Total Pageviews

Wednesday, June 12, 2013

Demanding The Impossible

India’s Ministry of Defence (MoD) has always had this uncanny ability of engaging in masterly inactivity when it comes to nurturing and strengthening the country’s military-industrial infrastructure through structural reforms, and yet when push comes to shove, it resorts largely to obfuscation in order to steer clear of controversies, starts being economical with the truth, relies on totally unrealistic expectations, and makes public demands that are impossible to fulfill. Take, for instance, Defence Minister Arakkaparambil Kurian Antony’s declaration on May 29, 2013 that the ‘Tejas Mk1’ multi-role combat aircraft (MRCA) needed to be made available to the Indian Air Force (IAF) by the end of 2014 at all costs, i.e. the IAF’s first designated Tejas Mk1 squadron—No45 ‘Winged Daggers’—should begin operational conversion on this MRCA by December 2014 “no matter what”.
Now, what exactly are we to make of such an absurd and bizarre insistence? Does it mean that the Raksha Mantri (Defence Minister) has been deliberately mis-informed for the past five years by the IAF, senior bureaucrats of the MoD and the technocrats of the MoD-owned Defence Research & Development Organisation (DRDO) and is therefore merely echoing what he has been told? Or is it a case of willful and deliberate attempt to disclose a particular version of events that will not only stand the test of reason, but will instead make India’s military-scientific community the laughing stock of the world?
Take for instance the issues of the Tejas Mk1 MRCA’s initial operational clearance (IOC) and final operational clearance (FOC). With much fanfare, the MoD and the DRDO had claimed on January 9, 2011 that the Tejas Mk1 had on that day had achieved IOC. Just about a year after that, it was admitted by the DRDO that what had been achieved was just IOC-1, with IOC-2 slated for achievement by December 2013. What the MoD and DRDO have obviously forgotten to take note of is that the statuses of IOC and FOC are accorded ONLY by the IAF to its operational squadrons after an elaborate and exhaustive process of operational conversion from the preceding aircraft-type to the latest aircraft-type. And key to the initiation of this process is the availability of an aircraft like the Tejas Mk1 that has firstly to be fully flight-certified by both the IAF and the Centre for Military Airworthiness & Certification (CEMILAC).
Without this, the Tejas Mk1’s 40-odd manuals dealing with the three levels of maintenance, repair and overhaul (MRO) as well as operational flight conversion, and eight manuals dealing with the MRCA’s operational employment in combat during wartime will not be available, and consequently, the IAF will not be able to raise its complement of proficient aircrew (20) and ground-crew (126) that are required for ensuring the serviceability and operational availability of the 16 series-production (SP) Tejas Mk1 single-seaters and four tandem-seat operational conversion trainers that will make up the IAF’s first Tejas Mk1 squadron. This due process is, however, not understood by many within India (including the Raksha Mantri) and consequently, certain ‘desi’ journalists continue to erroneously and mischievously claim that it is the IAF, which, in its quest for sublime perfection, continues to resist the Tejas Mk1 MRCA’s service-induction.
Which brings us to what’s happening today. The LSP-series of Tejas Mk1—LSP-1, LSP-2, LSP-3, LSP-4, LSP-5, LSP-7 and LSP-8—are presently being used for flight certification/weapons qualification purposes only by both the DRDO-owned Aeronautical Development Agency’s (ADA) National Flight Test Centre (NFTC) and the IAF’s Aircraft & Systems Testing Establishment (ASTE). Of these, only LSP-7 and LSP-8 along with the tandem-seat PV-5 are being used only by ASTE for drafting the Tejas Mk1’s operational flight conversion and MRO manuals, an exhaustive process that is expected to be completed only by late 2014, PROVIDED the CEMILAC and IAF jointly approve the Tejas Mk1’s operational flight envelope. It is only after clearing this major hurdle that the MoD will authorise the commencement by the MoD-owned Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL) of the series-production of the 40 SP-series aircraft (32 single-seaters and eight tandem-seaters) plus the construction of an engine test-cell, an MRO simulator and a full-mission Tejas Mk1 tactical simulator at the IAF’s Sulur Air Force Station (AFS), while the IAF will establish an avionics intermediate workshop over there.
Going by present-day estimates, HAL will be able to deliver all 20 Tejas Mk1s not before the latter half of 2016. By late 2014, at least four LSP-series Tejas Mk1s will be required to be deployed at Gwalior AFS with the IAF’s Tactics & Combat Development Establishment (TACDE) for being used for articulating the Tejas Mk1’s tactics for operational employment in air combat, all-weather precision ground-strike and all-weather air-reconnaissance. This process will last till late-2016. Consequently, the IAF’s No45 Sqn will be able to commence operational conversion of its aircrew and ground-crew complements only by the latter half of 2016, i.e. the process of IOC will get underway at last. The FOC will follow only two years later, i.e. by 2018.
With regard to the Tejas Mk1’s flight envelope clearance, only the following milestones have been achieved thus far: first flight with stores in September 2007, first test-firing of Vympel R-73E WVRAAM in October 2007, first flight with RAFAEL-built Litening-2 LDP in December 2007, first flight with ELBIT Systems-built TARGO HMDS in April 2008, participation in hot-weather and cold-weather flight trials, jettisioning of 1,200-litre drop-tank, release of 1,000lb gravity bomb and 500kg Griffin-3 laser-guided bomb, and by late 2012, EL/M-2032 multi-mode radar/Litening-2 LDP/TARGO HMDS sensor integration had been achieved.  
What remains to be done are the following: integration of an imported nose radome and validation of the Tejas Mk1’s Honeywell-supplied environment control system (a process that will involve another round of all-weather flight-trials lasting some 80 flight-hours), flight validation of a new open-architecture mission computer, flight validation of a new digital flight-control computer and air-data computer along with related flight-control logic, and integration of the RAFAEL-built Derby BVRAAM and RecceLite pod, and IAI-built EHUD ACMI pod (in R-73E configuration).
Other crucial pieces of work that continue to elude their R & D deadlines are the full-mission Tejas Mk1 tactical simulator, which HAL was supposed to have delivered by late 2010 under a ‘Build, Operate and Maintain’ (BOM) basis, a fixed-base cockpit procedures trainer, plus several part-task trainers for mission avionics and weapon systems.
Was It An Avoidable Mess?
Definitely so. And the one to be blamed squarely for it is none other than the MoD, which has consistently failed to, and still fails to evolve a cohesive and productive higher defence management mechanism for India. It is due to the MoD’s ad hoc approach to national security planning that there exists within India today four distinct and uncoordinated power structures: the executive branch of the Govt of India, the ill-informed bureaucracy within the MoD that control the MoD-owned DPSUs like HAL, the technocrats of the DRDO that are obsessed with fielding only technology demonstrators, and lastly the warfighters, who are reduced to acting as only operational recipients of products and service instead of being the designated strategic drivers of indigenous military R & D projects. Failure to bring on to a single page all these key players is what has led to the Tejas Mk1 MRCA consistently missing its envisaged R & D milestones by at least a decade. Take, for instance, the development of the Tejas Mk1’s quadruplex digital fly-by-wire flight control system (FBW-FCS) and its related flight-control laws, whose final validation continues to be elusive. Had the MoD taken two crucial decisions correctly in the early 1980s—that of appointing HAL as the prime R & D-cum-industrial contractor for the MRCA’s airframe, accessories and FBW-FCS, and ADA as the leader of a consortium of DRDO-owned laboratories for developing the MRCA’s mission avionics and integrated EW suite—the Tejas Mk1 would surely have entered operational service a decade ago.
For as far back as 1978, there was a golden opportunity for HAL’s Aircraft Research & Development Unit to master the intricacies developing and validating a digital FBW-FCS when BAE Systems (then known as British Aerospace) had proposed to the MoD that the two companies ought to team up on a risk-sharing basis for developing a digital FBW-FCS for those Jaguar IS/IM interdictor/strike aircraft eventually destined for the IAF. This well-meaning and far-reaching proposal was, however, turned down by the MoD for reasons yet unknown. Another cardinal error committed by the MoD was that it bestowed all R & D responsibilities for the Tejas MRCA on to the DRDO’s ADA, instead of HAL. The consequence of this was the MRCA evolved as a product of the technocrats, by technocrats and for technocrats, instead of emerging as an easily maintainable, deployable and employable weapons platform that HAL’s ARDU was eminently qualified to deliver. It is estimated that due to these two reasons alone, not only the Tejas Mk1’s operational induction schedule has slipped by slightly more than a decade, but it also prevented HAL from emerging as a provider of indigenous military fixed-wing aircraft solutions by the late 1990s, such as the HTT-35 basic turboprop trainer—a project that was terminated by the MoD in the mid-1990s.
Similarly, by trying vainly to eat more than it can chew, the DRDO’s various laboratories have thus far failed to deliver the Tejas Mk1’s indigenous X-band pulse-Doppler monopulse multi-mode radar, while of the 358 LRUs present in the Tejas Mk1, only 53% of them have to date been indigenously developed,  with the remaining 47% (112 LRUs) being of imported origin. And even among the 358 indigenous LRUs, block obsolescence has begun to set in, as in the case of the DARE-developed and Bharat Electronics Ltd-built Tarang family of radar warning receivers (RWR). Small wonder therefore that both the Indian Army and IAF have selected SaabTech’s package of RWRs, LWRs and MAWS for fitment on to the HAL-developed and built ‘Rudra’ helicopter-gunship and the Light Combat Helicopter, and consequently, chances of this very same suite being selected for the projected Tejas Mk2 and LCA (Navy) Mk2 MRCAs remain very high.  
However, amidst all this, there is still plenty of room for service-inducting the Tejas Mk1 in large numbers—as a tandem-seat lead-in fighter trainer (LIFT)—but  not as a single-seat MRCA. And here’s why: The IAF’s BAE Systems/HAL-built transonic Hawk Mk132 advanced jet trainers (AJT) are presently being used for empowering a trainee pilot for flying single-seat air combat aircraft. That is why the Hawk Mk132’s tandem-seat cockpit has been designed to accommodate only a trainee pilot and his/her flight instructor, and not the trainee pilot and trainee weapon systems operator (WSO).
A LIFT, on the other hand, is configured to accommodate the pilot and his/her WSO. Presently, there is no airborne platform available to the IAF for training pilot/WSO teams to undertake interleaved cockpit taskings and consequently, all such training has to be carried out on actual Su-30MKIs (and in future on the Rafales and the FGFAs), which only serves to reduce the total technical service lives (TTSL) of these operational combat aircraft. Therefore, there exists a genuine and uncontested operational requirement by both the IAF and Indian Navy for a tandem-seat Tejas Mk1 configured as a LIFT (capable of accommodating the pilot/WSO team and also being fitted with an X-band pulse-Doppler monopulse multi-mode radar and IRST sensor). Given the fact that AESA-MMR-equipped MRCAs like the Super Su-30MKI, Rafale and FGFA will all be capable of interleaved aircrew operations/taskings, logic demands that the IAF acquire a fleet of at least 80 LIFT-configured Tejas Mk1 tandem-seaters as well.


dailyindiadefence said...

Thanks for this professional expose of the LCA programme status and one wonders what the Defence Minister and his staff in MOD have done sans announcements to examine the points Prasun Sengupta has posted. Or to help the programme ?

