of both India & Pakistan in the immediate future:
1) On January 6, an Indian Army (IA) assault-team violated the LoC & physically raided a checkpost at Sawan Patra in the Haji Pir area of the Poonch-Uri belt. The Pakistan Army (PA) suffered some casualties, including one who was martyred.
2) In retaliation, a group of intruders, taking advantage of thick fog and mist in the forested Mendhar area of Poonch district, was spotted moving towards the IA’s posts in the morning of January 8, when the IA’s area domination patrol unit (comprising 8 soldiers & two Scouts) of 13 Rajputana Rifles Rifles at Sector-10 between Chhatri and Atma outposts on the LoC in the Mankote area of Krishna Ghati spotted and engaged the intruders at the same time as the morning roll-call was in progress in lieu of a change of guard at the two outposts, thereby resulting in an exchange of small-arms fire that lasted for 25 minutes.
3) It was only after the end of the firefight that it was realised that the two Scouts—Lance Naik Sudhakar Singh and Lance Naik Hemraj—were missing in action. Only after a search-party was formed up to go in search of these two Scouts was it discovered that they had been martyred & had been shot & decapitated.
Now, based on these facts, here’s what can be inferred:
1) It is highly unlikely for any Army raiding party to be clad in black-coloured clothing when staging an assault during daytime, even in the midst of thick fog & mist (0-visibility). Therefore, I’m disinclined to believe that a Border Action team (BAT) of the PA’s 29 Baloch Regiment or the SSG was involved in this incident.
2) On the other hand, it is perfectly logical to believe that the intruders were a band of militant Mujahideens (who historically have been seen clad in such clothing in order to infiltrate across the LoC either in darkness or just before the crack of dawn.
3) It is also perfectly logical to believe that personnel from the 29 Baloch Regiment were providing covering fire to these intruders.
4) It is also perfectly logical to believe that these Mujahideen were responsible for the decapitation, since they’ve had a proven history of engaging in such acts before (during OP Badr in mid-1999 & by Ilias Kashmiri).
5) It is perfectly logical to infer that the two IA Scouts during the firefight got disoriented due to 0-visibility & consequently, while in the process of taking optimum firing positions against the intruders, unfortunately got in harm’s way & got martyred.
6) It could therefore well be that for this very reason, the Govt of Pakistan is confident that a neutral enquiry conducted by UNMOGIP to investigate this particular ceasefire violation on the LoC will establish the truth.
7) What makes India highly suspicious of the PA is Islamabad’s inability to immediately condemn the highly inflamatory remarks made on January 7 by the Chairman of United Jihad Council & Hizbul Mujahideen ‘Supreme Commander’ Syed Salahuddin, who had said in Muzaffarabad that the only way to resolve the Kashmir issue was through jihad. A declaration by Islamabad as far back as 2005 that Syed Salahuddin is, in essence, a non-state actor, too would have helped matters the most, since it would have meant that it is the writ of the PA, & not of the Mujahideens, that prevails in that portion of the LoC astride AJK/POK. This in itself would have prevented a great majority of the cross-LoC firing & cross-LoC intrusions since 2003.
8) Lastly, the IA’s SOPs at the border outposts requires a serious revisit, since taking roll-calls in the midst of thick fog & mist is totally uncalled for, especially when there’s eyeball-to-eyeball confrontation throughout the LoC.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Mr.RA 13: Looks like someone in the MoD is taking heed of all that’s been appearing in this blog post-DEFEXPO 2012 expo. Kindly read this:

http://www.defensenews.com/article/20130109/DEFREG03/301090007/India-May-Include-Domestic-Firms-Artillery-Program?odyssey=nav|head

If things are headed for in this manner, then it could effectively mean that a middle-way has been found (as I had predicted in my first DEFEXPO 2012 show report) to skirt around the OEM blacklisting quagmire by making the Indian military-industrial partner (of the blacklisted foreign OEM) the prime contractor for procuring various types of field artillery howitzers.

Anonymous said...

sir when con we expect your narrative on the expo.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Anon@8.02AM: PAK-FA will be of no use or value if displayed at Aero India 2013, since the IAF won’t be procuring it. A total of three FGFAs will be built in Russia for flight-tests & certification, plus datigue-testing to establish the airframe TTSL. For the AMCA, just like the LCA, only one definitive design will be subjected to wind-tunnel tests, & then further refined as the definitive prototype for technology demonstration purposes. The IN as yet has not said anything about AMCA.

To Anon@10.51AM: Kongsberg’s NSM & Novator’s 3M-54E Klub-N are my personal favourites, but RGM-84A Harpoon & MM-40 Exocet Block-3 are also serious competitors from a cost standpoint.

To MAYANK RAJ: 1) Rudra is optimised for operating as a multi-role helicopter-gunship capable of undertaking surveillance, attack, CASEVAC & aerial logistics missions. LCH on the other hand is optimised for searching for & intercepting UAVs, plus aerial observation. 2) Already answered above. The need of the hour is level-headed thinking based on objectivity by using one’s brain, & not going by one’s heart. 3) What is being subjected to user-trials is the Arjun Mk1A. Arjun Mk2 is still two years away from rollout. 4) Already completed. 5) Don’t make that mistake. Instead, join the IN or IAF & you will have a bright future even after retiring from the armed services. 6) All those problems are of a routine nature & have already been overcome. Certification flights have already resumed.

To Anon@2.47PM: By late 2013. Annual production rate should be the same as that of Pinaka Mk1.

To SK: 1) Not at the moment. IN is looking at the prospect of acquiring tactical VYOL UAVs only for all-weather surveillance purposes. Shore-based MALE-UAVs powered by turbofans like GYRE’s Laghu Shakthi will be ideal for conducting high-endurance maritime recce operations throughout India’s coastline & around her offshore island-territories. 2) Shore-based fixed-wing AEW & CS platforms for the IN won’t be ideal & instead for the air-defence of its naval bases & dockyards, aerostat-mounted early warning/airspace surveillance radars will be a more economical option. For OTHT-support around India’s coastlines, P-8I LRMR/ASW platforms will be employed for target acquisition/cueing in support of coastal ASCM systems like BrahMos-1 Block-1. 3) Usage of network-enabled operating architectures will always result in dramatic improvements in situational awareness & facilitate the application of knowledge-based warfare operations. But for this to happen, a quantum increase in bandwidth is reqd—something that only a dedicated fleet satellite-based communications system can offer. Presently, in the absence of such a satellite, unsecured transponders from INMARSAT & INSAT are being made use of for only limited applications.

To GESSLER: Outrageous claims, to say the least, & more fairy tales from wonderland. For instance, can anyone visualise a 50-tonne ICBM riding atop a 13-tonne BEML/TATRA truck??? Please!!! Not even the US & Russia has been able to achieve this so far.

To Anon@12.33AM: Very soon. Am still commuting between different time-zones.

Mr. Ra 13 said...

It is quite possible that the mode of the so-called retaliatory attack from pakistan666 justifies the earlier preemptive strike by Indians.

Gessler said...

---To GESSLER: Outrageous claims, to say the least, & more fairy tales from wonderland. For instance, can anyone visualise a 50-tonne ICBM riding atop a 13-tonne BEML/TATRA truck??? Please!!! Not even the US & Russia has been able to achieve this so far. ---

I was pretty much sure you were gonna say that.

Even if a canister-based launch occurs, it is likely to be done from a canister attached to a ground-absed support structure, right?

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To GESSLER: Absolutely right, like a railway-based TEL that is rolled out from the final-assembly hangar. The TELAR for cannister-mounted Agni-5 has to be at least a 16 x 16 wheeled vehicle, which as we all now has never been developed by anyone in India & that's why negotiations are on with Belarus for a possible solution. Can't figure out why these 'desi' journalists never get tired of imagining such fanciful delusions & hype, which only serves to raise one's expectations on a totally false premise & when the real picture emerges, everything gets deflated in a classic anti-climax!!! The only plus side of this kind of hype is that it provokes one into an uncontrollable bout of laughter until one’s trouser falls off!

