Total Pageviews

Wednesday, March 20, 2013

Maiden Launch Of Submarine-Launched BrahMos-1 Supersonic MRCM

BrahMos Aerospace, the India-Russia JV operational since February 1998, created history when the submarine-launched version of the BrahMos-1 vertically-launched supersonic multi-role cruise missile was successfully test-fired at 1410 hours on March 20, 2013  from a submerged, stabilised and stationary platform (the same that was used for test-firing the B-O5/K-15 SLBM on January 27, 2013) in the Bay of Bengal off the coast of Visakhapatnam.

Creating history, the missile took off vertically from its submerged cannister and attained its full range of 290km. Following a pre-programmed flight trajectory, the missile emerged from underwater and took a vectored turn towards the designated target. All the shore-based and shipborne telemetry and tracking stations confirmed the pin-point accuracy of the mission. This was reportedly the first time that any supersonic multi-role cruise missile had been launched vertically from a submerged, stabilised and stationary platform. When vertically installed in vertical cannisters within the pressure-hull of a nuclear-powered SSGN, the BrahMos-1 increases the ‘offensive power’ of the SSGN without compromising on the SSGN’s ‘defensive power’ as the torpedo tubes can be fully utilised for engaging in undersea warfare while operating in the self-seeking hunter-killer mode.

76 comments:

Indranil said...

Hi Prasun!
What is the difference between IRNSS and GAGAN?

sntata said...

Dear Prasun,

"The submarine-launched version of BrahMos was successfully test-fired from an underwater pontoon near here, BrahMos CEO A Sivathanu Pillai told PTI.

This is the first test-firing of an underwater supersonic cruise missile anywhere in the world and the missile travelled its complete range of over 290km, he said."
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NEWS/newsrf.php?newsid=19972

Hope the Air Force variant will be the next to be tested.

Anonymous said...

Prasuda,

Is Arjun Mk1A and Arjun Mk2 same???

Anonymous said...

hi prasun,
just a side note: It seems defence.pk is ur avid follower. I always saw ur posts copy pasted there...without giving proper credit. :D

Anonymous said...

What's the TOTAL STRENGTH of china's paramillitary wing responsible for vigilence over its border areas i.e border guards just like in india we have itbp,bsf,ssb etc.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To INDRANIL: It's all explained at: http://trishul-trident.blogspot.in/2011/05/irnss-and-gagan-explained.html

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To SNTATA: Here's the original press-release:

http://www.brahmos.com/newscenter.php?newsid=166

To Anon@8.55PM: No.

To Anon@9.26PM: I'm glad they do. At least that way the Pakistani audience can get to learn a lot about the developments concerning the Pakistani Armed Forces which are never accessible to them through official channels.

To Anon@9.46PM: They're not paramilitary forces, but full-time formations of the PLA. They're known as Border Defence Regiments (BDR). The only major paramilitary force within China is the People's Armed Police (PAP) & they come closest to India's CAPFs.

Anonymous said...

What is numerical strength BDR ?

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

About 200,000.

Mr. Ra 13 said...

Thanx for the excellent news brought up regarding SL-Brahmos-1 and Arjun- Mk1A MBT.

Anonymous said...

Hi Prasun,

Just off topic... but came across bharat rakshak where it was given that drdo has developed SCB .... how good are those.... and of what gen.... and if they are produced then why dont we build kaveri engine fans on those.... also why India isn't starting a new engine project of higher thrust....also came 2 know that India has just spent 550 million dollars on kaveri.... isn't that very less investment considering the nature and significance of the project.... even foreign engine developers who have developed engines for decades say that for a new engine 5 billion dollars has to be invested..... and moreover if India is developing RTA then what are their plans to take a foreign engine for that also.... Wont it be economical to develop kaveri and use a modified version for civil airliner. this would save a lot of capital.

regards,
A G

Arjun said...

Hi Prasun,
I know its way too soon but what kind of technologies and features could be present in Arjun Mk3, not the fanboy wish list but what can be realistically pulled off by our DRDO(with the help of foreign consultants of-course).
Since India had a very long and extensive field trials of six different fighter aircraft in MMRCA Competition, could the people participating in the field trials have any design elements/influence on our future LCA's (they must have a lot of useful insights working with different teams from different countries).

Anonymous said...

hi PRASUN,
THIS IS OFF TOPIC BUT...


"The Indian Army may not have ammunition to fight the next war (with Pakistan, not to mention China) beyond three to five days. Holdings for all types of missiles, and anti-tank ammunition are critically low. Stockings for artillery (70 per cent fuses needed for firing are unavailable) and armour fighting vehicles ammunition are unlikely to last beyond four to five days of intense war. War Wastage Reserves (WWR) for most ammunition categories do not exist.

--

How has the prestigious 13 lakh-strong army remained unprepared for so long? At the heart of this tragedy is the government’s weird idea of indigenisation with the fulcrum around the 41 units of OFB and the 10 Defence Public Sector units (DPSUs) being run as personal fiefdoms by defence ministry bureaucrats.

--

Over 50 per cent of the T-72 tank fleet (around 2,500 numbers) gun barrels require urgent replacements as being sub-standard they cannot be used.

--

70 per cent of artillery ammunition is without fuses and hence, cannot be used. Units have found sealed ammunition with fungus on them and there have been regular cases of propellant leakages from charges.

--

Take the case of Carl Gustaf recoilless rifle, which has been with the army since Eighties and its ToT was transferred to OFB. Even today, the weapon and its ammunition are imported from the Swedish OEM."

KSingh said...

Prasun,

Will the ongoing storm between India and italy affect the chanced of the ARX-160 in the IA's ongoing next-gen Assualt rifle tender which is in its final stages?