Attending AERO INDIAS showed MOD/DRDO had no clue on what IOC and FOC and certification meant and how LCA would perform with full weapon load which is going to be the challenge for the IAF if forced to take over No 45 Sqn at Sulur.
Gripen had the same problems but BAe joined hands and completed the fine plane and used Monkey Tricks to sell to S Africa with off sets which is another scam..
Without technology there can be no INDEGENISATION and HAL/ADA needs to commit that they need outside help to make the LCA a success story as it has the ingredients and then that company can employ Monkey Tricks to sell to our friends at Indian FMS prices. And forget the 126 as its cost at $ Rs = 59 will be $ 22 bill and will derail other Defence needs. 126 needs pruning and LCA needs foreign tuning. RR

Sukhoi said...


Thank you for posting such an important update, I appreciate it. I am excited to read the future comment zone and your answers. The MOD needs to get its act right and let the DRDO and HAL focus on a full LCA development.

Pushing a probable unskilled or challenged workforce towards an unrealistic timelines does not make the IAF or MOD any better. It does not take a rocket scientist to figure out that the MOD is weak and submissive to the corrupt higher officials who does not let the Indian aerospace private players participate.

I personally lost respect for any MOD promise. As a citizen of India I would feel secure, to wait and see a fully grown and fledged LCA Mk1 with an uncompromised airworthiness certification instead of a premature LCA.

At times, I wonder what is the filtration and hiring process for skilled workers at DRDO or HAL for developing something like LCA Tejas.

When I personally came across a couple of so called DRDO scientists, they did not sound anything better than a 12th grader, let alone a Phd or a well educated and skilled person. When I asked them about the LCA program, they sounded like - All it matters is the bribes and nothing else in the organization. I would like to hear your views. Thank you.


Vamshi Al

Anonymous said...

// release of 1,00lb gravity bomb and 500kg Griffin-3 laser-guided bomb, and by late 2012, EL/M-2032 multi-mode radar/Lutening-2 LDP/TARGO HMDS sensor integration had been achieved. //

wasn't this a "1000 lb" bomb and not "1,00lb" as you have stated.I could be wrong here though,AFAIK, i believe it was a 1000 lb bomb.

Anonymous said...

app to Raksha Mantri ko vi nanga kardia along with DRDO and MOD. :)

Anonymous said...

India has to get back Gilgit-Baltistan from pak in any cost ,but ??? this is not gonna happen without military intervention

Anonymous said...

Very well written.............

it's so frustrating/makes you wanna cry !!

The whole country is going the same way.........the economy; the morality/rapes.........the scams/corruption.........

I can only think to blame the Politicians and the Bureaucrats......

Arup said...

Sir, Tejas incorporates about 70% composites.It is dimensionally similar to J-17,Mirage 2000.Then why does it weigh 7 t when J-17 and Mirage built from conventional mterials also have the same weight?

Why cant Tejas achieve 9 G? Official site states its g limit as -3.5/9G.Tejas is aerodynamically a better design than F-35 Litening 2. If Litening can achieve an AoA of 55 degrees why is Tejas struck at just degrees.

How can IAF be satisfied with such mediocre flying characteristics from a 4++ jet which is in the making for 30 years now.?

How is ADA trying to take care of the radome problem?Has it asked for radome imports from IAI yet?Will the flight testing of this radome along with certification of EL/M-2032 radar with the new radome be completed by September of this year ?

When Litening 3,G4,Damocles and other sophisticated LDPs are availabe right now why just stick to Litening 2?Any particular logic behind that?

Why is a new new digital flight-control computer and air-data computer along with related flight-control logic required?Is the old quadruplex FBY obsolete ? is this new FBW system anything to do with modifying Tejas for carraige of 1000lb LGB and other heavy weaponry such as KEPD 350?Some problems were reported previously during the flight trials with 1000lb LGBs. You have said that this tech problem can be mitigated with either low weight agm-AASM or by rewriting the entire flight control logics? Has ADA adopting the later such that fight certification of an entire new flight control computer is required?

Although Derby is meant for EL/M-2032 why not have R-77,R-27,Mica BVRAAM on tejas mk1?Afterall Teajs has open architecture avionics suite.

There were also performance problems while operating from Leh airbase. Coas had said on the occasion that GE F404 turbofans would have to be modified for smooth performance at this altitude. Has this been accomplished?
How can a little modification help in high altitude takeoffs?The thrust rating remaons the same.

isnt there any way of incraesing Tejas mk1's internal fuel capacity? It is as shortlegegd as MiG-21.

Will it be possible to develope dual ejector racks for AAM for Tejas ?F/A-18 & Super Hornet uses such pylons for dual carriage of AIM-120 on s a single hardpoint.

What is ADA/HAL combo trying to achieve by September oif this year which desi media is brandishing as IOC-2 clearence.

Are all IAF fighter squadrons having just 1 set of pilots ,WSOs? Will 20 pilots be enough for 20 Tejas ,just 1 pilot per plane?

Were leads for Rafale placed with Dassault? Even if contract signature takes place in the coming months when withh the first Rafale arrive on Indian soil and the 1st ac rolled out by HAL?

Cant Dassault be asked to produce 40 Rafales on a fasttrack basis and deliver them off the shelf? This offer was proposed by Nicholas Sarkozy some years back.

Some time ago lots of voice was raised against the poor 3rd generation manufacturing capabilties and infrastructure of HAL.Almost every desi defense blog shed huge light on it thenm.Recently there thas been no news about this.Does it mean that HAL has come up with 4th gen production line for Tejas with technical expertsie of an aerospace giant?Or is desi media busy on something else that it has almost forgotten this episode.

I know i have asked a lot of questions.Pls try to ans them.I have posted after a long time and I really wnt to know about these. Can you also pls debunk the BMD deployment myth.

VMT in advance.

Pierre Zorin said...

Is Gilgit - Baltistan area separate to Baluchistan? I thought the separatist movement was in Baluchistan. Sorry for being confused. Also doesn't take much effort to strip the defence minister as his Malayali Sarong just needs a tug to pull it off!

Dhruv said...

What are the openings for the Private Sector specially for new SME entrepreneurs for new ventures in the Defence Sector in India?

Bhaswar said...

Prasun Sir,

As always..a superb expose on the project.

Just one thing. What do you mean by stating that a new digital flight-control computer and air-data computer along with related flight-control logic? Are we updating the fly by wire system that we had earlier developed for the Tejas? If so then why? Can you please shed some light on that?

Also..the CM-400AKG seems to be a solid fueled derivative of the YJ-12. And apparently the project director of said article himself has claimed that it is indeed hypersonic in its terminal phase. It cruises at a very high altitude and then takes a steep dive towards its target. Could you shed light upon this in detail and exactly HOW the Barak-2 will deal with such threats..AS IN WHAT ABOUT THE BARAK SYSTEM ALLOWS IT TO ENGAGE SUCH HIGH SPEED THREATS WITH CONFIDENCE?

The sectarian strife you are referring to seems to be the most visible at the defence.Pk site itself where innumerable threads have descended into pitched sectarian mud slinging. But it still seems a bit far fetched to say that such a scenario can possibly lead to G-B acceding to will they anyway? The PA is present in good numbers in the region..even if the civilian populace made such a move they'd be butchered and we wouldn't intervene thanks to the nuclear overhang.
Please shed some light on this too?

Thank you for your valuable time Sir.

Anonymous said...

@ Bhaswar


not an expert here, but here is what i think;it's amply clear that the missile is hyper-sonic only in its terminal phase.But before the missile comes in to its terminal phase, it won't have a hyper-sonic speed. The thing what we need to look here is at what distance away from the target does the missile enter the terminal phase? if this distance is just in few kilometers,i.e, terminal phase of just 10-12 kms,then the barak system's reach is well beyond that,the barak missile can neutralize any missile within ranges of over 70 km, much before the missile enters a terminal phase with a depressed trajectory and with a hyper sonic speed.

I don't know at what ranges away from the target does normally a missile enters the terminal phase,but considering that the new missile 'CM-400AKG' which the Pakistanis are trumpeting about,it has a max reported range of 250 kms, my guess is that this missile won't hit its terminal phase at any distance exceeding more than 70 km away from target.If this is the case, then even before the missile reaches its stated terminal hyper sonic speed, the missile can well be neutralized by the barak.

As i stated above, this is just my observation, I'll leave the rest to Prasun to correct me if I'm wrong here.

abs said...

Lets analyse a the proposed DBCA and its contentious clauses like freezing of troops levels along the LAC(Im assuming this means that India would be able to station additional troops as and when required in the theatre,say in Panagarh, but not near the LAC,correct me if im understanding wrong, else ignore). While I had asked you one or two questions earlier it was piecemeal and did not bring out a holistic picture.
The DBCA assumes importance in its implications for the following
a)LAC being not demarcated and delimited, border domination for negating Chinese pressure tactics.
b)Retaining or consolidating on the operational adavantages.
With the above two in mind and going back to your assertions which were
a)Indian troops would be forward deployed and hence India would be in an advantageous position vis-a-vis PLA as its regular troops would be further inland.

Please make me understand HOW does being forward positioned serve as an advantage when these days the PLA would resort to Massed Fire Assaults from field and tube artillery assets and NLOS-BSM strikes to decimate Indian Army's forward deployed troops(mind you they are in heavy concentrations).Once such heavy concentrations of IA troops are decimated the PLA REMCFs would begin making a move. All of India's advantages due to geography of IA being in dominating heights would come to a nil with the PLA now enjoying the requisite troops ratio to overcome the Indian Army. The reinforcements on India's side would be too slow due to infrastructure. Whats even more threatening is that the PLA would launch massed firepower along various axes and depths thus engaging the IA's forward deployed, rear and depth formations including those infantry and mechanised and armoured formations who are in their staging areas. Or are such maneuvres not possible due to the prevailiing geographical conditions.
In this vein kindly answer to the following
1)What would be an IA/IAF riposte to this doomsday scenario? Remember the Chinese could choose a time and day of its own reckoning to launch such surprise pre-emptive strikes.
2)Does not the IA understand this scenario?Or else how can one explain its penchant for forward deploying troops in such high concentrations as in Sikkim. It seems the IA has not done its home work properly.Its ironic that on one hand the IA is going for transformation while on the other its sticking to its attrition mentality.
3)Would not it be better to deploy small detachments of troops in the border and not such heavy concentrations.A case in point is Sikkim, where the entire IA could be decimated in one stroke.And so bring the residual troops further inland where they could be provided in-depth air defence against NLOS-BSMs?Besides having dispersed troops in the forward areas would have minimal casualties.
4)In the present prevailing scenario, with heavy concentrations of forward deployed troops along the LAC, could it be possible to provide in-depth air defence for such forward deployed large concentrations of troops against NLOS-BSMs as air defence against aircrafts and helicopters and UAVs would be taken care of the IAF and the massed fire assaults of MBRLs and Guns have the inherent disadvantage of being inaccurate and provides time to take evasive measures?
5)In the event of large scale decimation of Indian forward deploy troops, how long would it take for reinforcements to chip in?
6)I believe that after PLA's first wave of large scale massed fire assaults involving NLOS-BSMs and artillery assets against IA's forward deployed troops, the IAF or even the Army could easily neutralise such launch pads by launching their own NLOS-BSMs and ALCMs.
7)One thing is for certain that the IA-IAF would have to fight their first high intensity parallel multidimensional modern warfare against the PLA and the response of the IA-IAF combine have to be proportionate to that of the PLA.Do the IA and IAF understand this?The IA has a very old mindset of attrition a is borne out by its decision to

abs said...