Gessler said...

These journo's brains are getting smaller and smaller by the day, or so it seems.

1) How many M-46 howitzers converted to Metamorphosis standard have been ordered by the IA so far?

2) Has Shaurya NLOS-BSM been tested from a canister as yet?

3) Is the Indian Navy showing any interest in Rudra helicopter-gunship for carrier-borne/LPD/LHD-borne troop insertion and close fire support missions?

Any variant of Rudra with tricycle-type landing gear on the drawing board/future plans?

4) I think IN's Harpoons are the AGM-84L Harpoon-II Block-II version with 278km range right?

Thanks in advance.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To GESSLER: 1) None. The Metamorphosis was only an OFB-developed concept that was never committed to mass-production. 2) Of course. Thrice. 3) No. 4) Not just the IN, but the IAF too has AGM-84L Harpoon-II Block-IIs for its Jaguar IMs after the BAE Systems-built Sea Eagle ASCMs were decommissioned five years ago.

Mr. Ra 13 said...

http://www.defensenews.com/article/20130109/DEFREG03/301090007/India-May-Include-Domestic-Firms-Artillery-Program?odyssey=nav|head

Yes, your intelligent suggestions and anticipations are turning in to solid solutions.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Mr.RA 13: it was a retaliatory attack against the IA, no doubt about it. What needs to be established now is who were the perpetrators: PA personnel or their Mujahideen proxies. Even if an UN-led enquiry concludes that this attack was conducted by members of the Hizbul Mujahideen, one cannot expect from the fact that such combatants have no access to weapons like illuminating mortars/illuminating light artillery rounds, i.e. the PA units deployed along the LoC had actively abetted & supported the infiltration bid with both direct & indirect fire-support, thereby violating the ceasefire in a deliberate manner. All this can be established with ease beyond reasonable doubt. And the PA can’t feign ignorance by claiming that the LoC is porous at this time of the year due to inclement weather, since the positions targetted for the retaliatory attack had obviously been kept under observation for quite some time & the troop movements & routines of the IA too had been taken note in order to ensure a certain degree of success for such a mission even under zero-visibility conditions.

ken said...

sir, what happen to foliage penetration radar of drdo last time i heard that it is being jointly developed with sweden.

Anonymous said...

"it was a retaliatory attack against the IA, no doubt about it."
Are you kidding me ? Nobody knows what happened and nobody is ever gonna find out. If IA carry out a cross border attack, they are never gonna admit it simply because that will mean they directly disobeyed the commander in chief and there will be alot of court marshals not the just soldiers involved but their supervisors also.
If IA didn't carried out any such attack then also it didn't matter because PA will keep saying this to justify their action because they also know they broke international laws.

Just like you i think what happened was :
PA started giving fire cover for infiltration bid and they destroyed a homes on indian side. IA responded by firing back it is during this firing that a PA soldier died. Neighbors responded by what everybody knows.

Now i am certain abou this that IA didn't cross the other side and attacked because IA will take serious action against those who will do so. You see our IA is freakishly sincere in impleting rules. I know this because grandfather my cousin all of them are in IA. Well my grandfather retired as Lt. Gen

Anonymous said...

"The TELAR for cannister-mounted Agni-5 has to be at least a 16 x 16 wheeled vehicle, which as we all now has never been developed by anyone in India & that's why negotiations are on with Belarus for a possible solution."
Well Pvt. companies can also do this by forming JVs. Its just a truck and when western countries didn't raise any voice during the test i doubt they will mind giving the truck.

"A total of three FGFAs will be built in Russia for flight-tests & certification, plus datigue-testing to establish the airframe TTSL."
HAL is not building any prototype in INdia ? I am asking because they are under the impression that they are.

"For the AMCA, just like the LCA, only one definitive design will be subjected to wind-tunnel tests, & then further refined as the definitive prototype for technology demonstration purposes."
Yeah they are doing wind tunnel testing of all 4. After that they will build two protypes. Just like in US both Boeing and LM built one and then f35 of LM was selected. Same like in F22 and again just like in PakFa where Sukhoi built two and MIkhoyan built 1 and Sukhoi design was selected.

" just like the LCA, only one definitive design will be subjected to wind-tunnel tests"
Just like in LCA, there were a couple more designs which were subjected to wind tunnel test. It is highly unlikely that drdo will build smaller scale wind tunnel model of other LCA version for wind tunnel tests and then don't carry out wind tunnel tests of those models at all.

As far as AMCA for Navy. IN asked for full detailed brifing on the project from ADA infront of high level navy officials in 2011. They were given ASR. Navy is building it operational doctrine for IAC2 which involvesd AMCA. After N-LCA takes off IN will join the project. They already decided to financially join the project.

There is no official news from either Russian or Indian side that saYS in WANTS n-pAKFA. i don't know why this news is floating around on the web ? Only news about N-PakFa on the web is that Russian Navy will operate them from their new gen ACs. That means yes their will be a naval PakFa but that doesn't mean IN wants it. Also there isn't gonna be a N-FGFA just to be clear.

"PAK-FA will be of no use or value if displayed at Aero India 2013, since the IAF won’t be procuring it."
So my guess is IAF ACM is confused because he using the term PakFa in his speeches and interviews. People might think that IAF is procuring both FGFA and PakFa.

Also is it possible that FGFA airframe is a little bit different from PakFa ?

"Kongsberg’s NSM & Novator’s 3M-54E Klub-N are my personal favourites, but RGM-84A Harpoon & MM-40 Exocet Block-3 are also serious competitors from a cost standpoint."
My vote goes to Klub until mbda perseus comes.

" IN is looking at the prospect of acquiring tactical VYOL UAVs only for all-weather surveillance purposes."
Yeah they are doing this since 2008.


Anonymous said...

"Shore-based MALE-UAVs powered by turbofans like GYRE’s Laghu Shakthi will be ideal for conducting high-endurance maritime recce operations throughout India’s coastline & around her offshore island-territories."
Lets be hones no such UAV is under construction or planned or requested by any arm of the armed forces.
Only turbofan powered project thats proposed and which has been sanctioned by MOD is AURA UCAV or what ADA is calling it IUSAV. Rest all is fanboy stuff which will be really good if they come true but don't they all and don't they never actually see the day of light.

"Shore-based fixed-wing AEW & CS platforms for the IN won’t be ideal & instead for the air-defence of its naval bases & dockyards, aerostat-mounted early warning/airspace surveillance radars will be a more economical option."
Yeah that true but the fact is IN wants to buy drdo built AEW&CS. I doubt MOD will say no either. So all in all whether we like it or not, IN is procuring shore based AWACS and IN is definitely not procuring any other AWACS platform other than Ka-31 for ACs.
There's no proposal for any other AWACS. Also i forgot there's proposal for atleast 2 aerial tanker for IN.

When Akash mk2 will be tested ?

"But for this to happen, a quantum increase in bandwidth is reqd—something that only a dedicated fleet satellite-based communications system can offer. Presently, in the absence of such a satellite, unsecured transponders from INMARSAT & INSAT are being made use of for only limited applications."
The first dedicated comm. sat will be naval followed by IAF and then IA. Mosat probably by 2015 all of them should be in 2015 but i know its wishful thinking considering isro never adhers to timeline if its a defence related sat.

"http://www.defensenews.com/article/20130109/DEFREG03/301090007/India-May-Include-Domestic-Firms-Artillery-Program?odyssey=nav|head"
The project might not even take off considering IA doesn't wanna wait for drdo to play think-tank for 2 years.
The IA's shortage of artillery, ATGM and air defence is very serious. Also OFB already offered a towed gun and metamorphosis option is also worth considering. Not to mentiona Tata and Kalyani group guns.

bradshaw said...

Hi Prasun da,

how the R-2T Topol M , canisterised and portable intercontinental missile has range of 11,000 Kms and weight is just 47 tons and was devloped in 1997. How Agni 5 still under devlopment and having range of 5,000 kms is 50 Tonne missile.