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To AG: Developing SCB at a MIDHANI laboratory is totally different from establishing its industrial production capabilities, which is where the bulk of the cost-prohibitive financial investment takes place. Secondly, the financial returns on such investments always comes from the bulk production of turbofans for commercial air transportation aircraft, since this is where the greatest demand for cutting-edge technological innovations comes from. Just examine the business investment plans for all major engine manufacturers like GE Aero Engines, Pratt & Whitney, Rolls-Royce, MTU, SCENMA Moteurs, PERM of Russia & you will reach the same conclusion as I have stated above. That is the very reason why countries like China’s AVIC & Brazil’s EMBRAER & Bombardier Aerospace of Canada, for instance, haven’t been able to develop their own present-generation home-grown turbofan designs till this day, be it for commercial or military applications. Therefore, for any Indian R & D entity to develop a home-grown turbofan incorporating SCBs & that too only for military applications will remain a pipedream, since everyone in India will balk be just aghast at the kind of financial investments required for such an R & D venture. If anyone out there within India is really serious about recovering all the R & D money spent on the Kaveri programme so far, then they must first & foremost expedite the development of the KMGT marine industrial gas turbine, since this version of the Kaveri will be in huge demand from not only the IN & ICGS, but also from ONGC.
And as for NAL’s proposed RTA, almost everything will have to be imported, just as was the case with SARAS. This includes the metals for building the airframe, the cockpit avionics, landing gears, engines, cabin pressurisation system, environment control system, APU, emergency escape system, etc. etc. If even the Russians & Chinese have had to resort to imports of such hardware for their SJ-100 Superjet & ARJ-21 regional airliners, do you really think India will become the exception to such practices? Bottomline: the RTA is a total waste of time & money, EXACTLY like the SARAS programme was. Far better therefore to develop a civilian version of the IL-214 MRTA since such an endeavour will cost only 1/4th the amount of money that NAL expects for the RTA.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To ARJUN: I had spelt it all out in a thread dealing with Arjun Mk2 & FMBT, which was uploaded in 2011 & 2012, respectively. The user evaluations of all the M-MRCA contenders were conducted by the IAF, whereas the Tejas Mks1/2 & LCA (Navy) Mks1/2 are being developed by ADA. Between the IAF & ADA, there’s zero (0) exchange of design ideas & concepts. Consequently, all that the IAF can do is do evaluations of various platforms, systems & sub-systems & depending on their applicability, specify them for incorporation in an ASQR & pass it on to ADA. Then, it is ADA’s turn to figure out whether all this can be developed indigenously or do they need to be imported off-the-shelf.

To Anon@2.09AM: 1) All your points assume that the next war between India & either China or Pakistan will be all-out conventional wars in which huge amounts of ammunition will be expended. The reality is totally different post May 1998, since such wars will never take place under a nuclear overhang & at most localised theatre-level conflicts will take place, like OP Vijay & OP Safed Sagar of 1999. 2) The 13 lakh-strong IA too ought to have realised by now that sub-conventional warfare of an enduring nature will require the greatest of attention. That being said, the 65,000-strong Rashtriya Rifles is today the world’s most combat-hardened & experienced counter-insurgency formation today. 3) Possessing MBTs like T-72s in such large numbers make no sense in this day & age, when considering that massed armoured battles never took place in the subcontinent after 1947. At best, 700 MBTs from each side (India & Pakistan) clashed against one another in the 1965 & 1971 wars. 4) The existing six-off Central Ammunition Depots of the IA ought to be immediately sold off & privatised, since ammo storage witin the hinterland using antiquated practices & technologies no longer makes any sense. Such types of rear-area logistics functions/services can easily be outsourced from the private-sector. 5) Carl Gustav’s 84mm RCL launcher has been indigenised & is now being integrated with thermal imaging aiming sights & bulk production orders were placed in 2011. ToT for the new range of ammo that was introduced by BOFORS AB in the early 1990s was never sought. ToT was secured for only those ammo types in the mid-1980s that were developed by BOFORS in the late 1970s & early 1980s.

To KSINGH: Of course it will. But the Italians were never well-known for their assault rifles. In my view, it is much better to stick with IWI’s Tavor family.

KSingh said...

Prasun,

what is the significance of the sigining of this ELBI-vectronics deal? What "signifanct milestone" has been passed?


+why only 116 and not 124?


+ how is the MK2 ARJUN looking as far as the army is concerned? Will they be placing orders for more than 124??

+ will the IA turn to VOLVO or MB to act as trasporter-pullers for these 60+ tonnes beasts? TATRA is out of the game and TATA AFAIK dosn't make trucks powerful
enough to lug such loads.



+wrt crew training is the IA going about it "properly" with mission-simulators and the like as the US army do (fpr their Abrams) for the Arjun?

Anonymous said...

"Possessing MBTs like T-72s in such large numbers make no sense in this day & age"
Yeah. I would say IA should procure more attack helicopters. If necessary may even go for light atack turboprops like tucano but i don't see there need in India considering our adversaries are not some warlords.

Prasun we are waiting for the remaining post...please post as soon as possible.
U r gr8.

rad said...


hi Prasun

Please explain what the elbit vectronics system is .

Anonymous said...

Sir Please explain What is a VECTRONICS suite

And which submarine will carry Brahmos SLCM

Will Indian Navy order THREE More
Scorpenes since P 75 I is delayed

Anonymous said...

hi prasun,
i am anon at 2.09
thank u very much for your detailed reply. And also for clearing doubts. That force magazine blog writer gave me scare. :)
thank u once again. Eagerly waiting for reminder of this post

Anonymous said...

todays toi saying india have underwater brahmos but no platform to launch it... What is the reality?

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To KSINGH: The significance is that this is confirmation of the fact that user-evaluations of Arjun Mk1A conducted last year were successful & last January, the MoD placed an indent for the bulk-production of 118 Arjun Mk1As (not 116), all of which will have ELOP-made sensors on board (which I will highlight in my narrative later today). As for the 1,500hp Cummins India engine-powered Arjun Mk2, this will for intents & purposes become the FMBT & by 2015 bulk orders (about 400) for this FMBT should start flowing in. As for motorised tank transporters, there are three contenders now: Ashok Leyland, TATA Motors & Volvo. As for simulators, so far only the crew driving simulators & crew gunnery simulators have been inducted for the T-72CIA, T-90S & Arjun Mk1. What is required next is the induction of Platoon Gunnery Simulators, which comprise a troop of three crew gunnery simulators interfaced with one another for interactive training operations.

To Anon@6.42AM: No, that’s not the right solution. The right solution is the induction of at least 400 Arjun Mk1A MBTs & another 400 Arjun Mk2 FMBTs between now & 2020. At the same time, the TANK EX proposal needs to be carried forward & refined so that at least 700 such MBTs can be inducted into service by 2020. The balance of the 1,200+ T-72Ms ought to be converted into tank destroyers like the BMP-T so that these tank destroyers are capable of operating in tandem with Arjun Mk1s, Arjun Mk1As & Arjun Mk2s in typical combined arms missions. A typical India-specific version of the BMP-T ought to host a customised CVRDE-designed turret containing twin 30mm cannons (the same as that on the existing BMP-2K ICVs), four CLGM laswer-guided anti-armour missiles, and an ELOP-supplied COAPS panoramic sight.