Contd. from above

This then brings me to the DBCA, IF the DBCA is not about freezing number of troops in the operational theatre of any area of IA command barring the areas near LAC, then the only advantage it could serve to the Chinese is by means of border domination.I was reading an article in Force which said the DBCA would mean India could no longer raise the 2 new divisions that are to be raised by 2017 once and if it is signed. While as the IA troops are heavily deployed along the border, it would appear that we can effectively dominate the border and thereby negate Chinese pressure tactics of incursions, we have t o keep in mind that the IA is hamstrung due to the MoD's non-confrontationist attitude and lack of infrastructure and required surveillance means.

Im deeply sorry for my long post however there were several things inside me that were haunting me and hence I had to give in.

Unknown said...

Dear prasunda, you have mentioned in ur earlier post that india is set to acquire SS-3 amphibians and not US 2 whereas I saw an ad in FoRCE magazine (june issue) where Shinmawya's indian subsidiary was promoting US2i and not SS-3 version for india. also indo-japenese GOI is also nearing a workable timetable to induct US-2 amphibians for india. Ur take on this and could u elaborate on differences between the two versions


Prasun Da ,

Regarding the NSA datamining tool, Boundless Informant why is the US collecting so much data about India ?

M K Bhadrakumar wrote this article today

As always looking forward to your incisive views .


Subir said...

Sir, VMT for answering and for the present thread.

1.I totally agree with abs on the problem of massed fire assaults and decimation of Indian forward deployed troops.In fact i have asked you the same question and you said you have answerd it previously.

2.What i would like to add is that a Chinese daily has once claimed that in this age of smart munitions , deploying large strike corps size troops is totally useless.The article carries the inherent meanning that PLA and PLAAF will for sure launch such massed fire assaults against Indian troops and critical war sustence infrastructure.

3.With help of satellite sar imagery and IMINT obtained from high flying EL-2060P equipped Su-30 warnings will be available beforehand of troop movements,reinforcements but missile TELs cant be monitored and no impending warnings will be available of pre-emptive strikes as all such TELs are housed in super hardened tunnels built into mountains and cab=verns.For missile launch they will come out of them , move to their surveyed sites which is generally within 20 km , launch and again disappear.

4.IA hasnt yet showed any interests in Barak-8. Akash mk1 and 2 isnt capable of NLOS-BSM defense.What does IA plan to do?

5.Massed TBM strikes can be effectively be taken care of PAC-3MSE and PAC-3 capable missiles.Is IA interested in it?

6.What do you think will be the production run of PDV?

7.Will AD-1,2 be ordered in similar magnitude as aksh mk1 by IA,IAF combo to take care of the pre-emptive massed fire assault contingency?It seems to be the only option available.

8.Why isnt raksha ministry getting this that with Rheinmetall Skyranger two birds can be killed at once.It can be used for shooting down low flying helicopters,CAS jets,drones and also a variety of cruise missiles?

9.Whats the purpose of new open architecture computer digital flight computer for Tejas ?

10.Python is displayed besides Tejas. But why hasnt it been integrated with the ac?

11.Has Tejas received full lighning clearence?

12.Why is IAF deploying many squadrons of Su-30 in both NE and in NW nad Northern commands?They are most vulnerable to pre-emptive strikes.

13.Which threats were kept in mind while designing Barak-1? 1970s era subsonic Styx. If this be so why would IN settle for such a CIWS in the 1st place when the threats it was facing were ship launched Harpoon and sub launched Exocets.

14.The desi medias are gradually beginning to understand the truth. Business Standard ahs published an article which focussed on the deep flaws in Avro replacement tenders. No company will buid such a green-field facility from scratch for just 40 acs. You had predicted this atleast 6 months ago.

15.In the same way I think MoD will realise the foolishness behind establishing such a fcilty for MMRCA and building the rest 108 acs wholly in HAL.

16.Will the ADE developed Taurus class SAW only be for runway destruction missions like MBDA Apache?Wont it have HE,SFW,cluster,airburst frag warhead for static targets , buildings, fortifications,dispersed troops and tanks?

17.Do you eye first Rfale deliveries in 2016?

18.Wont tejas mk1 carry SAW,AASM and other smart standoff weapons as it is a 4th gen aircraft.

Abhishek Dhar said...

Sir a few queries,
With this current state of affairs why bother with mk1 at all,why not induct mk2 straight in 2017 odd.

Also i'm a little confused by current state of our air defence network.

1]For IAF its whole pechora air defence network is obsolete.
IAF ordered some[8 i think] akash squadrons,but what about the rest?
2]Was the spyder recently acquired for IAF or IA and have orderes for both forces confirmed?

3]Between MRSAM/LRSAM i'm getting confused,among IA and IAf who will get what?IA replaced its sa-6 kvadrats with akash but what about constantly failing obsolete osas?

4]Also how does akash fare against similar systems like tor m1?

5]Why pakistan,china uses DU shells but we play good samaritan and don't?


Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To SUKHOI: VMT. The main culprits for such a state of affairs are the MoD & the country’s apex decision-makers that have been responsible for putting in place a totally screwed-up project management system since the early 1980s.

To Anon@8.11AM: VMT for the heads-up. Have already corrected the typos.

To DASHU: Wait till you read the concluding part of this thread. And why the persistent obsession with Gilgit-Baltistan? Do you have any real estate investment plans for that area as part of your post-retirement plans?

To Anon@10.13AM: Not the bureaucrats, just the politicians since the early 1980s who have made a mess of things.

To ARUP: What weight category are you asking for? MTOW or empty weight? All figures of Gs & AoAs are just figments of imagination in the minds of ‘desi’ journalists. That’s why I’ve stated that all such journalists are erroneously reporting such data & are being mischievous. Imported radome is the only solution. Litening-2 is perfect for the Tejas Mk1, while Litening-3 is more suited for platforms like Su-30MKI. Damocles & NAV-FLIRs are more suited for interdictor/strike aircraft like the Jaguar IS, Mirage 2000UPG & Rafale. Tejas Mk1 won’t be an interdictor; it will be just an interceptor & close air support aircraft. The original DFCC & ADC are legacy systems of the previous decade & more robust & reliable components are today available with much higher MTBFs. Tejas Mk1 won’t carry 1,000lb LGB or KEPD-350. Airborne MMRs are not open-architecture systems. Consequently, BVRAAMs compatible with the MMR have to be selected.

To PIERRE ZORIN: Gilgit Balistan form the Northern Areas of Pakistan & share borders with China. Baluchistan is to the south & shares borders with Afghanistan & Iran.

DHRUV: Unless & until there’s a proper military-industrial roadmap laid out by the MoD in concert with the three armed services, chances of India’s private-sector giants taking up military R & D along with series production are extremely slim. For instance, the three armed services need to agree on certain ‘common-user’ systems that will create huge production volumes. A single-design RLG-INS for instance needs to be acquired for combat aircraft, warships, guided-missiles & field artillery howitzers. Similarly items like land-based air-defence rapid-fire cannons, MANPADS & SHORADS all of a single design need to be procured. Presently, each armed service is framing its own GSQR, ASQR & NSQR, leading to duplication of reqmts & industrial effort. Such colossal financial wastages should be avoided. What I’ve said above by way of examples is only the tip of the iceberg.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To BHASWAR: The original DFCC & ADC are legacy systems of the previous decade & more robust & reliable components are today available with much higher MTBFs. YJ-12 is a ramjet-powered supersonic ASCM, while the CM-400AKG is a single-stage solid rocket-powered ASM. Barak-2’s high lateral acceleration & ability to pull very high Gs, combined with the long-range volume-search tracking capabilities of EL/M-2248 MF-STAR (when fused with the AEW inputs from Ka-31s) will easily be able to counter such supersonic ASCM threats. By 2014 when the PA is heavily committed to its western front, calls for separation of Gilgit-Baltistan are likely to increase, just as Baluch separatism is now being diplomatically & politically supported by the US and UK.

To Anon@5.35PM: Any air-breathing supersonic/hypersonic ASCM or even a solid rocket-powered ASCM cannot be sea-skimming for sure in any phase of its flight-trajectory & will therefore be flying at an altitude of least 5km. Their terminal phases (when the on-boars active radar seeker goes live) will commence at least 30km away from their target. However, active phased-array volume-search radars like the EL/M-2248 MF-STAR can commence tracking such ASCMs way before they can even enter the terminal phase due to their appreciable cruising height in mid-flight.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To ABS: Force-levels along the LAC DOES NOT mean troops-in-theatre, but rather, troop-levels within a distance of 50km on either side of one’s perception of the LAC. Therefore, IA troops deployed well inside of J & K, Sikkim, WB, AP & Assam or anywhere else along the Brahmaputra Valley won’t matter at all. Therefore, whatever has been written in FORCE about the BDCA & its implications is FALSE & PATENTLY UNTRUE. Presently, IA’s troops are forward-deployed only in Sikkim & AP, not anywhere else. Prior to delivering massed tactical fire-assaults through field artillery howitzers or MBRLs, there’s always an elaborate preparatory process that lasts for up to 14 days, i.e. no sudden build-ups. The IAF’s present-day strategic ISTAR capabilities can easily spot such build-ups & can consequently activate the IA’s tactical ISTAR assets, all of which in turn will give enough time for the IA to hunker down into well-defended positions, especially in the forward areas. And once hostilities commence, the PLA’s field artillery assets within the TAR plateaux will be easy targets for superior IAF interdictor/strike aircraft assets & the IA’s NLOS-BSMs. 1 & 2) You’re assuming that the PLA will have a cake-walk just like in 1962, but back in 1962 there were no ISTAR capabilities available since the IAF was never committed into battle, while the IA was hurriedly deployed into the war theatres & therefore the IA had no terrain appreciation or acclimatisation at all. Matters are far far more different today. 3) Due to the appreciable ISTAR capabilities of the IAF & IA today, a sudden & out-of-the-blue decapitating artillery strike by the PLA against Sikkim is an impossibility. 4 & 5) As both the IA & IAF acquire greater vertical envelopment capabilities through acquisitions of Mi-17V-5s, CH-47Fs & C-130J-30s, it will be possible for the IA’s offensive mountain infantry divisions & their supporting Rudra helicopter-gunships to be located safely within the Brahmaputra Valley in a dispersed pattern. Consequently, when it comes to offensive operations in Sikkim or AP, the IA’s airmobile capabilities (supported by the IAF) will be the crucial force-multiplier capacity that will be the decisive factor. That’s the very reason why both the C-130J-30s & the projected HQ of the Strike Corps are both being located at Panagarh. In future, massive helicopter bases too come up there. 6) That’s why priority is being given to the procurement of Prithvi-3s & BrahMos-1 Block-3s for the IA’s proposed fourth Artillery Division which, during peacetime, will be located within both Sikkim & the Brahmaputra Valley.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To UNKNOWN: US-2 is the designation of the amphibian meant for Japan’s MSDF. The SS-3 is the international marketing designation. However, since the deal will be financed 100% through Japanese ODA, it means that the SS-3s will all be bought by Japan’s Govt first (thus becoming the SS-2I) & then be gifted to the Govt of India under the ODA scheme. Operating specs & parameters will all remain the same.