Are we missing smething here. India already has lot of technical advancement in composites and advance light materials ??

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To KEN: The foliage penetration radar has already been developed by Saab & Swedish Space Corp. DRDO has nothing to do with it.

To Anon@8.13AM: “Nobody knows what happened and nobody is ever gonna find out. If IA carry out a cross border attack, they are never gonna admit it simply because that will mean they directly disobeyed the commander in chief and there will be alot of court marshals not the just soldiers involved but their supervisors also.”
Looks like you’re dead wrong & you’ve underestimated the IA. Read this, for the facts are already emerging quite fast: http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report_dna-exclusive-uri-commanders-forceful-retaliation-led-to-beheadings_1787448

To Anon@9.07AM: If no such MALE-UAV is being developed, then why is GTRE developing the Laghu Shakti turbofan??? Just for showing off???

To BRADSHAW: That’s because the Topol-M missile weighs 47 tonnes, whereas the Agni-5 weighs only around 25 tonnes & not 50 tonnes as claimed by the ‘desi’ journalists.

Sayan said...

Sir, None so blind as those who will not see. Is it a fact that BEL doesnt have the expertise to produce Gen 3 NVG with 1700 FOM ? Is BEL asking MoD to dilute the specifications of NVG ? How mant NVG will IA ultimately order and which company is going to supply them ? 45000 is inadequate for a million strong army.

It’s Make or Break for MMRCA Negotiators. Is Dassault trying its utmost not to agree to full ToT of its critical components. Something must be brewing when all elements of desi media is claiming that negotiations are going well and the deal may fall through.

Didnt the patrolling party have any HHTI to detect the presence of soldiers at a distance under zero visibility ?

Will Pinaka mk2 have anti tank , anti tank , anti personnel cluster munition payload and SFW like BLU-108. Such a payload can be developed with help from Israel.

When fire and forget 3rd gen anti tank missiles are the trends of the day why is DRDO sticking to CLCM which is 2nd gen and not fire and forget.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Anon@8.13AM: here’s more for you to digest: http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/runaway-grandmother-sparked-savage-skirmish-on-loc/article4291426.ece

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To SAYAN: Of course it’s all true. BEL hardly does any in-house R & D. Rafale deal won’t fall through simply because all other contenders who lost in the competition will try to impose similar pre-conditions. No one will want to be a holy cow. No, it looks like no HHTIs were in use by this patrol party. No SFMs for Pinaka-2, only the ones mentioned in the posters above. Because CLCM is cannon-launched as well, i.e. from the 120mm rifled-bore gun. No one makes fire-and-forget ATGMs/anti-helicopter rounds that are cannon-launched & are of the fire-and-forget type.

Bhaswar said...

Prasun Sir,

You've stated that the Agni-5 weighs in at 25 tons. I cannot help but ask if you have any articles or links supplementing your statement. Your previous statement addressed to "Gessler" with regard to the Agni-5 also adds to my confusion, "Outrageous claims, to say the least, & more fairy tales from wonderland. For instance, can anyone visualise a 50-tonne ICBM riding atop a 13-tonne BEML/TATRA truck??? Please!!! Not even the US & Russia has been able to achieve this so far". Please clarify?

Anonymous said...

"If no such MALE-UAV is being developed, then why is GTRE developing the Laghu Shakti turbofan??? Just for showing off???"
Common yaar. Just because GTRE is building something doesn't imply that there is turbofan powered MALE UAV project. Why would u assume its a MALE UAV, it could be HALE ? Also they are building it, they didn't completed it. In a couple of years this project might even be forgotten. Also how many times drdo build something and its never been used or has any use in any project and it only serve the purpose of technology demonstration.

"Looks like you’re dead wrong & you’ve underestimated the IA. Read this, for the facts are already emerging quite fast: http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report_dna-exclusive-uri-commanders-forceful-retaliation-led-to-beheadings_1787448"
Look i just told you i don't know, you don't know and if you read the article the author in the beginning itself wrote that its a speculation.
Also since when dna is a trustworthy newspaper ?

nagarajan said...

hi. lot of confussion about A5 weight. I remember mr.Sarawath told our missiles are on par with others except the bulkiness and weight. now is it 50T or 25T. If its 50T then we have a long long long way to go. kindly clarify this once for all. possibily with some kind of comparison. thanks in advance.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To BHASWAR & NAGARAJAN: No, I don’t have any external links. The figures are all listed in the DRDO’s annual products directory, a copy of which I had collected last week during my visit to the DRDO pavilion at Kolkata’s Salt Lake Stadium Grounds. 50 tonnes is the total weight of the Agni-5, its cannister & its TELAR-based communications & fire-control system, i.e. the complete weapon system. That’s how the DRDO publishes its figures. But if the ‘desi’ mass-media misinterprets this as being the launch-weight of Agni-5 (since the ‘desi’ journalists have yet to see the cannister or the TELAR & are therefore erroneously assuming that the published weight figures pertain to only what has been visually revealed, i.e.the missile), then whose fault is it? The error then gets compiunded when certain analysts use such erroneous figures to be their own comparative analysis, whose fundamentals & foundations are all totally off-the-mark.

To Anon@8.32PM: Looks like you’re not in touch with either ADE or GTRE & that explains your ignorance. Do pay them a visit & ask them whatever you want to & you’ll get convincing answers from both. And as for the corss-LoC violations, you may not know because either you don’t want to know or are unable to know, but that doesn’t mean all others too share your predicament. Those who want to know will take the trouble to find out what happened & how & why. In the days ahead, much more will emerge about all this, but what has already been revealed so far by either THE HINDU or DNA (both of which are standing by their sources of information & can prove it if reqd) is more than enough to prove that both countries—India & Pakistan—are equally to blame for this state of affairs.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To NAGARAJAN: The launch-weight of the definitive A-5 ICBM is 23 tonnes.

ArunM said...

Sir, F-16 is supposed to have a mechanically scanned radar. So it is logical that it has a bigger radome and bigger aperture radar than Rafale which has a PESA. What Leads you to say that apertures of both RACR & SABR for blk-60 are smaller than RBE2 ?

What are the differences in radome sizes of Mirage 2000 and Rafale ? Are there any plans of increasing TR elements of RBE2 to 1400 as many are saying?

Are there 4 hardpoints in Rafale wing inclusive of wingtip pylons . The French doesn't use the 3rd hardpoint.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To ARUNM: Rafales' nose-section has greater volume than that of the F-16. Nose-section volumes of Mirage 2000 & Rafale are almost the same. Nose radome is never indicative of any airborne radar's aperture; the nose-section is. French Air Force Rafales always use 4 hardpoints on each wing. There are several photos to prove this.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

Highly interesting & hilarious read: http://www.malaysia-today.net/mtcolumns/53753-so-its-settled-then

Gessler said...

Hi there Prasun,

1) Is the 155mm HE shell shown in the poster in the thread meant for ATAGS also compatible with Tata Power SED's T5-52 version?

2) Is DRDO planning to develop any Excaliber-type guideed ammo for future 155mm guns?

3) Are all of T-90 MBT's 125mm APFSDS rounds produced in India?

4) If a Russian/Belarusian OEM is selected to provide the designs for a new 16x16 TELAR for Agni-4/Agni-5, will the truck me made in India by BEML or private companies like Tata/Ashok Leyland?

5) Is France willing to cooperate with Indian companies if we seek to partner them in the AMCA/AURA projects?

6) You have said that Agni-5 in itself does not weigh more than 23 tonnes, so whats the weight of the Agni-3 IRBM in that regard?

7) How many Agni-3s do you think India will ultimately produce?

8) Are BrahMos Block-2/3's canister launchers developed in India or Russia?

9) As said in the article link posted by MR. RA 13 above, Bharat Forge is going to come up with a new howziter by 2014??

10) After INSAS, MSMC, and the Multi-Calibre Weapon, are Indian public-sector companies gonna come up with any new firearm in the near future?