To RAD: Will do that shortly.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Anon@10.39AM: All electronic items installed on land warfare vehicles (tracked or motorised) is known as VECTRONICS, just as all electronic items installed on airborne platforms is called AVIONICS.
As for the submarine-launched BrahMos-1, the ideal & most suitable submarine to carry them will be the S-2 (Arihant), S-3 & S-4 nuclear-powered submarines, since these vessels have been designed from the outset by Russia to carry such vertically-launched missiles in customised launch-silos. It must be noted that till this day NO ONE in this world has designed or tested diesel-electric or AIP-powered submarines (SSK) capable of housing & launching such heavy-duty supersonic cruise missiles. That’s the very reason why even Vietnam’s Navy has desisted from arming its six Type 636 Kilo-class SSKs (due for delivery from this August) with the Yakhont & instead went ahead to acquire the vertically-launched shore-based version of the Yakhont, called the Bastion. Now, coming to Project 75I, just look at the probable timelines: First, an existing SSK design will have to be selected (most probably the S-80 from NAVANTIA) after a competitive bidding process, which will last till 2016 at worst. Second, this design will have to be modified to accommodate the eight VL-tubes for BrahMos—a process that will take at least three years at worst since it will involve the virtual re-design of the SSK. Third, the design will then have to be fabricated into a prototype—a process that will take another four years at worst. Fourth, since this will be an India-specific design modification, the overall project cost will soar enormously. Therefore, such a SSK prototype will be available only by 2023 & design validation & missile launch qualification trials will last until 2025 before the first such SSK is delivered to the IN. Now, is this acceptable to any self-respecting navy? Is it necessary to convert a perfectly good AIP-powered SSK into a ‘jack-of-all-trades’ weapons platform when it is far easier & cheaper to equip such SSKs with torpedo tube-launched Novator 3M54E Club-S supersonic ASCMs? Is it not therefore perfectly logical that the six Project 75I SSKs to be acquired not be subjected to such risky & cost-prohibitive modifications & instead be acquired along with torpedo tube-launched ASCMs? The sub-launched BrahMos-1 should instead go on board those submarines that were designed from the outset to carry such missiles, i.e. the Arihant-class vessels, which will be far more versatile when used as SSGNs instead of SSBNs.

To Anon@12.34PM: You must be referring to: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/India-tests-underwater-BrahMos-missile-but-has-no-submarine-to-fire-it/articleshow/19100380.cms

The reality is what I have explained above to Anon@10.39AM.

Anonymous said...

Prasun Da,

Mr. Ajay Shukla in his blog (broadsword) has mentioned the Nirbhay missile range upto 2000 KM. Is it true?

Srikanth said...

Dear Prasun da,

Very insightful as always. For a person with a view from outside, if you are able to spot and identify the problems that are ailing and becoming a stumbling block for progress in india's defence production , why arent the people involved in this not able to. is it vested interest of sheer lack of imagination and stupidity.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Anon@1.58PM: Did he also not state that the Nirbhay's turbofan was developed by GTRE (LoLZZZ!)? And that too after I had uploaded a HAL brochure outlining the specs of this HAL-developed turbofan more than 6 months ago??? That should tell you enough about the suspicious credentials of such 'desi' journalists.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To SRIKANTH: VMT. The country’s civilian officialdom too is acutely aware of both the limitations & potentialities. However, it lacks the very type of ‘animal instincts’ that are reqd for leapfrogging—which leads me to believe that there’s an acute lack of both decisive leadership (i.e. the ability to take difficult decisions without difficulty) & visionary statesmanship within India’s present-day Delhi-based civilian ruling-class.

For example, just read this:
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Infrastructure-projects-worth-Rs-7-lakh-crore-stuck-in-red-tape/articleshow/19100471.cms

Anonymous said...

Prasunji you had predicted this. With the peace process dead will this become the norm again?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-21873315

Between rapes and this, india is only getting bad press these days. what is going on on?

From Lahore said...

Prasun ,

Whenever we in Pakistan test fire a missile , Indians will scream that we imported it from China and gave it a Islamic name . In other words we deserve no credit . Fair enough.

But then why does India take credit for the Brahmos ? Let's face it , Brahmos is Yakhont re packaged . There is no Indian contribution in it's design . Infact in the official press release of Brahmos
http://www.brahmos.com/newscenter.php?newsid=166

they even thank the Russians .

So you see there is hardly any difference between Pakistan & India. Both are banana republics . One Islamic the other Hindu .

Cheers,

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To FROM LAHORE: The answer is elementary—in case of the BrahMos MRCM family there’s an open & registered JV between the Indian & Russian corporate entities & it’s called BrahMos Aerospace. Repackaging itself is a technological innovation, considering the Indian R & D and industrial inputs by way of India-developed & India-made hardware & the establishment of two separate BrahMos Integration Complexes (BIC) where final assembly of the missiles take place. In the case of Pakistan, however, to date there have been no data or photos released from any official sources about any such industrial or R & D activities (of the type mentioned above) being undertaken within Pakistan. Show me any such photo of Pakistan-developed avionics LRUs meant for any member of the Hatf family, or even a final assembly line of any missile of the Hatf family & I will gladly acknowledge the existence of indigenous Pakistani R & D/industrial inputs. As for the nature of the republics, here again you’re dead wrong, since there can never ever be an Islamic State in existence until a state of Islam is first allowed to prevail within a particular society or community or ‘qaum’. As for a Hindu republic, I’m afraid I don’t understand what you mean by this term, especially if it has any religious connotations. To me, the term Hindustan means the landmass of the Indo-Gangetic Plain that lies to the east of the Hindu Kush mountain range, and the term Hindustani means a person who dwells within this landmass.

As for credit, of course it must be given where it is due, especially after the likes of Dr A Q ‘Bhopali’ Khan nowadays never tires of acknowledging (to several Pakistani TV channels) the fact that he was the Project Director between 1988 & 1991 who was responsible for importing the M-9 & M-11 TBMs & setting up their peacetime storage facilities in Khanpur. Due credit must also be given to Pakistan’s Planning Commission for disclosing two days ago that of the total amount of money borrowed by the PPP-led federal govt since 2008, 87 per cent of this money was spent on debt servicing repayments & military procurements, with only 13 per cent being allocated for all other national requirements.

To Anon@3.38PM: Looks like it. That must have been the reason why India became hyperactive last January after the mutilations & decapitations of the IA’s soldiers, i.e. a signal to the other side that India’s patience is wearing thing & any effort to escalate matters this summer within J & K will be met with some form of vertical escalation of a military nature from the Indian side.

Unknown said...

Prasun,

Is the TATA offer for the tank mobility transporter based on their PRIMA series? And when will the orders for these machines be made? And who do you see winning of these 3?