VIKRAM GUHA: Elementary, my dear ol’chap, for it is INCREDIBLE INDIA we’re talking about here. And both the US as well as China want to find out what is it exactly that makes India so incredible, for they want answers for the following: Why can’t India come up with decent & functional ATGMs or shoulder-launched disposable LAWs or shoulder-launched MANPADS/VSHORADS when she has already developed & deploy families of ICBMs, SLBMs, TBMs & NLOS-BSMs? Why can’t India develop decent & functional GPMGs, HMGs & 120mm breech-loading mortars when she has already developed & produced light/medium field artillery howitzers? Why has India been unable to develop tracked or wheeled armoured personnel carriers or infantry fighting vehicles when she has already developed & produced main battle tanks? Why has India failed to develop basic turboprop trainers & lead-in fighter-trainers when it has ‘almost’ developed a 4th generation MRCA? Why hasn’t India been able to develop & bulk-produce fast interceptor craft (FIC) when she has designed, developed & produces principal surface combatants & continues to procure FICs from Dubai, France, Greece & the US? Why hasn’t India been able to develop & bulk-produce lightweight software-defined radios when she has been able to develop & deploy indigenous telecommunications satellites? And so the list goes on & on. In short, they’re greatly fascinated & intrigued by India’s persistent ability to defy the laws of technological evolution by developing sophisticated weapon systems on one hand, & miserably failing to develop far more low-tech weapon systems on the other. I must confess that even I fail to understand this peculiar Indian mindset. By the way, you still haven’t explained why you believe the UK imposed sanctions against India after May 1998.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To ABHISHEK DHAR: I agree. Instead of opting for Tejas Mk1, the IAF, like the IN, should go straight for the Tejas Mk2. The IAF should instead order the Tejas Mk1 in large numbers as a tandem-seat lead-in-fighter. Follow-on orders for Akash SAMs will be placed by the IAF in successive tranches to replace both the S-125 Pechoras & the IA’s Kvadrats. Initial consignments of SpyDer-SRs were ordered by both & deliveries have been completed. IN refers to the 70km-range Barak-2 as the LR-SAM, while the IAF calls it MR-SAM. The 110km-range Barak-8 with an extra booster rocket is for the IAF & this will be the IAF’s LR-SAM. TOR-M1 is a quick-reaction SHORADS meant for replacing the OSA-AK. Akash is closer to an E-SHORADS as far as the IAF goes & once the 40km-range Akash Mk2 becomes available it will become a true MR-SAM for the IA. DU kinetic-energy penetrator rods offer only a 15% improvement over tungsten-alloy KE penetrator rods, & not a massive improvement by any stretch of the imagination. Hence, it is not worth the cost to go for DU-built kinetic-energy penetrator rods. Even in Pakistan, China & Israel, the great bulk of operational kinetic-energy penetrator rods are made of tungsten alloy.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To SUBIR: 4) IA showed its interest in Barak-2 long time ago, however, it first wants to replace its Kvadrats & OSA-AKs with Akash & SR-SAM. 5) No. That’s the IAF’s area, not the IA’s. 6) No idea. 7) Yes. 8) Because he’s being misled & misinformed, I guess, by the MoD’s bureaucrats. 10) It is being done now. 11) Nope. 13) Supersonic ASCMs. 14) VMT. 15) Hopefully. 16) Yes, only for runway destruction. For other static targets, the conventionally armed Nirbhay ALCM & Prithvi-3 will be used. 17) No. 18) No.


Thanks Prasun Da .

Regarding the UK sanctions , if I recall correctly there were some de facto sanctions . For example a few Indian army officers were not allowed to undertake a course in Cranfield & under US pressure the British company Westland Helicopters stopped sales of spare parts to India thus grounding the entire fleet of Sea King helos.

Britain issued a statement on behalf of European Union presidency expressing concern that the explosions "ran counter to treaties against nuclear testing and proliferation, and affected the peace and stability of South Asia."

I probably should have used the word backlash instead of sanctions to describe UK's reactions to Pokhran 2 . My bad.


Arup said...

Sir, Lots of thanx. By weight I was referring to Tejas mk1's empty weight.It is around 7 ton although a great deal of the ac is made from composites.

Why cant Tejas achieve 9 G? Official Tejas gov site states its g limit as -3.5/9G.Tejas is aerodynamically a better design than F-35 Litening 2.

If Litening can achieve an AoA of 55 degrees why is Tejas struck at just 22 degrees.How can IAF be sataisfied with such mediocre handling of Tejas ?

You have missed them: Will it be possible to develope dual ejector racks for AAM for Tejas ?F/A-18 & Super Hornet uses such pylons for dual carriage of AIM-120 on a single hardpoint.

What is ADA/HAL combo trying to achieve by September oif this year which desi media is brandishing as IOC-2 clearence.

Are all IAF fighter squadrons having just 1 set of pilots ,WSOs? Will 20 pilots be enough for 20 Tejas ,just 1 pilot per plane?

Were leads for Rafale placed with Dassault? Even if contract signature takes place in the coming months when withh the first Rafale arrive on Indian soil and the 1st ac rolled out by HAL?

Cant Dassault be asked to produce 40 Rafales on a fasttrack basis and deliver them off the shelf? This offer was proposed by Nicholas Sarkozy some years back.

If i am wrong correct me.IAF has 20 EL/M-20600P RTP and 12 EL/M-2060 SAR pods. Can you give the approx no of Spyder-SR launchers and missiles bought for IAF ?IA bought 4 regiments of Spyder-SR.

Where are the IN Spyder-SR deployed?They can be used to protect vital installations from alcm,lacm strikes.

Is IA thinking about TOR-M1 as OSA-AK replacement.?Isnt the range of LR-SAM 120 km?

With new DFCC and ADC wont the overall empty weight come down?As these modern computers are compact wont some internal volume be free up?Cant they be used for mounting additional avionics LRUs say maws.

MBDA Apache evolved into Storm shadow ALCM.In similar way do you envisage DRDO saw evoling into one.Why cant Nirbhay be configured for runway cratering warheads?

Apart from 15 CH-47F is IAF planning to procure more of them?How many among these 15 Chinnoks will be configured for special warfare missions.

Tejas mk1 can carry 1000lb LGB.The drop tanks weigh more than 1000lb each.LGB or Taurus or 800 kg Kh-59 can be carried in lieu of them.

There is no option left other than to import radomes.But how is ADA,HAL thinking to solve this technical deficiency. No word has yet emerged about imported radomes.

Arup said...

All 5th gen acs and Typhoon have full EMP hardening to render them invulnerable to dirty EMP payload carrying PGM,LACM. EADS Eurocopter was the 1st European helicopter/aircraft which is totally emp hardened irrespective of the version.Similarly is Tejas mk1 full emp hardened keeping in mind the future battlefield. EMP weapons are essentially a poor man's nuclear weapon.In fact it is more dangerous than a 1 MT nuke. Boeing is already leading in the field of EMP weapons. Its CHAMP is undergoing various tests.

Can you pls tell in short how the IA,IAF is planning to protect its various formations , infrastructure , assets from masssed fire assaults not just by artillery but also by TBM, NLOS-BSM. Whole of the NE comes within PLA TBM's range.In a pre-emptive strike it can knock airbases,take out vital road and rail infrastructure, destroy ammo and supply depots.What can be done to protect most of the critical military assets in North Eastern India? The NLOS-BSM launcvhers can stealthily come out from their underground mountain bases fire their loads and again retreat to another safe location.Then IAF ISTAR capabilties wont be of much use. Suppose MoD gets warning just 72 hours before an attack.Then what does IAF ,IA plan to do? Move those sam batteries deployed in Western and Centeral India to protect these bases?Withdraw all military hardare from bases in NE and abse them in hinterland.

I know i have posted a long line of questions. Pls go through them and try to ans. Will be waiting for the concluding part of this REVEALING thread.

PS:What about your book about Indian navy warfare strategies ,platforms ,tradition and culture that you promished to publish a long time ago.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To VIKRAM GUHA: Only spares support for the airframes for Sea King Mk42B/Mk42C helicopters was suspended, while those for engines, gearbox, transmission, avionics, accessories & rotor blades were not. The reason for the suspension of airframe-related product support was simple: Westland Helicopters had been licence-building & exporting the Sikorsky SH-3 as the Sea King since the 1960s. Therefore, as per the rules of the game, it was Sikorsky had held all IPRs related to the Sea King’s airframe, while the IPRs for the rest of the non-US origin hardware were held by Westland, Rolls-Royce, Lucas Aerospace, Smiths Industries, GEC Avionics, CAE, Penny & Giles, etc etc. Consequently, when US sanctions were applied, only product-support for the Sea King airframes was affected.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To ARUP: Empty weight is 6,560kg. No one in India has ever been tasked to develop either pylons or weapons ejector racks for any combat aircraft. Where inside the single-seat Tejas Mk1 will the WSO be seated? No one from Dassault Aviation ever proposed to India the fast-track delivery of 40 new-build Rafales. The offer from President Jacques Chirac in the previous decade was for leasing to the IAF 40 French Air Force Rafales. SAW won’t evolve in to anything else. None of the CH-47Fs will be configured for special operations. No combat aircraft of any generation is fully EMP-hardened. Haven't had the time to complete the various monologues regarding my book on the Indian Navy.

Bhaswar said...

Prasun Sir,

So in your opinion the CM-400 is not hypersonic even in its terminal phase?

Sir, what is the status of the IA's Tactical communication system (TCS-2000/2010) I believe it was supposed to be operational by 2010? Any traction on that front?

I believe the TCS was supposed to then lead to the BMS for the IA. What's the status on that?

How many Arudras have been ordered?

I believe that the IAF had been interested in special missions aircraft for COMJAM and SIGINT? What happened to that?

Why aren't we converting the knowledge gained from the Sudharshan to make a whole family of PGMs across weight classes?

Thank you for taking out your valuable time to provide such detailed replies to my questions.

Relived said...


You know what pisses most people off wrt the LCA project is the fact every deadline DRDO/MOD publicise is not met and the complete lack of transparancy around the entire project. Now what you say about the Def Min not being all that clued up himself on what is going on makes sense and this is reflected in the deadlines he has set in the past that have not been met.

At last we have some clear idea about what is going on. Yes it is not the most pleasant of news but it is atleast good to know exactly what will happen and when. IF the MOD had said 2018 for FOC from the start I wouldn't have minded all that mcuh as what India has had to do with so little to get to FOC for the LCA is nothing short of outstanding.

I can see that all the deadlines in the past are purely arbitrary, set at a time where the true scale of the work is unknown and by people who have very little idea of the true time it will take to achieve xyz.

2018 isn't bad at all- reasonable I'd say.

1)When do you feel FOC will be given to the LCA MK.2 then sir? And what about the LCA NAVY that seems to be in no-mans land? Is this just waiting for the LCA MK.2 work to be done (as the N-LCA will eb based on the MK.2).

2)Also what is going on wrt the AESA radar for the MK.2? Will we be going to Israel for it or are we devloping it on our own (DRDO)?

3) I've seen pics of the IAF's PC-7 MK.2 BTTs being inducted and I noticed the fire trucks being used were TATRAs to give the water salute or whatever. Now it strikes me that these kind of crash fire tenders are woefully inadequate to tackle an emergency involving a modern airliner/cargo transport. These TATRA CFTs are slow, old and outdated and simply not up to the task.