Anonymous said...

"Looks like you’re not in touch with either ADE or GTRE & that explains your ignorance. Do pay them a visit & ask them whatever you want to & you’ll get convincing answers from both."
I am sorry if i offended you. I am a huge fan of yours and u r right, i have to meet these guys because only they can clearly tell us about the project.
I once met a robotics guy. He told me about drdo's ugv and uav plans and they are huge, just like what we are seeing now the aura, rustam and MUNTRA UGV. Some of their claims feels like far fetched.
Its just that even if supposedly drdo builds a turbofan powered UAV, its possible nobody purchases it. DRDO has built alot of mini UAVs as shown in one of the jpg you posted above but none of them will be procured by armed forces. Just tell me what armed forces will chose, a US or european turbofan UAV or drdo build one. By 2015 the rate at which Indo-US relations are going, its possible India might be able to procure Global Hawk or Avenger.

Anonymous said...

"Of course it’s all true. BEL hardly does any in-house R & D."
Thats actually not true. Of all the public sector companies BEL invest alot in RnD, we lack in human resources. But its true alot more can be done in RnD investment also.
BHEL is the company which is really good in RnD. In 2010 the filed for 365 patents. I hope BHEL enters in defence sector. The build a couple of things but thats it.

DAshu said...

http://forcenewsmagazine.blogspot.com/2013/01/giving-pakistan-taste-of-its-own.html

Anonymous said...

Hi Prasun da

Why has India not bought the S 300/S 400 SAM frm Russia..U can recall VK Singh s leaked letter about india s hollow air defence..India should have LRSAM,MRSAM,SRSAM and VSHORAD apart from anti aircraft artillery..Is BARAK 8 advanced then S300 /S 400.how can India overcome this hollowness in air defence quickly and by buying which SAM systems ..VMT

Anonymous said...

Hi Prasun,

AG here again....

I just want to ask if India have Single Crystal Blade technology... if not then why can't they produce it cause I have learnt that India has technology to make the directional solid blades for turbines.... and SCB are just kind of upgradation of them also same infrastructure could be used to make them.... sorry for my ignorance....

just a site for reference
http://www.google.co.in/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=8&ved=0CF0QFjAH&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.tms.org%2Fsuperalloys%2F10.7449%2F1980%2FSuperalloys_1980_205_214.pdf&ei=GenvUKOtIJHyrQf8toCgCA&usg=AFQjCNFQrEWy0AcjMNdRH5ERh5NXjH6BdA&bvm=bv.1357700187,d.bmk&cad=rja

Thanks in advance...

A G

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To GESSLER: 1) Yes. 2) Yes. 3) No. 4) By BEML or BHEL. 5) Yes, is asked to. 6) About 20 tonnes. 7) None. 8) In India. 9) Yes. 10) Trichy Assault Rifle.

To Anon@8.41AM: For a country that’s developing platforms like AEW & CS & MRCAs, developing turbofan-powered MALE-UAVs is not a great technological challenge. All that is reqd is adequate R & D funding. Adoption of an industrial consortium approach that involves the private-sector will enable the realisation of most on-going R & D projects. You’re right about BHEL & it is indeed involved in the defence sector, especially for the ATV project & has already delivered.

To DASHU: Truth always hurts & what is now happening is that it is India that’s getting a taste of her own medicine. For, this business of cross-LoC raids was initiated by India in the mid-1990s, with some of the raids being conducted by Gurkhas Rifles personnel, and you know what that means in terms of decapitation by the Khukri. More & more data on all this will come out in the coming days. Pakistan will next say that it is only doing with the Kashmiri insurgency what India did in 1971 by aiding & abetting the Mukti Bahini in then East Pakistan, i.e. a tit-for-tit policy under which Pakistan only borrowed a page from India’s doctrine on sub-conventional warfare (4th generation warfare).

To AG: No, India does not possess that technology as yet & R & D by MIDHANI is still underway.

Anonymous said...

Hi Prasun,

I am little bit surprised seeing your view on recent India-Pak conflicts in Mendhar sector.Beheading any human prevails the imbalanced and poisonous mindset of Pakistan Army.

Making cross-border raids is a different issue and decaptivating bodies is something different. We killed there soldiers and they killed ours but why beheading ??
Earlier also Ilyas kashmiri behead one Maratha LI jawan.

Please give me the link that gorkha rifles has beheaded any paki with Khukri ?? I think its high time we should stand unitedly behind our soldiers irrespective of the past incidents.

abs said...

@Prasunda
1) What could be right and befitting riposte by the Indians to the Pakistani aggression? or would the peace process result in no such actions being taken?
2)If the Indian Special Forces and indeed even the Gurkhas have LOC raids, what is stopping the Indian Govt. from sanctioning such raids against the Terror camps?
3)Would the LSVs to be acquired lead to creation of Pakistan style Recce and Support Batallions? This will be great as it will relieve a significant number of personnels from border patrolling and surveillance roles to that of war fighting roles.Hence this will also negate any personnel accretion plans as well.
4)What do you think would be the future of the Rashtriya Rifles? Would they be absorbed into the army for warfighting roles or would they be sent for border patrolling roles?

Anonymous said...

Prasunda,

1. Why do you say no Agni III s will be produced. ? Is this a new GoI decision under international pressure / to earn China's "goodwill" ?

2. How many Agni IVs and Agni V's will eventually be produced ?

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Anon@7.01PM: Perhaps you’re surprised because I’m not resorting to the sanctimonious attitude that’s being displayed by the ‘desi’ mass-media, especially the hyperventilating Indian TV channels that are only doing far more harm than good. This incident should never have been made into a big deal by both the GoI & the 'desi' mass-media. By doing so, one is only playing into the hands of India's detractors at a time when things are going India's way. Decapitation will take place on the battlefield for as long as one hails the Gurkha soldier’s tradition of wreaking havoc with his Khukri & perpetuating it. The only way of avoiding it is by either disbanding the Gurkha Rifles Battalions or banning the use of Khukri during hand-to-hand encounters. Mutilation too occurs when use is made of bayonets. So, do you want the IA to ban the use of Khukri or bayonets? Or do you want the Gurkha Rifles Battalions of the IA to be permanently disbanded? If not, then one has to accept the fact that such decapitations do take place on the battlefields & learn to live with it. If not, then India is only playing into the hands of Pakistan & the Pakistan Army will be more than happy to reveal to the world the so-called wartime exploits of the legendary Gurkhas, which have even been glorified in graphic detail by Bollywood movies like ‘LoC”. Instances of beheadings by IA’s Gurkha Rifles personnel in the 1990s in the Chorbat La & Batalik sectors during cross-LoC raids have been extensively documented in various books authored by both Indian & Pakistani writers & folks like Praveen Swamy of THE HINDU have been honest enough to admit all this in TV interviews earlier this week & so far no one from IA HQ or the MoD has refuted his statements. Lastly, you may choose to stand unitedly BEHIND the IA’s soldiers, but I choose to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with such soldiers in their hour of need.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Anon@10.23PM: Agni-1, Agni-2 & Agni-3 make use of 1980s-era design & components, while the Agni-4, Agni-5 & Shaurya are far more advanced in terms of both design & components & materials used—points that have already been made public by officials of both ASL & RCI. For land-based ballistic missiles, the future lies in cannisterised systems, & therefore the Agni-4, Agni-5 & Shaurya will eventually replace the Agni-1 & Agni-2. Agni-3 was never subjected to series-production. As for numbers, 50 units of each type should suffice, inclusive of the numbers to be flight-tested in operational mode by the SFC on an annual basis.

Mr. Ra 13 said...

At this stage of time, whether the Agni-6 is real or imaginary.

ArunM said...

Sir, The nose section of Rafale may be large . Thereis a different paint colour scheme in nose of Rafale. The front part is slightly lighter coloured than the rest. This indicates the radar antenna aperture is there. This portion is infact quite small. Smaller than Tejas LCA. What is the reason behind your saying that aperture can't be determined from radome size ?