Also could you give an overview of the current and potential orders of the Arjun in all its forms. And what exactly is the Mk1A as compared to the Mk1 and Mk2? I don't think any other source has even picked up in the Mk1A variant even exsisting.

Anonymous said...

Why india is loved by all:

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/India-votes-against-Sri-Lanka-again-in-delicate-diplomatic-dance/articleshow/19110802.cms

Unknown said...

Dear Prasunda,

1. You have suggested that arihant class is appropriate platform to launch BRAHMOS,but don't you think 300kms missile endangers a strategic asset having to move to close to shore to launch as it would be well within range of enemy SSK ?
2. The noise generated by arihant being a nuclear one will compromise it in such a scenario or is it that noise reduction is achieved by anechoic tiles/other methods etc to the levels of say yasen or virginia class??
3. When is the lead vessel ARIHANT going for sea trials?? it keeps missing deadlines year after year and NAVY chiefs keep retiring promising this soon. It was floated out mid 2009 and 3 1/2 years later no sign of it, no wonder the pak naval chief stressed its no threat to them.
looking forward to your speedy comments. thanks in advance

Anonymous said...

@unknown, brahmos-1 vertical launch from Arihant is meant to counter hostile CBG's'and not for land attack

VIKRAM GUHA said...

PrasunDa,

Why is the IAF & the IN not purchasing dedicated jamming aircrafts like the Growler ? Is Electronic Warfare not considered important by them ?

Regards,
Vikram

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To UNKNOWN: TATA Motors will offer the LPTA-3138 high mobility vehicle. Orders for motorised tank trailers are likely to be placed next year. Orders placed so far for Arjun include 124 for Arjun Mk1 & 118 for Arjun Mk1A. Orders for support vehicles like BLT Arjun armoured bridgelayer & Counter-Mine Flail have yet to be placed, as are orders for Arjun MBTs equipped with full-width mine-ploughs. The Arjun Mk2 is still under development & its existence was first reported during Aero India 2011 when DRDO officials confirmed that a 1,500hp engine for this MBT would come from Cummins India. Subsequently, the ‘desi’ journalists all forgot about this statement of DRDO & went on to label the Arjun Mk1A as Arjun Mk2. And the DRDO too forgot to correct this mistake & continues to suffer from amnesia on this subject.
Regarding SSGNs armed with BrahMos-1 ASCMs, typically such SSGNs will always be on the high seas stalking hostile naval task forces or carrier battle groups. Only when the SSGN is armed with long-range cruise missiles like the 1,200km-range Nirbhay will it be tasked with land-attack missions. As for when the S-2/Arihant is going for sea trials, all I can say now is that I’m quite happy to have the last laugh since, in July 2009, I was perhaps the only one to state that the vessel’s sea-trials will commence only after 2012. At that time, all the ‘desi’ & ‘pardesi’ jingos had let go of logic & had slammed me for making such claims, & had chosen instead to believe whatever was being blurted out by either DAE officials or by the then CNS of IN. Well, I can only hope that all those retarded jingos will henceforth start placing more emphasis on the laws of physics, instead of placing blind faith on statements emanating from either the DAE of IN HQ.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To VIKRAM GUHA: Dedicated airborne EW jamming platforms like the Growler are employed for escort jamming purposes ONLY WHEN they are required to escort large formations of combat aircraft headed for strike sorties through a hostile & densely defended airspace corridor. Such formations can comprise up to 64 aircraft headed for a single targetted area (as was the case during OP Desert Storm). In the subcontinent, one is most unlikely to see strike sorties of such complexity & magnitude being mounted & therefore platforms like the Growler are considered an unaffordable luxury. At most, a typical IAF strike sortie against a well-defended target will comprise no more than 12 aircraft, with four of them being employed for offensive air superiority, four for DEAD/SEAD missions (each armed with ARMs, cluster bombs & escort jamming pods) & the remaining four being armed with gravity bombs equipped with retarder parachutes. I’m sure you saw for yourself on TV how the sequential strike missions were carried out during the IRON FIST airpower demonstration. The Su-30MKI/Litening-2 LDP combination was employed only for destroying a simulated bridge with Griffin-3 LGB, while 1,000lb Mk11N gravity bombs equipped with retarder parachutes were used against simulated runways, & 100kg/120kg OFAB pre-frag & 150kg/250kg high-speed low-drag bombs were employed against conventional land-based targets. No portable laser target designators were used for guiding any LGB, nor was the Popeye PGM demonstrated. In many ways, therefore, IAF strike sortie practices haven’t changed much since the 1980s. Hopefully, things will change in the latter half of this decade after the Sudarshan LGB & GPS-guided versions of the 150kg/250kg bombs have been developed & produced, thus doing away with the need for antiquated 68mm & 80mm unguided rockets.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Anon@3.38PM: Here's some good news for you for a change:

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Naval-guards-will-come-back-to-India-for-trial-Italy-says/articleshow/19117038.cms

Looks like the Italians were the first to blink in this round.

Anonymous said...

"http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Naval-guards-will-come-back-to-India-for-trial-Italy-says/articleshow/19117038.cms

Looks like the Italians were the first to blink in this round."
I think the reason might be the recent questioning of the suspects by investigators of italian armed forces. I think Italy till now was taking the words of their marine but when they got hands on them i think what they found might be even worse.

Prasun i also have to ask about the path followed by this vessel. in one debate i saw Mr. Parthsarti questioning that too. Is there something that too ? Have we found out what this vessel was carrying ?

I also wanna ask did India had a say in brahmos missile design ? I wanted to ask this because Brahmos is a 290+ km supersonic missile, the similar features of a club missile which is very compact and could be used by all the 3 services.
Why did we go for Yakhont design rather than a missile based on Club missile ?
Brahmos is way too expensive and considering the amount we are spending to revamp the platforms to suit the Brahmos is way too much.
I think its time we move on and go for a complete new design.
There is one more missile called LRCM (600km 3.2 Mach) being build by drdo. If not too late then we should design this missile so that it can be fired from the tubes of our Scorpene also.

I remember Prasun you once said Israel is helping us in this missile and there's submarine version also.
Why aren't we listening anyhing about this missile ? Is it cancelled ? If not then When do u think the first launch will take place ?

ashi jain said...

sir can u give brief comparsion between arjun mk1 & chinese type99 & alkhalod mk2

rad said...

HI prasun
pse detail the elbit vectronics deal.

Vikram Guha said...

Thank You PrasunDa.

That makes sense . I however recon that in case the IAF/IN has to take on a adversary like say China for example who will have more numbers ( aircrafts, ships etc) in their favor the need for a dedicated EW aircraft will arise.