Considering the IAF is inducting ever more a/c, large birds like the C-17 and advanced birds like the Rafale and MKI having such inadeqate fire fighting equipment is simply not on. When you throw in the fact the IAF will be getting the A330 MRTT which is effectively a civil airliner and could be carrying as many as 200+ passengers and loaded with fuel- having such shitty CFTs is beyond dangerours- it is negligent.

Yes, yes, having fancy fighter jets and AWACS and cargo a/c etc is nice and flashy but spend a fraction of this and get some decent modern CFTs like Panthers from Roesenbaur (that are used in most Indian airports) or a comparablly modern system. Replace these aged TATRAs FFS!!

Same goes for the IN- having P-8s and the like, You need up to date and state of the art ARFF units with the latest CFTs.

Is anythign being done to address this?

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To BHASWAR: The CM-400AKG isn’t hypersonic in any of its flight-phases. TCS won’t be fielded till 2016 at the very latest. Data on Arudhras is contained in the IACCCS thread sometime in 2012. RFIs for such ELINT/COMINT are already out. There are plans to develop Sudarshan LFB kits for bombs of 150kg & above.

To RELIVED: 1) FOC for Tejas Mk2 won’t be forthcoming until 2020, that is IF the first prototype takes to the skies in 2016 as is now being promised by ADA. 2) It is IMPOSSIBLE for the DRDO to develop an indigenous AESA-MMR between now & 2016, considering that even the US & Europe took more than decade to develop such sensors. 3) Very negligible efforts have been made in this area, primarily due to the MoD’s blatant support for DPSUs. That should not be surprising, considering that sun-shelters for Su-30MKIs began being procured only 2011! Like I explained above, India never ceases to be INCREDIBLE!!!

Arup said...

Sir,VMT. Why cant Tejas achieve 9 G? Official Tejas gov site states its g limit as -3.5/9G. Tejas is aerodynamically a better design than F-35 Litening 2 which can pul more than 10G.

If Litening can achieve an AoA of 55 degrees why is Tejas struck at just 22 degrees.How can IAF be sataisfied with such mediocre handling of Tejas ?

What is ADA/HAL combo trying to achieve by September of this year which desi media as well as DRDO DG are brandishing as IOC-2 clearence ??

If i am wrong correct me.IAF has 20 EL/M-20600P RTP and 12 EL/M-2060 SAR pods. Can you give the approx no of Spyder-SR launchers bought for IAF ?IA bought 4 regiments of Spyder-SR.

Where are the IN Spyder-SR deployed?They can be used to protect vital installations from alcm,lacm strikes.

With new DFCC and ADC wont the overall empty weight come down?As these modern computers are compact wont some internal volume be free up?Cant they be used for mounting additional avionics LRUs say maws.

TARANG RWR is also presnt in Su-30mki.If they are facing block obsolence why are they being fitted on new build sukhoi ?

Can you pls tell in short how the IAF is planning to protect its various formations , infrastructure , assets from masssed fire assaults not just by artillery but also by TBM, NLOS-BSM. Whole of the NE comes within PLA TBM's range.In a pre-emptive strike it can knock airbases,take out vital road and rail infrastructure, destroy ammo and supply depots.What can be done to protect most of the critical military assets in North Eastern India? The NLOS-BSM launcvhers can stealthily come out from their underground mountain bases fire their loads and again retreat to another safe location.Then IAF ISTAR capabilties wont be of much use. Suppose MoD gets warning just 72 hours before an attack.Then what does IAF ,IA plan to do? Move those sam batteries deployed in Western and Centeral India to protect these bases?Withdraw all military hardare from bases in NE and abse them in hinterland.

By WSO i meant are all IAF squadrons having just one set of aircrews,pilots?

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To ARUP: That’s why the Super Sukhoi programme will be implemented, i.e. to get rid of obsolescent sub-systems like Tarang RWR. Until then, the IAF has no other choice. This is exactly how the MoD’s urge to favour its DPSUs results in degradation of India’s combat effectiveness. Every dquadron in any corner of the world has only 1 set of aircrew & ground per aircraft.

Anonymous said...

Dear Sir,
Your explanation on the poor foresight and poor management of these programmes is excellent. Please also post what are the reasons why the DRDO makes "product of the technocrats, by technocrats and for technocrats". Could it be DRDO internal administrative procedures reward its Managers / Engineers / Scientists who exhibit such behaviour by promotion, bonuses?
I find it difficult to understand why Indian Managers / Engineers / Scientists working overseas for Foreign companies perform very well, but this is not the case when in India? If the details or reasons are pin pointed I believe DRDO can move forward as well from its present negative image.

Vamshi Al said...


1) When can we expect a Tejas MK2 prototype roll-out?
2) Will Mk2 see induction about same time as Mk1?
3) If Mk1 takes until 2018, I wonder if AMCA will ever turn into reality.
4) How do we manage such huge projects like LCA, LAH, MMRCA, PAK FGFA, Arihant Subs, Aircraft Careers etc. with a tiny defense budget?
5) Does India have any additional unofficial defense budget that adds up to requirements?

Dhruv said...

Dear Subir,

Barak-1 ---> (10 - 13 Kms) already DEPLOYED - To intercept Anti ship missiles mainly subsonic but also supersonic provided timely detection

Barak-2 ---> (60 - 70 Kms.) under development -- optimized for both Aircraft and Supersonic Anti ship missiles (Please remember Supersonic and Hypersonic Anti-ship missiles usually have a higher flight profile than sea skimming sub-sonic missiles.

Why do you not take a time out to digest what you read before posting your list and exasperating everybody.....

Subir said...

Dear Dhruv, There are two variants of BARAK-2. Barak-2 which will go on board Delhi class DDG and future principal surface ahs a 70 k range exactly. The other is IAF variant which some called LR-SAM,some has a 110-120 km range. Various sites give the range as 120 km. So its confusing and i want to clear it.

Barak-2 can also intercept NLOS-BSM,TBM.Mind it as of now there arent any hypersonic missiles on market.

Previously in many comments Prasun sir has replied that Barak-1 was optimised for low to medium subsonic cruise missiles like Styx,C-602 nad not high subsonic ashms like C-802,Harpoon and Exocet.So to clear it out i asked .

Pardon me Prasun sir if i ask too many ques.Next time i will limit my questions.

Anonymous said...

For quite some time it was assumed that S80 sub from navantia could be the frontrunner for project 75I. But recently news has come that this project got delayed for 2 or more years for some design
So if RfP of project75i comes around 2014-2015, the S80 will still not be ready & there is high choice of geting it rejected. Also the govt. doesn't seems no more interested for extra scorpenes. If that becomes the case then which will be the better option for India- type216 or amur or A26.

Littlemaster said...

Here clean takeoff weight is 9500.Max g is +8 to -3.5G.The specs thread you have uploaded gives clean weight 9800 kg and g loading 9,3.5.Both are from government sources DRDO or HAL. Why is there inconsistency in the data? Which the correct one?
Weapons load is given as 4000 kg in tejas site while the poster of yours give 3500kg.
What is the status of HAL Tejas manufacturing facilty? Has HAL implemented proper 4th gen manufacturing infrastucture ?Is the end user satisfied with the current build quality,finish?
HAL ARDC is confident of rolling out Tejas mk2 prototype by 2014.Very optimistic indeed. What air to ground ordance had been validated on Tejas mk1 till date and what more are planned to be validated.
In what areas has Dassault consulted in LCA project?

Anonymous said...

Off course CM-400 is not supersonic. Only the officiers of the US Navy think so but then again what do they know. Afterall American think PAk has 100-120 nukes but we know better they only have 10 under chinese control in Gilgit Balistan. Lets get that and problem is solved.

Bhaswar said...

Prasun Sir,

So the first Kolkata Class Destroyer will be commissioned this August sans the Barak-2 system? When will the next two ships follow? Within this year hopefully?

Btw you mentioned that we were developing something similar to the KEPD Taurus? What's the status on that?

What happened to the ALCM we were developing? When can we expect a test?

Maverick said...

UK has planned to retire their Global Express Sentinel Astor Fleet. This is relatively a new system when compared with US J-Stars.
What does this mean, does Manned SAR aircrafts/system no longer required. Are there any other alternatives available which can provide similar performance.
If India decides to acquire such a manned system what options will be available.
How good is the Embraer R-99 145 SAR equipped aircraft in terms of performance.
I feel the IA should also acquire smaller cost effective systems such as the under testing Boeing/Beechcraft EMARSS.

Gessler said...

Hi Prasun there is a new post in LiveFist by Shiv Aroor titled "First LCA Tejas Mk.2 Prototype Next Year?"

Do you suppose there is any essence to this assumption? I don't think we'll even see a prototype of Mk-2 before 2016.

DefenseandAerospace said...

Hi Prasun ,

(a) When will the Indian MoD sign the deal for the Rafales with Dassault ?

(b) When will the Rafales start arriving in India ?

Anonymous said...

Prasun, two points - the Tarang RWRs are not obsolete, they are now available in the MK1B version which is pretty comparable to other systems. The R118 is a follow on to the Tarang and also available for the LCA. But neither will be chosen, instead the unified EW suite developed for the LCA will take over from the RWR + external SPJ system.

Second, the MMR issue is not DRDOs fault but a typical HAL screw up. They were tasked with the MMR and treated it as sideshow program. That is why it was finally reverted to LRDE which has managed to salvage the situation. Current radar is the MMR with Israeli processors running partly Israeli software, and referred to as Hybrid MMR.

53% local percentage is pretty ok for a program of this size, as somebody who talked to various SMEs, one of the big issues DRDO faced was local vendors balked at making such complex items locally for such low production runs. Now with 40MK1 ordered, things are better.

Nice blog and thanks for the pictures,


Dear Prasun,
If the Taraang RWR and others parts of LCA Tejas are near to obsolescence, then how Tejas will fare in the real time war against Chinese / Pakistan fighters??? How it is comparable to F - 16? If it is not able to fulfill the IAF's requirement, rather it should be inducted as LIFT as suggested by you for training purpose only, not for taking part in any war. What's your thought???

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Anon@5.58PM: Call it by whichever name—Tarang or R118—the fact remains that neither of them are on board the Rudra or LCH, i.e. they have been rejected. Any unified EW suite is inclusive of the RWR, LWR, MAWS & internal SPJ. Even now the Tejas Mk1 has an internal SPJ. R & D work on MMR was delegated to HAL by DRDO’s ADA, meaning ADA was responsible for conducting technical audits of both HAL & LRDE to find out which of the two was more suited for undertaking MMR-related R & D. Therefore, it stands to reason that ADA failed to conduct a comprehensive technical audit of both HAL & LRDE & this is what led to the screw-up. The present-day MMR on Tejas Mk1 is ELTA’s EL/M-2032, & there has never been a hybrid MMR R & D project undertaken by anyone in India. Had there been one, the DRDO would have tom-tommed it during the previous two Aero India expos. Well, that hasn’t happened as yet. 53% local content of LRUs is a pathetic percentage to show for the past 20 years of R & D. Even smaller countries like Taiwan & South Korea have performed much better for similar combat aircraft R & D programmes.