Can in any way the nose section be enlarged slightly to match Mirage 2000's nose ?

All French AF Rafale pics I have come across shows 3 hardpoints in each wing inclusive of wingtips. Even the ones that served in Libyan war had three .

To increase engine thrust to 17000 lb dry thrust the ir intakes needs to be enlarged by 1.5 cm. This may cost some money.

What made the Swiss AF to rank Rafale 1st & Typhoon 2nd in counter air and defensive air evaluations besides superior NCTR. Did the radar performance including max range had any role in this.

UAE AF is the 1st af to operate F-16 blk 60 with APG-80 AESA. They thoroughly evaluated the Rafale. They were provided with all performnce related info of RBE2 aesa. They came to the conclusion that RBE2 had inferior detection and tracking range compared to their APG-80.
So, they wanted a higher powered radar. What do you have to say in this ?

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Mr.RA 13: Agni-6 is imaginary.

To ARUNM: What is the reason behind your saying that aperture can't be determined from radome size?------------------------------------------It all depends on whether the radar antenna is positioned inside the radome or is well outside the radome.
The same RBE-2 on the Rafale was test-flown on Mirage 2000 without any modifications to the nose-section or nose-radome of the Mirage 2000. Rafale’s photos clearly show two Mica-EMs & one external fuel tank & a wingtip-mounted Mica-IR on each wing. When the Swiss AF fligh-tested the various contenders, the EF-2000 did not have proven A-to-G capabilities. The UAEAF wanted an MMRCA with an AESA-MMR at a time when the RBE-2 wasn’t available on the Rafale. Similarly, when the Republic of Singapore Air Force wanted to procure M-MRCAs equipped with AESA-MMRs, only the F-15SG was available with such capabilities, not the Rafale. It was therefore all a matter of timing.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To ABS: During such incidences, truth is often the first casualty due to either being economical with facts, or due to ignorance about the ground situation. Let me explain further:
1) The LoC by international definition is a ceasefire line which is only temporary in nature & can therefore be altered by military means by either side. This is neither a crime or a legal violation & therefore does not constitute either a cross-border violation or an aggression. On the other hand, an international boundary is sacrosanct & its legality is binding on all involved parties, including the UN. Consequently, in the event of either India or Pakistan violating the LoC, the issue will never get internationalised & all that the UN can do is REQUEST both parties to agree to a ceasefire. The issue will never even go to the UN Security Council & consequently no resolutions will be passed, i.e. it will always be a bilateral affair to be sorted out by the involved belligerents. Therefore, in light of what I’ve stated above, cross-LoC raids do not constitute any form of aggression, period.
2) If the idea is to convert the LoC into an incident-free zone, then one has to enact a series of confidence-building measures of the type enacted by India & China all along the LAC, thereby converting it into a Line of Peace & Tranquility, as was done in 1993 & that explains why there have been no ‘incidents’ involving use of deadly force all along the LAC since then. In fact, after 1967 there have never been any armed clashes between the IA & PLA because India after 1971 did not resort to waging sub-conventional warfare (i.e. 4th generation warfare) of the type it did with the Mukti Bahini in 1971 within East Pakistan. That India had pioneered the practical application of 4th generation sub-conventional warfare in a brilliant manner & this in turn had enabled India to create a new country (Bangladesh) within a mere 14 days is an equally brilliant feat that remains unmatched even today in the annals of 20th century military history. But alas, the sad part is that India’s politico-military brilliance of 1971 remains under secrecy till today due to an unjustifiable sanctimonious attitude being adopted as official policy under which it is justifiable for India to wage 4th generation sub-conventional warfare against East Pakistan or Sri Lanka, but is totally unjustifiable if someone else tries it against India. It is for this reason that the official history of the 1971 India-Pakistan War that was written by the MoD remains highly classified till this day.
3) What has been going on since 1989 in Jammu & Kashmir is that Pakistan replicated India’s 4th generation sub-conventional warfare practices & has been applying it against India ever since. What India’s political & military leaders had & have failed to realise is that what goes around comes around as well & therefore a well-articulated riposte—comprising defensive & offensive options—should have been put in place to counter the enemy. This was only partly done, i.e. the IA HQ, well-versed & highly accomplished as it was in 4th generation sub-conventional warfare since 1971, rapidly created the Rashtriya Rifles & honed it into the world’s largest & most combat-proven counter-insurgency force. However, this brilliant accomplishment was not supplemented by any offensive capabilities, i.e. the political mandate was never given by the GoI/MoD to the three armed services to develop & carry out offensive options like staging cross-LoC raids and offensive long-range artillery fire-assaults in a sustained manner, this again being due to the fact that between 1990 and 1999 there was hardly any military force-modernisation undertaken, especially in the areas of field artillery. Had the IA received its full complement of 1,410 FH-77Bs by the 1999s, OP Badr would never have been mounted & there would have been no need for OP Vijay & OP Safed Sagar.

(continued below…..)

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

4) Despite such shortcomings, IA HQ did authorise the HQ Northern Command to carry out selective but shallow cross-LoC raids involving IA’s infantry and SF (Para) personnel. Three such raids were carried out, and in an operation mounted sometime in 1997, a series of Pakistan Army (PA) bunkers was raised to the ground in a sector astride Ghumri in a brilliantly planned fire-assault that made use of SOLTAM 160mm mortars (these being used for the very first time since 1971) & 106mm RCL guns—this being in retaliation against incessant Pakistan Army attacks staged with Baktar Shikan wire-guided ATGMs that had always targeted only the kitchens (langars) of the opposing IA platoons. At that time, the IA’s Battalion Commanders who executed such fire-assaults were then berated by their Divisional Commanders, but the then GOC-in-C Northern Command, Lt Gen S ‘Paddy’ Padmanabhan (who later became COAS) not only congratulated the Battalion Commanders, but also encouraged them & asked them what more did they need in terms of weapons & sensors to fulfil more such missions, if reqd. At that time, such operations had full authorization from the then Indian PM, the late Inder Kumar Gujral. It was due to this splendid riposte that Pakistan was forced to come to the negotiating table & this was conveyed as such to I K Gujral when he met his Pakistani counterpart Mian Mohd Nawaz Sharif in Male during the 9th SAARC Summit at Male in May 1997.

(continued below....)

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

5) Coming straight down to present times, a tit-for-tat approach in the near-term will be downright unwise since it will only benefit India’s detractors. Why? Because, Pakistan has already stated that there weren’t any of its institutions involved behind the recent beheadings, i.e. the so-called Border Action Teams (BAT) were SSG-trained Mujahideen who were the perpetrators & that they took advantage of inclement weather conditions in order to carry out their mission. This is also the reason why Pakistan is fully confident of its ‘innocence’ and has therefore been clamouring for an international investigation by any third-party (like the UN), which in all probability will prove the innocence of the PA. The recent actions of the BATs must instead be seen in the context of increasing disenchantment of the POK-based Hisbul Mujahideen & Lashkar-e-Toiba with Islamabad, especially after the recent visit to Pakistan by members of the Hurriyat Conference, who along with all POK-based politicians and militant separatists were clearly given to understand that the ‘Kashmir Issue’ was dead-meat, period, since this issue will no longer be ‘internationalised’ (since Pakistan now wants to formally convert Gilgit-Baltistan into its fifth province & this by itself contravenes all existing UN resolutions on J & K) and therefore the only way forward for both India and Pakistan is to share the cake, instead of having the whole cake & eating it as well. Concurrently, the PA, after coming under recent attack from Pakistan’s mass-media agencies about admitting at long-last that the greatest threat to Pakistan’s national security is internal strife and not from India, has been anxious to prove its relevance vis-à-vis India in terms of facing a credible conventional warfare threat. Consequently, GHQ in Rawalpindi probably decided to take a calculated risk by staging an ‘incident’ across the LoC that only amounted to a “violation by non-state actors”, i.e. BATs, thus giving the PA the benefit of plausible deniability. In doing so, the PA also signalled to India the need for agreeing to implement without any further delay a basket of CBMs (like relocation of heavy & medium field artillery emplacements 30km away from the LoC) that were proposed by Pakistan last year, since implementation of CBMs will give the PA a comfort-level that is deemed sufficient for redeploying more military forces for its impending military campaign in North Waziristan. It must be noted that the PA has already relocated 140,000 soldiers from its eastern borders & redeployed them throughout FATA since 2008.