Thanks again,
Vikram

Anonymous said...

Prasunji,

Your opinion on this matter..
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/china/2013-03/21/c_132251965.htm. VMT

accidental loser said...

Hello prasun sir, it's been long coming here. By the way in your previous thread you said something about the fc-20 being somewhat similar in air combat capability with the mig-29upg. But the upgraded migs do possess impressive self defence mechanisms which gives them a distinct superiority in bvr air combat with fc-20. Also the rd-33 series 3 is better than al-31fn in terms of ttsl as far as i know. Infact if the iaf wasn't stupid enugh not to add an aesa radar upgrade option to it's upgrade plan, it would have been a perfect multirole fighter. Well i'm not aware of any recent devlopments with the fc-20, so kindly pardön if something i have missed. And i would like to know that what are the exact functiöanalities that the rearward irst would be able to do. It's really much impressive to score a shot on a bogey at your 6'o clock. Every pilot would love that.

Anonymous said...

hello prasun,

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/mar/21/china-pakistan-reach-secret-reactor-deal-pakistan/

what does this mean? it seems as china is growing, its quantative help to pak is increasing.

Also sir why doesn't the US intelligence and US congressional research know that pak have only 8-9 warheads left and are under chinese control. That the rest is a smoke screen as exposed by you?

how can we remove this check-mate by pak, without giving them any kashmir?morhous3673

THINKTANK said...

PrasunDa,
What Happened to ABHAY APC...?
the matter is closed or progressing...? Give a detailed article on ARJUN MK1A , a comparative study with Chinese & Pakistani tanks.

Anonymous said...

Interesting Read:

http://www.rediff.com/business/report/made-in-india-for-india-can-this-product-revolution-happen/20130322.htm

Regards,
Hary

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Anon@7.40AM: The Italian vessel’s navigation oath was closer to the Indian coastline & within India’s EEZ because of the high insurance premiums charged by shipping firms worldwide for those ships that used the older route through international waters & which were vulnerable to attacks by Somali pirates. Therefore, in order to escape from the high insurance premiums, shipping companies worldwide from 2008 adopted a new navigation route that brought them closer to Indian shores.
The original Yakhont as it had then existed had a deficient inertial navigation system relying on conventional rate-gyros & was therefore unable to navigate via waypoints, i.e. it had to be aimed directly against the target & adopt a straight ‘just as the crow flies’ flightpath. This is what distinguishes the BrahMos from the Yakhont. The 3M54E Club-S/N with 220km-range does not have a continuous supersonic flight profile throughout its flight-route. It goes supersonic ONLY in its terminal stages, whereas the BrahMos is supersonic throughout its cruise phase. LRCM will have a supersonic flight-route from start to finish & will be far more compact in size (something like the French ASMP). However, its warhead mass will be much smaller than that of BrahMos but will be sufficient for engaging targets like corvettes, OPVs & missile gunboats. Mind you, the LRCM is being developed primarily as a nuclear-capable air-launched tactical cruise missile & all its other envisaged/projected versions spinoffs of the air-launched variant. The best anti-ship variant of the LRCM could well be a helicopter-launched anti-ship missile or LRMR/ASW aircraft-launched anti-ship missile.

To ASHI JAIN: The Type 96 & Al Khalid family of MBTs all come in the category of medium battle tanks, just like the T-90S MBT. They therefore can’t be compared to main battle tanks like the Arjun. NORINCO is still developing its first main battle tank, the ZTZ-99A2. As for Pakistan, it presently has no main battle tank.

To RAD: Will do so for sure tonight. Was involved with an AOG situation yesterday & hence the paucity of time.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To VIKRAM GUHA: Not quite, since geographic limitations within the Tibet Autonomous Region (TAR) will severely restrict the PLAAF’s ability to deploy combat aircraft in large numbers against India. The PLA is therefore likely to deploy greater numbers of long-range MBRLs, long-range cruise missiles, NLOS-BSMs, TBMs & IRBMs against Indian targets. Therefore, in terms of combat aircraft-related airpower projection, the IAF has & will continue to have the upper hand, while in terms of guided-missile-related airpower projection, the PLA presently has the upper hand.

To Anon@1.44PM: There’s nothing surprising about it & neither is there anything sinister about it. Both of them will also be meeting Dr MMS in South Africa next week for the annual BRICS Summit, which will be far more interesting in terms of what the new Chinese President conveys to Dr MMS, since this is the first Chinese President who has officially stated that the boundary issue between China & India is resolvable. If you recall, all previous Chinese leaders had consistently said that the settlement of the boundary issue will have to be left to the future generations of both countries.

To ACCIDENTAL LOSER: If you may recall, I had long ago questioned the IAF’s preference for the Zhuk-M2E slotted-array monopulse multi-mode radar, when the Zhuk-AE AESA-MMR was already ready & available for the MiG-29UPG. That, while on the offensive, the MiG-29UPG would have had an edge over the FC-20/J-10B. On the defensive front & WRT to self-defence suite, the MiG-29UPG comes out better than the FC-20/J-10B.
A rearward IRST improves the pilot’s situational awareness manifold by removing most of the rearward blindspots & doing away with the need for rear-view mirrors that are not always foolproof. In the near future, with the availability of auto-tracking features within IRST sensors, the pilot will get the benefit of 360-degree visual situational awareness.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To VIKRAM GUHA: Not quite, since geographic limitations within the Tibet Autonomous Region (TAR) will severely restrict the PLAAF’s ability to deploy combat aircraft in large numbers against India. The PLA is therefore likely to deploy greater numbers of long-range MBRLs, long-range cruise missiles, NLOS-BSMs, TBMs & IRBMs against Indian targets. Therefore, in terms of combat aircraft-related airpower projection, the IAF has & will continue to have the upper hand, while in terms of guided-missile-related airpower projection, the PLA presently has the upper hand.

To Anon@1.44PM: There’s nothing surprising about it & neither is there anything sinister about it. Both of them will also be meeting Dr MMS in South Africa next week for the annual BRICS Summit, which will be far more interesting in terms of what the new Chinese President conveys to Dr MMS, since this is the first Chinese President who has officially stated that the boundary issue between China & India is resolvable. If you recall, all previous Chinese leaders had consistently said that the settlement of the boundary issue will have to be left to the future generations of both countries.