To GESSLER: Again, by making such tall claims, HAL is insulting everyone’s intelligence. It needs to be understood that design & fabrication of such indigenous LRUs typically takes between 8 to 16 months, following which these LRUs will be required to be flight-certified after at least 80 flight-hours on several Tejas Mk1 PVs & LSPs, which will take another 5 months. Only after this can these LRUs be awarded a certificate of airworthiness by CEMILAC & only after this will such LRUs be installed on the first Tejas Mk2 prototype. Thus, if you were to do the math, assembly of the first Tejas Mk2 prototype will take at least 18 months to complete, if work began in April 2013. Add to that another three months of mandatory ground-tests prior to receiving clearance from CEMILAC for the maiden flight & still one misses the promised 2014 rollout of the first Tejas Mk2 prototype, & instead, a realistic date of sometime in 2016 becomes a distinct probability.

abs said...

I would like to take this opportunity to reply to a few of your questions pending Prasun da's reply to them.

The IAF has been deeply concerned about PLA's LACMs and NLOS-BSMs and TBMs. The PLA plans to offset its lack of offensive air projection by using such PGMs. The LACMs would be mainly used to target static locations like Air bases, c&c installations, SAM and SSM launch sites,bridge heads. The NLOS-BSMs would be used to target war sustenance infrastructure like POL stocks, staging areas of infantry or mechanised and armoured formations including artillery. At the same time the NLOS-BSMs could be used to target infrastructural and logistical facilities.
Therefore the IAF had devised a few plans to counter these threats that could negate any offensive projection advantages the IAF could muster in a war.
1)The first plan was to establish surveillance over the areas from which the PLAAF air crafts could sneak inside Indian territory. Remember due to geography there are only few routes the PLAAF aircrafts can take to sneak in. This was done by placing radars specific to such ingress routes. For more on the types of radars used please visit the thread on IACCCS. Also remember the TAR being flat even civillian radars can pick up such aircrafts from long away.
2)The other headache of the IAF was
PLA's heliborne SOFs. Therefore the solution was in fielding LLTRs at the likely ingress routes. The installation of such radars would be completed by 2015. After which staging Heliborne Assaults would become near impossible.
3)To counter the threats of TBMs and NLOS-BSMs and LACMs the Barak-2 and Barak-8s would be used. At present to provide air defence against LACMs use is being made of the SRSAMs like SpyDer SR.
Once this is done, then one can expect an impregnable air defence shield.
4)As far as my knowledge goes the underground installations are for TBMs and not NLOS-BSMs. Even in that case it requires sufficient preparatory time to launch such underground SSMs. This time would be available to the IAF.
I hope I have answered your queries. For more please contact Prasun da.

Anonymous said...

Sir,If Tarang is obsolete and has been rejected for LCH,Rudra then how come it equip our airforce most prestigious aircraft su30mk3 .There must be some reason behind this.Those su30 now rolling off the production line what rwr are they getting if Tarang is not very good. How does tarang compare to ALR-69V3 on Super Hornet?
Can the prototype expected to be rolled out in 2015 or end 2014 followed by LSP in 2016 and service induction in 2017 if Dr Chander continues with his aggresive approach of delivering things on tiem and make DRDO a end user oriented R&D facilty.
Do you have any news on avionics and subsystems vendor selection for mk2 which was supposed to take place last year & is now scheduled to be completed by October?
Will 1st Rafale deliveries take place after 24 months of contract signature. If the deal is signed this September,can Dassault be expected to start delivery in Spetember 2014.

Thanx in advance.

Arup said...

Lots and lots of thanx sir for replying. You have so far cleared all of my queries.

IA ordered 4 Spyder SR regiments in 2009 as Prasun sir had said in apast thread.But how many Spyder systems were bought by IAF? Wikipedia reports 18 batteries were ordered by IAF along with 750 Derby and 750 Python-5.

By when can such a hardened iads get deployed?LR-SAM wont be available till 2015.

Are you in airforce .You have a huge knowlegde base in these matters and you ask pretty in depth questions.

Anonymous said...

IAF MMRCA deal how many will be twin seaters.


Prasun Da,

This video was uploaded yesterday by a Russia news channel . The video is in Russian . The most important thing that they are saying is that the T 50 has completed the 1st phase of the tests and the results have been better than expected :


Anonymous said...

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To VAMSHI AI: 1 & 2) Not before 2016 at the earliest as I’ve explained above to GESSLER. Also to be factored in is the finalistion of the Tejas Mk2’s new cockpit design (based on ELBIT Systems’ COCKPIT-NG solution) & its flight validation, which will take more time to accomplish & therefore at the very best, only by late 2016 will the first Tejas Mk2 prototype be ready to make its maiden flight. At least three such flying prototypes are required for the Tejas Mk2’s flight certification programme, especially if an imported AESA-MMR is mandated by the IAF (since the indigenous AESA-MMR will at best not be available till 2022). Assuming that between 2016 & 2018 the three Tejas Mk2s are involved in certification flights, then latest by late 2020 the first 20 of 83 SP-series of Tejas Mk2s can start rolling off HAL’s final assembly line and the first IAF squadron to be equipped with this MRCA will achieve FOC by late 2022. 3) It is best that the AMCA never sees the light of day & is laid to rest permanently, because to me it is a sheer waste of money since I have stated several times before that until it can be conclusively proven that the AMCA will be able to do things that the FGFA will not be able to, no money ought to be allocated for the AMCA’s prototype development. There are far too many other operational demands to be met for the three armed services with very limited financial resources & therefore one has to prioritise: either the FGFA or AMCA. 5) No.

To DHRUV: Very well put. VMT.

To SUBIR: Barak-2 MR-SAM will be equally good at intercepting both sea-skimming subsonic & supersonic ASCMs. Barak-1 was meant for use against earlier-generation ASCMs like the Termit, Silkworm, C-801, & MM-38 Exocet.

To Anon@11.38AM; Those design defects of S-80 were identified quite some time back & rectified. The problem is only with the S-80’s prototype, which is 75 tonnes heavy & can be easily resolved by NAVANTIA. Such deficiencies won’t therefore apply to S-80s destined for the export market. Procurement of completely new SSK designs under Project 75I is financially unrealistic & industrially disastrous.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To LITTLEMASTER: Tejas Mk1’s specs & operating parameters are from the brochure published by ADA for the Aero India 2013 expo. As for new-generation aircraft production facilities, HAL has not even begun acquiring land for such a facility. Any such facility has to be of the Greenfield-type & cannot be just an upgradation of an existing facility.

To BHASWAR: If the malfunctions detected during the on-going sea-trials of INS Kolkata are rectified in time, then an August 2013 commissioning of this DDG is still possible. The turbofan-powered standoff anti-airfield weapon (SAW) is still in the detailed design stage. Conventionally-armed Nirbhay ALCM’s maiden test-firing won’t take place until late 2015 at the earliest.

To MAVERICK: Airborne battlespace surveillance systems may not be required for the UK, but they’re imperative for countries like India & Israel. In India’s case, a widebodied solution is preferred & therefore the Bombardier Global 5000 aircraft will be the optimum platform, instead of the narrowbody EMB-145. In terms of mission-sensors & mission management systems too, Israeli solutions are preferred since they’re already combat-proven.

To DEFENSE & AEROSPACE: For as long as the Indian Rupee keeps sliding downward against the US$, contract signature for the Rafale M-MRCA is most unlikely. First Rafales will start arriving some 48 months after contract signature. Not before that.

To SOUBHAGYA: At least 90 Tejas Mk1 tandem-seaters ought to be procured as LIFTs for both the IAF & IN.

To Anon@8.11PM: Of course there’s a reason: keep BEL profitable. ALR-69V3 is generations ahead of Tarang Mk3.

To Anon@9.52PM: Of the initial 18 Rafales in flyable condition, 12 will be single-seaters and six tandem-seaters. Of the 108 Rafales to be licence-built in India, 74 will be single-seaters and 34 will be tandem-seaters.

Relieved said...


Are you saying the IN and IAF won't be procuring new, modern, CFTs in the near future then? And what AESA will be present on the LCA MK.2 then come 2016-18 when it starts flight trials?

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Anon@9.43AM: The problem was NEVER the DRDO, as I’ve repeatedly stated several times before. Nor was the IAF posing any problems. The problem has always been the higher defence organization, meaning when the ASQR for Tejas MRCA was being drafted at Air HQ, the DRDO was never consulted by anyone within the MoD in terms of its organisational strengths & limitations. And once the ADA was set up for leading the Tejas MRCA’s R & D effort, neither the IAF nor India’s industrial associations (like FICCI or ASSOCHAM) ever consulted for their inputs on possible R & D/production engineering contributions. All decisions regarding prototype development were taken by the MoD’s Secretary for Defence Production & Supplies based SOLELY on the advice & inputs from the Director of ADA. And since this Secretary is a board-member of every MoD-owned DPSU, he/she is ethically duty-bound to award every conceivable Tejas MRCA-related contract-award to these DPSUs. This is the vicious circle that needs structural reforming. For starters, for a project of this magnitude, the MoD, IAF HQ & DRDO should not have functioned within watertight compartments & from the outset, the MoD should have mandated that since this a national R & D effort, there should be no discrimination between the public-sector & private-sector industrial entities. Next, an integrated project team (reporting to the Defence Secretary) with its Director from HAL & two Associate Directors—one each hailing from the IAF & ADA—should have been constituted during the project feasibility stage itself & this very team should have conducted all project definition studies & analyses. Had such a project management scheme been followed, then there would have been no technical problems or institutional acrimonies. HAL would then have been able to develop its own industrial vendor eco-system without any hindrance or interference, as well as engage in risk-sharing technological tie-ups with its longstanding international industrial partners like BAE Systems or even Dassault Aviation. The ADA & DARE in turn could then have focused entirely on indigenising all the aircraft accessories & avionics LRUs with the help of India’s public-sector & private-sector industrial entities, while the ADE could then gave focussed entirely on developing the required type of simulators & part-task trainers.
What happened instead was that the DRDO wanted to & got to have the entire cake & eat it as well, while HAL was left sulking & deprived, & the IAF was not even consulted during the design & technology demonstration stages. Therefore, the end-product inevitably became just a scientific specimen, instead of maturing as a product engineered in such a way that it will be appealing to its end-user (the IAF) in terms of serviceability, reliability & operational capability deliverance.
If at all there’s a silver lining in all this, it is that the IN drew correct lessons from such management mishaps & prevailed over the DRDO regarding the ATV project & therefore got things right from the very outset since the late 1990s & it is for this reason that the Arihant SSBN has been a success story thus far. Moral of this project mismanagement saga: an army of donkeys commanded by a lion will always prevail over an army of lions commanded by a donkey.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To RELIEVED: No imported CFTs will be procured by the IAF. Instead, those produced by DPSUs like BEML will be procured. As for Tejas Mk2’s mission-sensors, the Vixen 850 AESA-MMR/Skyward IRST combination is the preferred choice at the moment. IAI/ELTA’s EL/M-2052 AESA-MMR is also on offer along with similar AESA-MMRs from Raytheon & Northrop Grumman, but all these AESA-MMRs are standalone structures & are not accompanied by an IRST sensor. I my reckoning, going for only an AESA-MMR while rejecting the IRST sensor on the Tejas Mk2 MRCA will be a downright act of criminal negligence.

Anonymous said...

prasun sir i have following query
1. Since tejas mk2 will be a high altitude interceptor in primary role then why it didnt have box or square shaped intake like f18 superhornet.
2. Since load carrying capacity is increased then how many hardpoints under each wing. Is it 3 or 4.

Anonymous said...