6) Therefore, in conclusion, what is now required on the ground-level is an element of level-headedness to prevail, which should enable both parties to have a frank chat about their respective compulsions & objectives. For starters, the DGMOs of both the IA & PA & the Defence Secretaries of both countries should have face-to-face negotiations in each other’s capitals in order to make the LoC something like the Sino-Indian LAC for at least the next 12 months, pending the final resolution of the J & K issue/dispute through bilateral negotiations by 2014, about which even hardline Pakistani detractors like Lt Gen (retd’) Hamid Gul (former DG-ISI) have recently called for in some Pakistan TV news channels. Lasting peace is thus within reach, if given a chance. On the other hand, sentimental jingoism & one-upmanship will only lead to both parties engaging in a needless war of attrition across the LoC involving further avoidable loss of life on both sides. And it is only the dead who will have seen the end of war, as the late Gen Douglas MacArthur had once remarked.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To ARUNM: 1) Yes. On the other hand, mechanically-scanned radars have antennae jutting well into the radome. 2) Not radar performance, but the NCTR capabilities of the mission sensor suite. 3) All photos are available at Dassault Aviation’s website. 4) The entire nose-section of the Tejas Mk2 has been redesigned & hence the need for a new-design for a radome that now has to be fabricated. 5) UAEAF wanted a version of RBE-2 with additional modes of operation, similar to what the IAF has asked for. Nothing to do with range. 6) Ariel towed-decoys from EADS/Cassidian are available for Rafale.

Mr. Ra 13 said...

The national furore created by the inhumanity of the Delhi rape case has been effectively pushed away in to the back door by the feelings created by the ghastly incidence at the LOC. Media is a testimony to this. What was this?

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Mr RA 13: The bottomline is that all wars are equally ghastly, brutal & heinous. Decapitation is no more ghastly than someone deliberately taking away one's life, but on the other hand, as the saying goes, everything's fair in love & war. If that's indeed the case, then why has the 'desi' mass-media been adopting such a sanctimonious & holier-than-thou posture these past five days? After all, such decapitations are a routine affair within India whenever the CAPFs have been ambushed & overwhelmed by the Maoist guerrillas. And yet, how many times has the 'desi' mass-media gone hysterical over the mutilations & decapitations suffered by CAPF personnel?

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Mr.RA 13 & ABS: By the way, on August 1, 2011 a BAT had stormed inside Kupwara's 19 Rajput Regiment battalion, while handing-taking over was on between 19 Rajput and 20 Kumaon in 28 Div (exactly what was happening in the morning of the latest incident)), and had beheaded two Indian soldiers--Havildar Jaipal Singh Adhikari and Lance Naik Devender Singh opf 19 Rajput—and had taken their heads along with them to the other side. Their bodies were sent to their families in Uttarakhand in sealed caskets as they were "badly mutilated", and cremated as such. Their deaths were attributed to a firefight with militants along the border. The Indian Army had then hushed-up this incident & therefore the question that arises is: why make it public this time?
Later in the same month in August 2011 the IA’s SF (Para) launched a ferocious retaliatory cross-LoC attack that reportedly resulted in several PA casualties. Therefore, in all probability, another such retaliatory attack by the IA could well be undertaken later this month.

sathead3 said...

Fantastic overview and commentary on the Indo-Pak relationship. I sure do hope you are right on all counts and a long term solution is reached. This is a needless bleeding ulcer for both countries and it is time indeed to put the rivalry to bed.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To SATHEAD3: VMT & we can only hope that saner, if not cooler, heads will prevail on both sides of the divide in future by keeping the longer-term objectives (the big picture) in perspective.

abs said...

@Prasunda
Very many thanks for your objective replies and assessment of the situation. I totally concurred with your views.
I think this matter is being made much more of an issue by the media than the IA. Yesterday night I was watching the Times Now Newshour debate and it seemed they never did any homework and consequently were totally out of sync with the ground realities and it was as if they were groping in the dark. Thank you very much once again.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To ABS: VMT. 'Headlines Today' has already picked up some elements of my above-mentioned comments, especially the IA's cross-LoC retaliatory strike record & future options, & could well air that story later tonight.

Anonymous said...

Sir, If A 6 is imaginary then what will be the name of upcoming ICBM with range of 6000-6500 KM. Also what about the name used A 6 in DRDO News letter,2011?

Anonymous said...

Sir, You too said that S 5 SSBN will carry SLBM with 6,500 KM Range. will there be any land based ICBM with 6000-65000 KM range if A 6 is imaginary? Or MIRVed A 5 will have range of 6,000-6500 KM?

Anonymous said...

Hello Mr.Prasun

1. Will US set up MRO facilities for GE F414 engines in India?

2. What is the Time Between Overhaul of F414 and the AL-31FP ?

3. Are IN MiG-29Ks equipped with thrust-vectoring RD-33MK engine?

4. I think IN MiG-29K has Zhuk-M2E slotted-array radar, am I right?

5. Is PAK-FA going to get a frameless canopy in the production-version?

6. What could be the maximum G-stress tolerence and maximum AoA of Tejas Mk-2?

Anonymous said...

sir , 1)any idea when nag missile will be ready for induction??
mr.avinash chander said that ther is problem with its seaker ?is it clarify
2) please also tell when helina and man portable nag will be ready ?
3)
is drdo clgm ready ? if not then how much time it will take to mature ?

bradshaw said...

Hi Prasun da,

If India keep doing covertly the surgical strikes and at the same time starts keeping more heavy artillery regiments and Infantry and air force close to LoC ... than pkistan will be forced to redeloy lakhs of troops from western border to eastern border. Now already western part is very hostile , FATA , Quetta , Baluchistan etc etc is already on boil and relocationg troops will further weaken PAK.

Do u think India can use it as a pressure tactic to bring PAK on Knees ? Also the cost of relocating such massive forces and maintaining them would be very hign which will pinch India but Pakistan will be broken financially.

Anonymous said...

Sir, I was unable to attend ISC at Salt lake stadium though it is nor very far from our house due to 12 board exams. I am pleased to see the pics. Am awaiting for the narratives.

A few ques.
1.What are IA's answer to Pak BAT ?

2.Are the RR more better equipped than the rest of IA in terms of equipments ?

3.What IDAS suite will the latest batch of 59 Mi-17v5 have ? Will each of them have Russian MAWS, ir
jammer as standard fit ?

4.Pinaka mk1 is almost similar to mk2 . What was the need for establishing new tech for mk2 ?

5. Is IA , IAF interested in C-RAM inner layer systems like Skyranger from Rheinmetall ? Will MoD allow
Rheinmetall to do business if it teams up with a private company ?

6. Is Varuna ESM in production ?

7.when will series production of LR-SAM start ? Any news on Akash mk2 ?

vishakh said...

Hi

I have 2 questions :

1) Close combact carbine which IA is planning 3-4 Lacks units which is better suited for indian conditions ??? Bretta or TAR21??

2) IA FINSAS RIFle as per my understanding Bretta ARX160 is best suited for indian conditions and provided only quick barrel changing ...

Next come TAR21

Please suggest yours views adn when these will be brought .