To ACCIDENTAL LOSER: If you may recall, I had long ago questioned the IAF’s preference for the Zhuk-M2E slotted-array monopulse multi-mode radar, when the Zhuk-AE AESA-MMR was already ready & available for the MiG-29UPG. That, while on the offensive, the MiG-29UPG would have had an edge over the FC-20/J-10B. On the defensive front & WRT to self-defence suite, the MiG-29UPG comes out better than the FC-20/J-10B.
A rearward IRST improves the pilot’s situational awareness manifold by removing most of the rearward blindspots & doing away with the need for rear-view mirrors that are not always foolproof. In the near future, with the availability of auto-tracking features within IRST sensors, the pilot will get the benefit of 360-degree visual situational awareness.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Anon@2.42PM: If I’m not mistaken, this new PHWR will come under full-scope IAEA safeguards & if that’s the case then there’s nothing to worry about. The existing M-9 & M-11 TBMs are already due for replacement & the DF-16 will eventually replace them in the near future. US intelligence and US Congressional Research Service both know the exact ground situation. For instance, it is well-known that various Pakistani expatriates were caught red-handed trying to import ring-magnets & Krytrons from the US during an FBI sting operation in the mid-1980s. Now, if China had supplied all the reqd ring-magnets to Pakistan, why was there a need for Pakistan to acquire similar ring-magnets from the US? This only proves that the Pakistanis were always used as fronts/proxies by China in the 1980s to acquire the latest uranium enrichment technologies from Western Europe & the US—and not for Pakistan’s domestic reqmts, but for China’s domestic reqmts.

To THINKTANK: Abhay was an FICV technology demonstrator of the DRDO, not an APC. It is now a closed matter, just like the Trishul SHORADS.

To HARY@3PM: Very interesting indeed. VMT for sharing it.

Unknown said...

Dear Prasunda,

VMT for all your replies to my previous queries
1.You have previously and repeatedly stated that S-80 class to emerge as the most likely winner of P-75 I sub competition but with BRAHMOS being fired from underwater successfully dont you think that U-216 fits the bill better??

2.Since the P-75I is still in nascent stages , HDW has plenty of time to promote U-216 model which has double hull/AIP/VLS capability/IDAS capability /weighs 4000 tons making it a true blue water sub. your take on this
3.When is the first kolkata class destroyer & KAMORTA class corvette going to be inducted into IN ??
4. Since BARAK-8 is delayed to 2016 and import of BARAK missiles is halted by GOI due corruption issues , what happens to kolkata class lead vessel ?? will it be left defenceless against low flying cruise missiles and fighters/maritime patrol planes like P3 ORION??

AK said...

Hi Prasun, How does FC-20 compare to Dassault Rafale ? How does RBE2 fare against CETC developed PESA of FC-20 ? Though RBE2 is a gen ahead but in terms of peak power output and raw air-air range which has the upper hand in BVR combat ? Does the FC-20's bigger aperture and raw power scores over RBE2's sophistication ?

RBE2 's antenna size is more like Kopyo MMR of MiG-21bis and is befitting of a MMRCA like Rafale even smaller than RDY-2 .

Will IAF opt for higher thrust 20000 lb class M88 in its Dassault instead of the presnt 17000lb class from the very first fighter ?

When will Su-30 mki fleet switch to standoff PGM from the present dumb bombs, LGB which have to be dropped on target ? Does IAF have Popeye ASM in substantial nos in its inventory ?

AASM can be integrated with Su-30mki and it can become its principal AG ordance instead of the presnt dumb bombs.

joydeep ghosh said...

@Prasun da

few things

1. you say Brahmos SLCM should be fired from S2/3/4, if so that what happens to B-05 where will it go as presumably S5 onwards will fire K4/5?

2. What if by the time Brahmos SLCM final trails are done we still dont have all the 3 SSGNs S2/3/4 then will we go for user trails from INS Chakra?

3. The LRCM you talk about might well be a variant of Nirbhay, whats do you say? also we dont have those many delivery platforms for air launched Brahmos / Nirbhay / LRCM (if really its a separate missile) except for Super Su30MKI

4. Factually speaking by the time Scorpene 6 rolls out (by 2020) i see that we will be left with 6 kilos, 3 HDWs & with P75I no where in sight till 2025 we may see atleast 2 more scorpenes before P75I is decided

5. Also if AIPed P75I shouldnt be used to launch land attack Brahmos as per you whats the use for it except for extended patrol?

these are my vew

thanks

Joydeep Ghosh

Vikram Guha said...

PrasunDa,

First of all , I wanted to congratulate you that one more of your prediction has come true . You had sated that the IAF would eventually operate 350 SU 30MKI's & now it seems the IAF has acknowledged it to a British newspaper .

http://indrus.in/world/2013/02/19/are_we_losing_out_on_the_indian_market_22359.html

They do NOT say however from where the extra Sukhois will come from .

I just had one question about the Army's version of the BRAHMOS .

Has the terrain hugging capability been incorporated into this missile? Sometime back it was reported that this missile can climb/scale mountains & strike targets that are deeply buried .

Thanks again .

Vikram

Bhaswar Kumar said...

what use does Pakistan have for the VERA-E Passive sensors they've purchased?

Must be something important no?

Navneet said...

Hi Prasun

This news is making rounds in American channels now. There were controversies around Huawei office in Bangalore. If they can do this much, I just wonder how safe the rest of us could be?

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/2/afbddb44-7640-11e2-8eb6-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2OHRGm5vJ

Thanks Navneet

rad said...

HI Prasun
Pse give us an update on the gps aided glide bomb and the rocket boosted sudarshan LGB

KSingh said...

Prasun,

-Will the P-17A come with the EL/M-2248 MF-STAR and RAN-40L search radar combo?


-Will the P-15B be fitted with the RAN-40L?


Has work on both these projects begun?

KSingh said...

+ will the P-15B be coming with the BARAK-8ER with 120KM range?


+ you said the MoD had removed IMI's blacklisting so does this mean that the issue with lack of delivery of BARAK-1s will be sorted out?

accidental loser said...

@Vikram Guha, hi. I think prasun sir answered a similar question löng ago. Unlike others brahmos maintains mach 2.5+ speed throughout the cruise phase. So it has to abide to a cruising height much higher than ground level because high supersonic speeds are nearly impossible near mean sea level due to drag issues. So brahmos cant be an tree top hugging missile in any versiön. The answer was in a thread related to chinese LY-80E MRSAM as far as i recall. @raw13, Above anything else. We do produce quality actresses like 'Madhuri dikshit' on whom the pak army goes 'BOMM CHIKA WAH WAH...'

Unknown said...

Prasun,

Can you compare the P-15A/B to the Arlgih Burke class and 052C destroyer of PLAN? Which is the best? How does the Indian destoryer rate in comparison?