Excellent very apt - Moral of this project mismanagement saga: an army of donkeys commanded by a lion will always prevail over an army of lions commanded by a donkey.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Anon@11.38PM: 1) Where did that come from? Who has ever claimed that to be the case? 2) Hardpoints remain the same. Therefore, the IAF & ADA will have to devise improvisations, such as coming up with dual-ejector or triple-ejector racks capable of housing 150kg LGBs or even ATGMs like Brimstone, since the Tejas Mk1 without aerial refuelling will be limited to just defensive counter-air & close air support missions. Consequently, using 500kg LGBs to destroy MBTs & other other armoured vehicles will only amount to an overkill & wastage of valuable ordnance. By the way, ever wonder why no one from either ADA or HAL seems to be taking up the indigenisation of weapons ejector racks? Funny, isn’t it, since these are quite low-tech sub-systems that are reqd in very large numbers by the IAF & IN & can easily be made by SMEs? Just think about it…..the kind of monkey business that has been going on all along.

Technology, Photograpy and Travel said...

One more prasun da

"an army of donkeys commanded by a lion will always prevail over an army of lions commanded by a donkey"

Still awaiting some links on ancient history ... In case u have some worth reading


Tejas said...

Sir, How advanced is tarang mk3 rwr comapared to the Russian one which is a standard fit on Su-30MK,Su-35?
Is Tarang mk3 capable enough of giving advance warning of sam radars and airborne MMR deployed by our neighbours?

Did LSP-8 meet stringent QA,QC of airforce ?Sometime back it was widely reported that Tejas had curvy surfaces,all the acs arent exactly identical,the production standards were downright poor and HAL needs to team up with an aerospace giant for this. Where matters regarding this stand now?
Wont it be possible to introduce 4th gen tooling,rigs,CNC and other machines in HAL Bangalore facility where a Tejas production line is there.

Has HAL started work on Rafale production line .Is Shri Antony still insisting on procuring just 18 Rafales off the shelf and producing the rest of them in India?MMRCA contract was initiated in 2007 and the 1st ac is unlikely to aarive before 2017.INCREDIBLE INDIA indeed when there is a dire need of mmrcas. If leads were palced before hand wont the delivery time reduce to 24 months. Boeing started C-17 delivery after 24 months of contract signature.

Can it be expected that additional Sukhois will be contracted for this fiscal? After phasing out of MiG-27 Tejas will perform the CAS as well as tank busting roles.For this wont triple ejector racks & sagem asm , mbda brimstone integrated with the ac.

If the interface between the pylon and the AAM can be removed some weight can be reduced and weapons load can be increased.

A request sir.Pls upload all the posters concerning Tejas that you collected in aero india 13.Government sites are full of discrepancies.

abs said...

Rest assured all our knowledge in here are highly limited barring perhaps the mercurial Prasunda.
We can expect all of our airspace to be fortified only by 2022, but things will start looking up once the Barak-2 MRSAM and Barak-8 LRSAMs start coming up within the next 2 years. As far as Wiki is concerned, please refrain from visiting such sites for accurate knowledge. I can't vouch for the figures, but ofcourse more follow on orders for SR-SAMs are likely to follow. So all we can hope is that the DRDO mandarins don't hijack the IAF's plans through the Maitri SHORADs programme, like what it has done with the AWACS-I programme, little understanding that after 5 years when the PLAAF would be possessing formidable counter air weaponry, it would be the AWACS that would be a game changer.However given the IAF's experience in High-Altitude warfare and BVR combat and due to its advantage in terms of packing more pucnch per aircraft and the kind of modernisation that is being looked at, the IAF can be expected to prevail.
As for your last query, Im not from the Indian Airforce, Im only a 2nd year budding engineer and therefore please donot harbour any misconceptions that I have great and least of all "in-depth" knowledge.
And lets not start a flurry of Q&As cuz I believe that my limited knowledge would only leave you dissatisfied and lets leave that task for Prasunda, I would not want to hijack his role in this blog, uch like what these DRDO nerds are doing.

abs said...

Very Many Thanks for clarifying my doubts, must say learnt a lot from your reply.
I guess after you have calrified, there is no reason for India to not sign the DBCA, and once and for all it rests my doubt about the negative repercussions of the DBCA.

in here the last line reads

"The next step is to develop missiles that can come back to the originating mode after destroying designated targets, he said."
Is the person referring about UCAVs or is it the mother vehicle that can loiter in air till target acquisition following which 3 hypersonic missiles are fired at them? How long could this take to fructify?

2)By what time would Akashdeep type Aerostats having LORROS sensors be fielded by the Indian Army? In what numbers would these aerostats be fielded? And what are the means to defend these aerostats from enemy A2A missiles or cruise missiles?

3)I got to know that the IITs had begun developing an Aerostat that could go high in Near Space. Once fitted with SAR radars or even battle space surveillance radars it would be an enormous force multiplier.
Recently I had read a CLAWS seminar summary that called for placing SAR radars with GMTI in order to gain crucial ISTAR especially wrt the monitoring of PAkistan's ARS and ARN. The same could be done in the North East and all along the LAC. Placing these aerostats beyond 15000 ft would result in no cross winds effects. And in one single shot ISTAR capabilities would also be boosted. Besides they could also take oborad ELINT/COMINT/SIGINT and battlespace surveillance radars for defence against LACMs and NLOS-BSMs. Any future plans?

Arup said...

@abs Lots of thanx buddy for answering. Are you an IITian or maybe NITian? You ask just great questions. And Prasun da we have learnt alot from your blog and your replies are priceless.

DefenseandAerospace said...

Is India developing ROBOTIC soldiers

This recent report says so .

Mr. Ra 13 said...

Thanx! You have brought about almost all the clarifications about Tejas fighter. Now it shall be clear as to why the Tejas Mk2 shall be inducted in the IAF instead of the Tejas Mk1. Also why about 90 nos of Tejas Mk1 (Tandem seat) shall be inducted as LIFT in IAF and IN.

Regarding your earlier link:

It can be a case of 1.5 Billion years old human civilization in line with the Indian scriptures who claim the human civilization to be as old as 1.97 Billion years old.

The Present Age of Cosmos according to the Vedic System is as follows:
There are 14 Manvantaras altogether. The present period is passing through the seventh Manvantara called Vaivaswata Manvantara.
One Manvantara consists of 71 Mahayugs, out of which 27 Mahayugs have already passed. We are passing through the first phase of the Kali Yuga which itself is the third Yuga of the 28th Mahayuga and which has come after the passing of Satya Yuga, Treta and Dwapar Yuga.
The time period of Manvantara (exclusive period, when the earth is submerged in water, in the beginning and in the end) = 306,720,000 years
1) Multiplying these years by 6 = 30,67,20,000 x 6 (Because we are in the midst of 7th Manvantara, of the Svetvaaraah Kalpa and 6 Manvantaras have already passed) = 1,8,0,300,000 years
The time period of Pralaya consists of 17,28,000 years since 7 Pralayas have passed, after the end of 6th Kalpa and before the beginning of 7th Kalpa, so 17,28,000x 7 = 12,096,000 years
Adding we have:
1,840,300,000 + 120 96 000 + 1,852,396,000 years
Therefore, after 1,85,24,16,000 years ‘VAIVASVAT MANVANTARA’ has started.
2) 27 Mahayugs with each Mahayuga consisting of 43,20,000 years. 43,20,000 x 27 = 116,640,000 years have passed
Total = 1,96,90,56,000 years
Kalpa consist of 4,32,00,00,000 years and out of these 1,97,29,49,101 years have passed. Therefore, the earth’s existence, according to the calculations devised by our ancient sages, comes up to 1,97,29,49,101 years till date. It is interesting to note that according to scientific calculations, the age of the cosmos is estimated between 15 and 20 billion years.

Anonymous said...

Sir, I have the following queries.

1.Will it be possible to have wingtip missile launchers in tejas mk2?

2.Can load carrying capacity of tejas 2 be increased to 6ooo kg ?

3.Will internal fuel load of mk2 be increased over m1

4.Skyguard irst can be customised for uasge with elta 2052 aesa ??

5.Will there be any prob if Vixen 1000e is selected instead of 850.1000 will be better.

Subir said...

Sir, Pls ans them.

1.In the Tejas mockup pic there is a R-77 type missile in the innermost wing hardpoint.What is this missile?is it being integrated with Tejas?

2.Wont mk1 tejas be having triple ejector racks?

3.Which rwr is presnt in MiG-29UPG?

4.Why did IAF opt for Tarang family of rwr instead of Russian SPO one in su-30 acs?

5.If Tejas is facing block obsolence with a lot of avionics like mission comouters,flight control computers then it must be the same with Su-30mki which uses avionics of 1990s vintage. Why arent the avionics LRUs on Su-30 getting replaced with compact,more durable ones ?

6.Is the HAL Tejas plant at Chellaghata being upgraded for implementing QA on Teajs mk1?

7.I have asked this a lot of times but havent bothered to answer. In desi media parlance everybody is talking about achieving IOC-2 by September?What is this IOC-2 ? And what significant aspects of the coa process is to be completed by September?

8.Is raksha mantri still arrogant about the 18 ac off the shelf delivery?Why cant he and IAF opt for more acs as for off the shelf deivery from France over and above 18.

9.Earlier harpoon variants also fall in the same class as MM-38 Exocet.So why cant Barak intercept Harpoon?

10.Is there any SAR payload in R&AW Astra special mission acs? the Scorpene real hull fabrication problem rectified? Has the contract been renewed?

12.Is LR-SAM employing a dual seeker as you had said in a previous thread ?

13.Why cant the MSWS now in final dvelopement by DARE installed on Tejas mk2?

14.Do you know anything about the MoD tests of PAK-FA in Russia which commenced some weeks ago. It is now being reported by Russian state news agencies that the 1st round of tests conducted jointly by Mod and russian airforce \produced good results.

15.If longer MMR bvr ranges meant warnings by rwr then Typhoon wouldnt have had a high power Captor mechanical array,MiG-31 wont be having a 1.2 m dia Zaslon-m and Su-35 wont be having the ultra powerful Irbis snow leopard.Russians beleive in look and shoot first and thats why they have been heavily investing in long range AAM.

16.Is there any terrain avoidance mode in EL/M-2032 of tejas mk1.

Relived said...


1) are you telling me the IAF/IN has not purchased a single ROSENBAUR PANTHER CFT?

2) When will HMDS start being used on the SU-30MKI? IMHO this is a pressing need and when even the LCA and M2K are getting such systems- the top-tier fighter of the IAF should have it for sure. And what HMDS will it be?

3) Are the IAF providing upper-body/torso G-suits for the MKI pilots? Up till now I have only seen IAF MKI pilots wearing trouser G-trousers- following the Russian/Soviet methodology.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Mr.RA 13: Brilliantly explained & derived, as always. And VMT for your unflinching support for the Tejas Mk1 LIFT, which, during wartime, will also be able to double up as a potent defensive counter-air interceptor, thereby serving roles of both as a LIFT & as an air-defence interceptor.

To DEFENSEANDAEROSPACE: Nothing surprising about it, since India has already developed robotic Prime Ministers specialising in governing the country by engaging the autopilot! Developing robo-soldiers therefore ought to be a walk-in-the-park, don’t you think?

To Anon@5.24PM: 1) No. And why the need for such wingtip launchers in the first place? 2) Not 6 tonnes, but 4.5 tonnes. 3) Very marginal increase. 4) Of course it can be done, but who’s going to pay for the non-recurring R & D costs for achieving this? 5) Vixen 1000e is customised for the Gripen NG, whereas Vixen 850 has been customised for Tejas Mk2. Performance parameters are both are almost identical.