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To BRADSHAW: Cross-LoC surgical strikes by SOF personnel of both sides are typical sub-conventional warfare operations & therefore, unlike conventional warfare, do not require heavy fire-assaults by medium artillery or armoured thrusts. At the most, medium-lift assault helicopters like Mi-17V-5 or Rudra can be employed but that too, very rarely. Therefore, for such tit-for-tat cross-LoC raids, there will not be the need for any massive redeployments of forces by either side. Pakistan is now in a bind because it has no choice but to redeploy more troops from its eastern borders to its western frontiers facing Afghanistan between now & 2015, plus in areas like Balochistan & North Waziristan. Effectively, this will result in at least half its standing strength being withdrawn from Pakistan’s eastern borders & from the LoC. It is for this reason that Pakistan has since the past one year repeatedly been requesting India to agree to a mutually verifiable basket of CBMs along the Working Boundary & the LoC that are designed to keep these areas calm & trouble-free. But upon getting an unenthusiastic response from India over the past 12 months, Pakistan has decided to up the ante by resorting to such SOF-style attacks against IA’s forward positions along the LoC in the hope that India relents & agrees to implement the CBMs. It can therefore be safely inferred that Pakistan is now very desperate for a permanent solution to the J & K issue & wants some forward movement from India in this regard, with the implementation of CBMs being the first phase of a roadmap aimed at achieving lasting peace, so that the PA can turn its attention westwards & prevent Afghanistan from questioning the legality of the now-defunct Durand Line. Furthermore, there is already a steadily growing public disenchantment with the PA’s inability to rein in the various Jihadi organisations that were created in the 1970s & 1980s & which are now uncontrollable & are thus causing an alarming increase in sectarian strife (read: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/pakistan/What-did-you-give-us-except-more-death-Shia-leader-asks-Pak-army-chief-Kayani/articleshow/17986104.cms).

It is thus the sum of all of this that has brought the PA down to its knees—all without India’s active intervention. Just watch this to get a sense of what is really happening inside Pakistan today & how dehumanised the average Pakistani citizen has today become: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0i3jBMm5yJ0&feature=player_embedded

So bad is the situation inside Balochistan today that even Pakistani commentators & TV news anchors are openly calling for the IA to step in to resort order there, since the PA is evidently not capable of controlling the situation. This being the case, I have no doubt whatsoever that if a UN-monitored plebiscite were to be held in Gilgit-Baltistan today, almost all of the inhabitants of those areas along with those of POK/Azad Kashmir will overwhelmingly opt for merger with India so that they can at least dwell in peace without any fear of sectarian strife. Therefore, the last thing that India now needs to do is stoke the flames. Let things be as they are, do carry out the odd cross-LoC retaliatory raid (i.e. a proportionate response) as & when reqd, but there’s absolutely no need to engage in full-scale war-mongering, for that will only increase the average Pakistani citizen’s support for the PA. And just be patient for another year or next 18 months for China, Russia & India to join forces behind-the-scenes to choreograph the appropriate end-game aimed at defanging the PA-controlled ‘Deep State’ that now exists.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

By the way, here’s the HEADLINES TODAY story that’s based on the data on cross-LoC retaliatory raids that I had uploaded yesterday: http://indiatoday.intoday.in/video/poonch-pakistan-india-jawans-beheaded-jammu-and-kashmir/1/242032.html

The report, however, mistakenly attributes the IA’s casualties as being from 20 Kumaon, when they ought to have been from 19 Rajput. And according to data released by Pakistan’s MoD (which are more detailed than what’s released by India’s MoD), violations of the LoC by Indian military forces between December 2011 and December 2012 comprise 231 firing violations, 35 technical violations of airspace by helicopters, 3 technical violations of airspace by fixed-wing aircraft & 18 technical violations of airspace by UAVs.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Anon@11.38PM: 1) IA has the option of employing the ‘Ghatak’ platoons attached to those infantry battalions that are deployed along the LoC, or the SF (Para), or the ‘Parvat Ghatak’ platoons that were raised after OP Vijay in 1999. 2) No. But they’re customised for counter-insurgency operations by way of both specialised firepower & communi8cations gear. 3) All Mi-17V-5s will have IR jammers of Russian origin, but no MAWS for the time-being. 4) For increasing the rocket’s range. 5) It could well be possible, since TATA had teamed up with Rheinmetall as far back as 2007. 6) Not yet. 7) Series-production has already begun in Israel. No new updates on Akash Mk2.

To VISHAKH: 1) Obviously the TAR-21 has been in use within India for a long time & by now IMI has acquired enough feedback & data from the various Indian end-users that will enable IMI to make almost unmatched cost-competitive offers that Berretta will find highly difficult to match. 2) FINSAS multi-barrel assault-rifle competition is still some distance away. RFPs have not yet been released, only RFIs have been. Then there’s also the DRDO-developed weapon that bears a resemblance to the Tavor family of firearms.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Anon@2.04AM: There is no other ICBM under development other than the Agni-5 with MIRV warheads, which will have a range of up to 7,200km once fully developed. Any mention about A-6 anywhere was just a typo error. The futuristic SLBM with 6,500km-range is still a decade away for the two budgeted SSBNs S-5 & S-6, each of which will carry 12 SLBMs.

To Anon@7.17PM: 1) Yes, at Sulur. 2) TBO of AL-31FP s now 1,000 hours. That of F414 is more than 3,000 hours. 3) No. 4) Yes. 5) No. 6) 8 G & 23 degrees.

To Anon@8.28PM: 1) The IIR seeker is problem-free. The problem is the 50kg weight of the ATGM. It needs to be reduced to at least 35kg. 2) HELINA is still five years away from maturing as a fully developed product. There’s no manportable version of Nag. CLGM is now undergoing test-firings.

Anonymous said...

Sir I have heard that the supersonic LRCM will be named as "Vayu" or "Khanda". Are these claims true?

Anonymous said...

"Then there’s also the DRDO-developed weapon that bears a resemblance to the Tavor family of firearms."
Can you throw some light on this ? Are you talking about MSMC carbine or assault rifle under development ? Some news report are saying that assault rifle is also completed and its undergoing trials.

"So bad is the situation inside Balochistan today that even Pakistani commentators & TV news anchors are openly calling for the IA to step in to resort order there, since the PA is evidently not capable of controlling the situation."
There must be some video clip to support this. Can you post it ? Why are they not asking their best friend China ?

We would appreciate if you write something about the new Mountain strike corps that armed forces want in N-E at a cost of 88,000 crore. Is it too expensive ? What all suport that this strike corps will have that makes it so costly ? Where are the M777 gonna be deployed ?

Has IA shown any interest in Prahar and Shaurya missile ? Where does Shaurya missile fit in IA's operational doctrine ? Is it possible that we will replace Agni 1 with Shaurya ? Shaurya can be used as Chinese DF21 ?

Who is gonna have the control of Mi17 ? Is IA planning of purchasing Mi17 any time soon ? IA is purchasing alot of Dhruvs but they should also purchase Mi17.

bradshaw said...

Hi Prasun,

You said "It can therefore be safely inferred that Pakistan is now very desperate for a permanent solution to the J & K issue & wants some forward movement from India in this regard, with the implementation of CBMs being the first phase of a roadmap aimed at achieving lasting peace"....

Well its India who has given MFN status to PAK and Pak has not yet. Its Pkaistan who is not opening the gates of LoC in poonch and Indian trucks are waiting. Its pakistan who has not yet taken action on Hafeez Syed after 10 years , India given all evidences and USA even declared him as most wanted with A million dollar reward and he ids freely roaming in Pakistan.

Now , u say PAK is desperate for ceasefire , resolving kashmir and building CBM's ?? If so than why it doesn't show proactiveness on above mentioned points.

I fail to understand why India not excercise its larger control over rivers flowing out to PAK. Making big DAMS or diverting it towards thirsty deserts of Rajasthan. What's ur opinion on this ?

Anonymous said...

"There is no other ICBM under development other than the Agni-5 with MIRV warheads, which will have a range of up to 7,200km once fully developed. Any mention about A-6 anywhere was just a typo error. The futuristic SLBM with 6,500km-range is still a decade away for the two budgeted SSBNs S-5 & S-6, each of which will carry 12 SLBMs."