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To UNKNOWN: 1) The whole idea behind the Scorpene’s S-80 version from NAVANTIA emerging as the most favoured contender fo9r the P-75I reqmt is its commonality with the existing Scorpene SSKs on order for the IN. This is because it will be far easier for Mazagon Docks Ltd (MDL) to master the fabrication technologies associated with just a larger variant (S-80) of an SSK design (Scorpene) whose licenced-production MDL is now mastering. If a totally new design like the U-216 is selected, then MDL will have to learn from scratch an entirely new licenced-production technique & will have to re-equip itself from A to Z with an all-new set of industrial-production capabilities & tools—all of which will be cost-prohibitive & time-consuming. Therefore, while in the case of transitioning from Scorpene to S-80 one will witness a seamless upgrade of MDL’s capabilities, in case of U-216 that won’t be the case at all & this in turn will defeat the very purpose of Project 75I, which is to increase the IN’s SSK fleet in a cost-effective & time-bound manner.
2) As I had explained earlier, the Arihant-class of SSBNs will eventually become SSGNs simply because the K-15/B-05 SLBM with 700km-range by no means India an assured & survivable retaliatory strike capability against China. Against Pakistan one doesn’t require any SSBNs or SLBMs due to Pakistan’s elongated geography. Therefore, against China the only credible, survivable retaliatory capability will come in the form of S-5, S-6 & S-7 SSBNs each armed with 12 SLBMs having a range between 4,500km & 6,500km. That then leaves the S-2, S-3 & S-4 submarines free for carrying Nirbhay SLCMs & BrahMos-1s.
3) A ,4000-tonne SSK like the U-216, although ocean-going, will not have the kind the propulsion system required for keeping pace with fast-moving carrier battle groups & therefore it makes no sense to equip such SSKs with BrahMos-1. My personal feeling is that SSKs like the U-216 are meant for countries like Australia & Israel only, with the former arming such SSKs with torpedo tube-launched conventionally armed Tomahawk TLAMs & the latter arming such SSKs with torpedo tube-launched strategic nuclear warhead-armed cruise missiles.
4) Furthermore, it is impossible to add an extra compartment in any SSK for housing vertically-launched cruise missiles like BrahMos-1, since all designs, be it the S-80, Amur 1650 or even the U-216, have been designed to cater for only one extra module, & that is for the AIP system. If one has to add another module just for accommodating BrahMos-1s, then the entire design will have to be radically modified & tested, which is financially impossible for just one customer.
5) Lastly, the U-216 uses a fuel cell-based AIP system only, which the IN is not in favour of since it favours the proven & trouble-free Stirling Engine-based AIP system.
I already stated a few times before that INS Kolkata will be commissioned into service between May & August this year. INS Kamorta will follow early next year. Imports of Barak-1 only were halted, not Barak-2 & deliveries of Barak-2 for Project 15A DDGs will commence this November.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To AK: 1) FC-20/J-10B is a full generation behind the Rafale, both in terms of mission avionics & aircrsaft serviceability. The FC-10/J-10B prototype has been flying for more than 2 years now & its PESA-MMR began being flight-tested only in the latter half of last year. In terms of integrated self-defence suites, the Rafale’s SPECTRA is way ahead & the FC-20/J-10B does have anything on board to match the SPECTRA or even the MiG-29UPG’s ELT-568 AESA-based active jammers. Furthermore, small miniaturised operational data-links are also missing on the FC-20/J-10B.
2) The higher-thrust M88 has already been specified for all Rafales for the IAF as this will facilitate the fully-armed Rafale’s takeoff from IAF air bases in Rajasthan & Ladakh.
3) PGMs like Popeye & Spice 2000 are too expensive to be acquired in large numbers. Typically, only about 80 of each type are acquired since their most likely potential targets (land-mobile TELs of NLOS-BSMs, TBMs, IRBMs & cruise missiles) are also not that many. The most favoured PGM by the IAF os presently the Griffin-3 LGB when used with Litening-2 LDP by Su-30MKIs, Mirage 2000Hs & Jaguar IS. This will in future be joined by the Sudarshan gliding LGB (150kg, 250kg & 500kg versions) & its rocket-powered 150kg, 250kg & 500kg versions. For the Rafale, AASM PGMs will be procured.

To JOYDEEP GHOSH: 1) As I had explained earlier, the Arihant-class of SSBNs will eventually become SSGNs simply because the K-15/B-05 SLBM with 700km-range by no means India an assured & survivable retaliatory strike capability against China. Against Pakistan one doesn’t require any SSBNs or SLBMs due to Pakistan’s elongated geography. Therefore, against China the only credible, survivable retaliatory capability will come in the form of S-5, S-6 & S-7 SSBNs each armed with 12 SLBMs (like the K-4 to be developed in future) having a range between 4,500km & 6,500km. That then leaves the S-2, S-3 & S-4 submarines free for carrying Nirbhay SLCMs & BrahMos-1s.
2) INS Chakra does not have VLS silos. It was for this reason only that 220km-range 3M54E Club-S ASCMs are used by INS Chakra since these can be fired from torpedo tubes. S-2, S-3 & S-4 will all easily be able to carry a mixed armament package comprising BrahMos-1s & Nirbhay.
3) No. The LRCM is supersonic, whereas the Nirbhay is subsonic. LRCM’s principal carrier will be the Mirage 2000UPGs.
4) By 2020 there will still be four Class 209/Type 1500 SSKs in service. These are the best that the IN now has & are as advanced as the Scorpene SSKs in terms of sensors & mission management systems. But I do agree about the need for increasing the present Scorpene order from 6 to 9 ONLY IF a decision is not made on acquiring the S-80 SSK from NAVANTIA by 2015. P-75I SSKs or even Scorpenes can all be seamlessly integrated with the KALIBRE-E fire-control system used for 3M54E Club-S torpedo tube-launched ASCMs.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To VIKRAM GUHA: VMT, but that prediction was not made by me, rather, it was made way back in 2007 during the MAKS 2007 expo by the President of IRKUT Corp & my old friend, Alexey Fedorov. Extra Su-30MKIs will come from follow-on order that have been yet to be placed, but will be placed over the next two years. BrahMos-1 was never a terrain-hugging missile. No cruise missile cruising at close to Mach 3 can be terrain-hugging. What has been done is to incorporate a top-attack capability to BrahMos-1 for striking targets over mountainous terrain.

To BHASWAR KUMAR: Passive surveillance systems like VERA-E are used for detecting & tracking emissions from active sensors like radar altimeters, terrain-following radars & terrain profiling/ground mapping SAR sensors, all of which are typically used by terrain-hugging subsonic cruise missiles.

To NAVNEET: Huawei Technologies & ZTE are China’s top-notch corporate entities engaged in cutting-edge R & D on a global scale. But that does not mean such MNCs will engage in any kind of nefarious or malicious activity that will cause great harm to the stock market values of such listed entities.

To RAD: The Sudarshan gliding LGB (150kg, 250kg & 500kg versions) & its rocket-powered 150kg, 250kg & 500kg versions are still under development. GPS-guided bombs (150kg, 250kg & 500kg versions) will be like Boeing’s JDAM & China’s FT- and LS-series PGMs & will have clip-on wing-kits.

To KSINGH: 1) EL/M-2248 MF-STAR & ELM-2282 AMDR. 2) Yes. 3) Already answered them last week in previous two threads. 4) Only 70km-range Barak-2. 5) IMI was never associated with Barak-1. IAI & RAFAEL are. Additional Barak-1s can be ordered any time under the MoD’s ‘Acceptance of Necessity’ clause, but the MoD is inclined to order naval SR-SAMs instead of Barak-1s.

To UNKNOWN: P-15A/P-15B DDGs are BETTER than the Arleigh Burke DDG in terms of on-board sensors & to some extent in terms of weapons. SPY-1 radar is PESA, whereas the EL/M-2248 MF-STAR is AESA. But the AEGIS combat management suite is more advanced than what anyone else in the world currently possesses. Plus, the Arleigh Burke comes armed with long-range TLAMs, whereas P-15A/P-15B have only BrahMos-1s. Lastly, Arleigh Burke DDGs have ballistic missile interception capabilities whereas the P-15A/B DDGs don’t. When comparing the P-15A/B against the PLAN’s Type 052C DDGs, the latter is definitely inferior in terms of on-board sensors, weaponry, combat management system & endurance.

Pierre Zorin said...

I hope someday the IN DDGs can fire long range missiles like this USS STOUT http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TmhuQqPcOtY

accidental loser said...

@Prasun K. Sengupta, Ya sir, i had read those comments where you marked out this deficiency in the Fulcrum upgrade package. But there's some other points too. Firstly the upgraded fulcrums would never be used in the eastern sectors as the job would be upto the super sukhois,rafales & lca mk.2s . So it would only come to play in the western sector in the event of cönflict. Also considering the presence of heavy duty multi role fighters like super sukhois, there would be hardly any deep air sweeps flown by fulcrums. So that leaves only the defensive air sweeps within friendly airspace as the logical mission for the fulcrum. Here also with AEW&CS support the fulcrum can get it's job perfectly done. So the lack of AESA would be somewhat ok though. What do you say on this??!! By the way it all would again boil down to the question that would there be enough AEW&CS to come in handy if the need arises!!!

Vikram Guha said...

PrasunDa & accidentallooser,

Many thanks.

-Vikram

Anonymous said...

Hi Prasun,

Israel does have a strategic Nuclear arsenal. What purpose when the US guarantees protection?
Will Iran finally test its own device or wait until a fusion bomb is developed?
Will US and Israel let it happen?

rad said...

HI Prasun
There was a mention of t he sudarshan bomb being tested to a range of 50 km by saraswat, can you pse detail that .

AK said...

Hi Prasun, How does PESA of J-10 fare over RBE2 in terms of pure air-air detection and tracking range in BVR combat ?

J-10 has a big front section and radome and so it will be able to house a large dia antenna . On the other hand Rafale due to its very small internal radome volume cant take advantage of a bigger aperture AESA. Also does CETC PESA has a higher peak power output than RBE2 ?

Doesnt the sheer size of CETC PESA offset some of the advantages of RBE2 ?

RBE2 aperture is definitely smaller than RDY-2.

What additional avionics, customistions will IAF Rafales have ? As a result of 20000 lb thrust M88 Rafale will need bigger air intakes .

Does IAF want conformal aesa arrays in the wing leading edges of itsRafales from the very 1st ac ? Will IAF Rafales feature a more powerful higher power RBE2 ?

In March 31 , the Rafale contract will elaspe. So if the deakl is not signed by then will the whole bidding porocess start afresh and will EF Typhoon once again enter the race ?

Anonymous said...

Hi prasun,
AG here... VMT for replying in details. Very informative.
Just wanna know one more thing ....
idrw.org/?p=19895
is this correct or just masterly juggling of figures by drdo. If true then really awsome. What is your view of situation.

Regards,
AG

Anonymous said...

Prasun,
http://defenceforumindia.com/k-15-missile-asbm-brahmastra-1790
ur views pls...

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To ACCIDENTAL LOSER: The single-most point in favour of airpower is its indivisibility. Therefore, there are no set-rules about a particular combat aircraft-type being limited to only one geographical theatre of operation.

To Anon@11.15AM: US never guarantees the protection of Israel & that’s why there’s an IDF in place & that’s why Israel has an undeclared n-weapons arsenal. I don’t reckon Iran will test any n-weapon. They are nowhere near am indigenous WMD capability, be it using HEU or weapons-grade plutonium.

To RAD: That’s the rocket-powered version of Sudarshan.

To AK: The J-10B/FC-20’s PESA-MMR is still undergoing developmental flight-trials & it is still two years away from operational induction. Hence, its performance parameters are by no means finalised & the antenna-array is by no means as big as the existing mechanically-slotted antenna. Radar apertures don’t matter much at all for AESA-MMRs since the beam-steering is done electronically, which isn’t the case with PESA-MMRs. Rafales’ air-intakes are more than sufficient for higher-power versions of M88. A higher-thrust turbofan does not automatically equate to the need for enlarged air-intakes. Nor is there a reqmt at this stage for conformal AESA arrays on the wings other than those already present for SPECTRA. Bidding process never re-starts after expiry of a financial offer. Instead, only a revised financial offer is reqd for presentation.

To AG: It is definitely not correct. For instance, the IN has so far achieved only 55% indigenisation of its warships to date in terms of total hardware content.

To Anon@8PM: Wishful fanboy stuff totally untouched by reality. Firstly, Brahmastra was the kind of weapon that was far more destructive than any existing thermonuclear weapon & that’s why it was never unleashed. Secondly, no one has to date been able to perfect the technology for ASBMs, nor has anyone got the capability to constantly monitor with SAR-equipped overhead recce satellites in an uninterrupted manner the movements of a carrier battle group that is on the move.

rad said...


HI Prasun
As china has gone in for the s-400 type missiles , are they really effective in modern airwar , though the range is huge they will be restricted by the earths curvature to target low flying ac or even flying at 5000ft , at best they could be a danger foe awacs and other surveilance ac, am i correct