But sir Ananth Krishan has has told range of Indian ICBM at max 6500 KM. If what you are saying is true then I was right Indian ICBM will be able to target at least 3 P5 nations and probably UK but not US; so not to make US angry.

bradshaw said...

Also , No response from Pak to India's demand for flag meeting ..that too after they beheaded our soldiers !

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Anon@7.55AM: Not true.

To Anon@10.24AM: It is the Trichy Assault Rifle, not the MSMC carbine. The video clip’s weblink was also posted above. It is: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0i3jBMm5yJ0&feature=player_embedded
China has already stated that it wants this affair to be a bilateral one, & not involve third-parties like the UN. MSC was just a concept & has so far never been articulated into a firm plan by the three armed services as yet. Both Prahaar & Shaurya will be inducted into service in future. Mi-17V-5s will continue to remain with the IAF.

To BRADSHAW: When discussing the issue of MFN status, it is best to adopt a mercantile approach with Pakistan, since the trade imbalance is in any case not in Pakistan’s favour. Therefore, it still this day benefits India to procure raw materials directly from Pakistan at far cheaper rates (through Wagah/Attari) & India becomes the nett gainer. If Pakistan does not want to derive similar benefits, then it’s not India’s problem. Pakistan has already taken action against the likes of Maulana Masood Azhar of Jaish-e-Mohammad & that’s why no one today hears either about this character or about JEM. India never gave any clinching evidence about Hafiz Saeed to anyone because she till this day doesn’t have any. On the other hand, those against whom clinching evidence is available are all already behind bars & are facing trial. You can only put to trial the actual planners & hand-on perpetrators of crimes, & not mere ideologues. The US never branded Hafiz Saeed as the most wanted man; instead it has offered US$1 million to whosoever is ready to come forward with clinching evidence of this man’s wrongdoings, so that he can be nailed & tried & convicted. On the other hand, one must ask why India has been quiet all this while when both the US & Afghan intelligence agencies have had clinching evidence of Pakistan’s involvement in staging the two decapitating attacks against the Indian Embassy in Kabul in the previous decade—both of which under international law are considered as acts of war & a direct attack against Indian soil. These two attacks against the Indian Embassy are far more serious offences than the cross-LoC attacks & yet why did such incidences not make anyone’s blood boil? Why no Indian institution vowed to seek revenge for such attacks back then? Why was there no attempt made then to name & shame Pakistan? How come everyone has forgotten about these two attacks so soon?
India cannot tinker in any way with the river waters flowing from India to Pakistan since the internationally-guaranteed Indus Waters Treaty prevents India from doing so. Nor should India even dream about it, since such moves will have dire consequences for India in the eyes of the international community. Nor should India show any desperation in asking for flag meetings, since any such meeting will only curtail India’s plans & limit India’s options for launching a retaliatory cross-LoC strike, which will definitely come about now.

To Anon@12.38PM: 6,500km is the stated max range of the A-5 as it now exists, while 7,200km will be the max achievable range after the A-5 ICBM is fully developed as a mature system prior to operational deployment.

Vikram Guha said...

Prasun Da,

Did you read the latest statements of the DRDO chief ?

http://theasiandefence.blogspot.in/2009/03/pac-3-outdated-system-drdo.html

He claims India's BMD is superior to PAC 3 and can intercept TOPOL M type ICBMs as well .

This is ridiculous as even the US does not have an answer to TOPOL type ICBMs. What I fail to understand is why make a mockery of oneself by making such outrageous statements .

Thanks,
Vikram

Anonymous said...

Prasun,

1) When will the first Mirage 2000 be upgraded to 2000-5 Mk-2 standard and when will IAF receive the first upgraded Mirage?

2) Is it possible to integrate Meteor BVRAAM into Tejas Mk-2?

3) Ive read in a number of sources that Russia is planning to develop a bomber variant of PAK-FA like FB-22 Strike Raptor. Is that true? Will IAF also look at that bomber if yes?

4) Any update on Rustom-2? What engine is it powered by? Who is developing the engine?

5) Are all pakistani ballistic & cruise missiles powered by Chinese-supplied engines?

6) Any update on Nirbhay ALCM test?

7) How many Nirbhays can an MKI carry?

8) Is there any other jet fighter other than Su-30MKI that can carry such a long-range autonomous ALCM?

9) Any specific reason why Bofors 155mm guns are being shifted to the Arunachal border?

Unknown said...

Prasun,

1)
You say a FINSAS rifle competition is some time away but the reports of late say the IA is close to selecting an AR and SMG from abroad with the contenders being the ARX-160 from Beratta, COLT's multi cal rifle etc and by all reports say field trails are complete of these rifles and the IA will make a decision later this CALENDER year with deliveres beginning early 2014. These rifles are surely part of the F-INSAS program?? The numbers initially will be 66,000 but with ToT and licence production to produce more in house and equip the entire IA later.


2) wrt the recent official confirmation of the A330 winning the IAF's AAR competition. Will the AARs the IAF orders be configured with the Airbus Refuslling Boom System (ARBS) to be able to refuel UARRSI equipped a/c like the P-8I and C-17 the IAF/IN are procuring?

3)Also will the MRTTs themselves come with the UARRSI system allowing them to be refuelled themselves?

4) I am hearing some serious noise from the Indian press about the liihood of the MMRCA not being signed until after the 2014 elections or will be scrapped all together. Is the are truth to this? If not when will the deal be signed?

5) when will the A330 MRTTs be ordered?

6) when will the Apache AH-64Es be ordered?

7) when will the M-777 be ordered?

8) when will the Chinook CH-47F be ordered?

9) when will the follow on 2 A-50EI be ordered?

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To VIKRAM GUHA: If indeed he made such utterances, then all I can say is: those who know much talk little, while those who know little talk much.

To Anon@11.01PM: 1) The first Mirage 2000TH is already been upgraded by Dassault Aviation & THALES in France. For data on the rest, kindly go to: http://trishul-trident.blogspot.in/2011/06/giving-realistic-options-chance.html
2) Of course. 3) Not bomber, but MRCA variant. The FGFA will be MRCA. 4) Engine is locally developed. 5) Yes. 6) No. 7) Up to two if you’re talking about conventionally-armed Nirbhay. 8) None except the Su-30MKI for the IAF. 9) FH-77Bs were always deployed in limited numbers to AP. In fact, the first consignment of FH-77Bs that had arrived in India in early 1987 were sent straight to Tawang.

To UNKNOWN aka David Benjamin: 1) That’s not true. The Multi-Calibre Weapon (MCW) now being developed by DRDO will for intents & purposes be selected. Any type of assault rifles & carbines ordered in the near future will NOT BE for the FINSAS project, but only for meeting short-term interim reqmts. 2) The competition WAS NOT for purely air-to-air refuelling (AAR) tanker, but for a multi-role tanker-transport (MRTT). AAR platforms & MRTT platforms are not the same. Neither the P-8I nor C-130J-30 have any recepticle for being refuelled in mid-air by any kind of boom. The P-8I in fact cannot be refuelled in mid-air, only the C-130J-30 can & that too with a probe-and-drogue system. In fact, not a single combat aircraft of the IAF is configured for being refuelled in mid-air with a boom. 3) MRTTs of the IAF will not require aerial refuelling. 4) I don’t know from where you’re obtaining such baseless tit-bits. 5.6.7.8.9) Next fiscal year.

Anonymous said...

DRDO - driving self reliance? shameless assholes. 90% of the brochures are all bought offtheshelf bullcrap .

Shine Vj said...

Respected Sir/Madam,

We Christ University Faculty of Engineering is conducting Annual National Level Techfest "MAGNOVITE 2015" in the month of Februvary 2015(Dates:20 and 21st) and we are expecting more than 5000 young engineers across India. We would like to have a technical exhibition arranged in our campus in association with Indian Air Force so that youngsters will get motivated. Please let us know the possibility of executing the same.

Awaiting for positive response
Faculty In Charge
MAGNOVITE 2015