To ABS: VMT indeed. 1) Dr Pillai is referring to turbofan-powered UCAVs like the HALE-UCAV (closely resembling EADS/Cassidian’s Talarion) now under development by ADE as well as the futuristic AURA UASV. The former will be able to launch up to two 400km-range turbofan-powered SAWs or even four Griffin-3 LFBs or four Uran-E ASCMs, while the AURA will be able to launch both GPS-guided SDBs & Griffin-3-type LGBs. 2) By late next year the Akashdeep aerostats equipped with LORROS sensors should be available for operational deployments. About 25 will be initially deployed. Field-trials are presently underway in both southern Ladakh & Sikkim. They will be used for border surveillance during peacetime & will not be reqd for obvious reasons during wartime, when manned & unmanned airborne ISTAR platforms will be put to use. 3) Not SAR, but ISAR with GMTI of the type already available for fitment on to MALE-UAVs & manned airborne battlespace surveillance platforms. Even the IN’s P-8Is’ Raytheon-built APY-10 MMRs have this capability right now. Aerostats equipped with such sensors won’t be of much use, especially when monitoring the ground movements of armoured/mechanised formations, but both unmanned & manned airborne battlespace surveillance platforms will be as they will be able to cover a wider swathe of territory while flying well inside friendly airspace. Aerostats equipped with optronic/ELINT/SIGINT/COMINT sensors will be useful only during peacetime.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...


To TEJAS: Tarang Mk3’s development still hasn’t been completed as yet. Both LSP-7 & LSP-8 do meet all the ASQRs of the IAF except for the nose radome. HAL can easily come up with a state-of-the-art Greenfield-type final assembly line for Tejas Mks1/2 on its own, while appointing a foreign OEM like EADS/Cassidian. BAE Systems or Dassault Aviation as its principal consultant for such matters. After all, HAL is sitting on Rs27,000 crores worth of guaranteed revenues. This type of liquidity can buy both the best hardware & the best human-resource expertise. One cannot compare Boeing’s annual production capacity with that of Dassault Aviation. European & Scandinavian & Russian production capacities are far below those of their North American counterparts. No additional Su-30MKIs will be ordered this fiscal year. Even today, the Tejas Mk1 with fully integrated Litening-2 LDP is fully ready to undertake all-weather CAS missions since such missions involve only straight-and-level flying & therefore any lack of airframe agility is not an impediment at all. All that’s reqd is the availability of laser-guided ATGMs like Hellfire-2, or lightweight gliding LGBs weighing less than 100kg, which can easily be developed in-country. A Tejas Mk1 armed with twin R-73Es & twin 1,200-litre drop-tanks could easily carry up to 10 such lightweight LGBs.

Anonymous said...

Sir, How many Su-30 can be accomodated per sun shelter whose pic you have uploaded in 2012 Defexpo thread. I have recenly viewed Lohegaon airbase in Google earth. Therewere 19 such storm shelters in groups of two .This airbase houses two squadrons.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To SUBIR: 1) That’s not R-77, but the earliest design of Astra BVRAAM that has now been discarded. 2) Nope, as of now. 3) Tarang Mk2. 4) To keep BEL well-fed. 5) Of course. They all use Intel 486 processors & not Pentium-based processors. 6) No. 7) It is nothing but a ‘dhakosla’ & ‘nautanki’ all aimed at insulting a discerning person’s intelligence, which is what I had explained above in my narrative. IOC-1/2 & FOC is therefore nothing but an eyewash & I’ve clearly explained why. There’s nothing more I can do or explain if you are unable to grasp this elementary truth. 8) RM is neither from the IAF nor is he an aeronautical engineer nor is he a financial wizard nor is he a logistician & therefore he doesn’t understand the intricacies of the M-MRCA’s procurement processes. 9) MM-38 was never sea-skimming. 10) No. 11) No yet. 12) Why ask again if you’ve already read about it in an earlier thread? 13) Because it was never developed for the Tejas Mk1, but for EMB-145I AEW & CS. 14) Those were just airframe/engine performance-related flight-tests. 15) Typhoon version of EF-2000 & MiG-31s & Su-35BM are all optimised for intercepting long-range bombers like Tu-95, Tu-160, B-52, B-1B & B-2 while relying on GCI cues. That’s their primary role. 16) Yes.

To RELIVED: 1) Yes. 2) Su-30MKI already uses the SURA-M HMDS, just like the MiG-29s & MiG-21 Bisons. 3) No.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Anon@12.06AM: The photos clearly show that each sun-shelter accommodates only a single aircraft. Not all aircraft are always out in the apron or tarmac since several more are always housed inside hangars for undergoing routine maintenance & periodic inspections.

Subir said...

Sir, Lots and lots of thanx for answering.

1.I have gone through the Tejas narrative very well and knew for a long time that there is nothing as IOC or FOC. I just meant what is the very significance of the September deadline.

2.When Tarang mk3 have been available for 4 years or more why order mk3?In both cases BEL will be well fed.

3.Is there any sort of understanding between IAF senior staff and BEL Board of directors?IAF should be more concerned about the performance and survibality about its jets than ensuring that BEL gets to eat well.

4.How does Tarang mk3 fare against the latest gen of SAM ( MRSAM,QRSAM,LRSM) survellience and engagement radars , bvr aam seekers proliferating in our immediate neighbourhood.

5.Which is a better in wideband emitter localisation,classification and threat detection in high density emitter environment?SPO-18 on MiG-35,Su-35 or Tarang mk3?

6.DARE was also developing a msws suite for Su-30 upgrade. You posted those pics in Aero India part 2 or 3.Which msws was that.

7.MiG-31BM's Zaslon-M was designed to detect and track strtegic bomsers,ISTAR,AWACS and other high value assets with or without ground based GCI.That why it ahd a 280 km range against a 5 sqm target. Captor was designed to detect and track Su-27,30,35 before their radars can obtain a lock-on. Su-35's Irbis was designed to oust all European MMRs in operation or developement in performance and to detect and track VLO acs like F-35 and F-22 and to be superior to APG-63v1 aesa in F-15C and E. Infact NIIP director has repeatedly stated that their aim was to look and shot first.

8.I have tried to understand this a lot many times but sofar havent been able to do so. tejas is created from light weight exotic materials , composites. Jf-17 is created from conventional materials. inspite of this how can jf-17 boast of superior agility with much higher Aoa and abilty to pull 9 G instead of teajs's 8.

9.I didnt get the intel 486 processor thing.I googled it. Intel 486is a higher performance follow-up to the Intel 80386 microprocessor.It was released into the market in 1989.

10.So,is Su-30mki still using vintage processors,vintage flight control computers,nmission compuetrs,radar processors. Just as Tejas is being upgrdaed with new LRUs why cant it happen so with Su-30mki?Why isnt similar enthu shown in su project ?

11.The Bars processors may be up to date as you said all Bars were brought to the level of Irbis by 2007.

12.The same resolution CRT and exact same HUD that was used on 1990s or 2000 era IAF Sukhoi, are they still prsent in the new ones. In a span of 12 years there were many improvemnts in viweing tech.At that time people were clamouring for colour tvs. Now they wont settle for nothing less than plasma. Resolutions were also improved many folds. Are all these advances in civilian consumer goods market didnt make their way into Su-30. Are they still using the exact same resolution HDD and CRT displays.

13.I have asked about the Barak-2 seeker because it has been two years and many things related to defense often change by that time.Further in IAF MPR thread you said IAF had ordered 32 Arudhras.Again then in another thread you said 24. Then again in IACCCS thread you said 32. Thats why.

14.I hope RM goes through all the comments.In fact he can also post comments.

15.And i am deeply grateful to u for answering my ques.I havent asked the same stuff twice.

relived said...


wrt HMDS I mean helmet mounted modern disply sights like TARGO, DASH III or TOPSIGHT. When will these be present on IAF MKIs?

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To SUBIR: 1) Nothing at all, for it is a concoction of the ‘desi’ news-media. 2) Tarang Mk3 has not yet entered production. 4 & 5) Tarang Mk3 is inferior to what’s available from abroad. 6) That’s still under development for the Super Su-30MKI & has not yet entered the flight-test phase. 7) ISTAR & AEW & CS platforms never fly inside hostile airspace & will thus be left untouched by even long-range BVRAAMs. Even today, Russia has not yet produced in bulk any long-range BVRAAM even for its own air force. Therefore, it makes no difference if one is the first one to detect targets at long-range if there are no long-range BVRAAMs available to exploit this advantage. 10) Su-30MKI, MiG-29UPG, MiG-29K & Tejas Mk1 all use Intel 486 processors. 12( Su-30Ks of the IAF too had AMLCD displays. 14) He wonlt because he doesn’t understand the subject matter & he couldn’t be bothered to.

To RELIVED: They will be present on the Mirage 2000UPGs, Jaguar DARIN-3, FGFA & Super Su-30MKI.

Subir said...

Sir, Lots of thanx again.

1.Tejas mk1 DFC uses Intel 80960 processors.It is given in a poster of this thread.

2.Were there any change in LRU,DRC and other computers,processors from the 1st Su-30K,1st su from Hal Ozar and the ones that are being manufactured today?

3.i meant to ask with rapid advances in display technolgy and HD res were there any improvemnt in display properties of the AMLCD displays like better resolution between tthe 1st Su lot and the ones being produced now.

4.If IAF imposes such stringent ASQR on Tejas why cant it do the same with its rwrs?

5.To put in plain words, our su-30 are now very much vulnerable to bvr strikes and sam due to very poor tarang rwr.

6..I have tried to understand this a lot many times but sofar havent been able to do so. tejas is created from light weight exotic materials , composites. Jf-17 is created from conventional materials. inspite of this how can jf-17 boast of superior agility with much higher Aoa and abilty to pull 9 G instead of teajs's

7. It shows IAF has 6 s-300pmu2 systems. False aint it.

Abhijit said...

Hello Mr. Prasun, I have a few questions I think you will be the right one to ask.

1) What exactly will be the armament suite of IN's future fleet of Scorpene SSKs?

2) Will the IA induct the MSMC SMG or is only for CAPFs and Law-Enforcement groups?

3) What additional equipment/weapons will the P-15 Delhi-class DDG upgrade incorporate?

4) What will be the specs and capabilities of BrahMos-II cruise missile? Has it's development started yet?

5) What type of defence is IN planning to exercise against PAF's CM-400AKG missile? Can the Barak-2 shoot it down if early detection of the JF-17 formation carrying the missiles is achieved?

6) Is India working on creating a Combat Management System like AEGIS in future for P-15B DDGs? If not, are we planning on buying the US AEGIS? Do we actually need it or not?

7) What will be the armament suite of P-8I Neptune ASW aircraft in IN?

8) Will P-8I be able to make use of the Mk-54 torpedo's HAAWC kit to launch from high-altitude instead of flying low to achieve Magnetic Anomaly Detector (MAD) contact?

9) What other methods (other than MAD and active Sonar) can P-8I use to detect underwater submarines from altitude? Can it datalink with other platforms and know about enemy sub's location while flying at an altitude of say 8,000-10,000ft?

10) When will IAF formally induct and operationalize the first C-17 transporter?

11) Any progress on India-France project to develop Maitri? Has Data Patterns begun development of the AESA radar concerned with the SAM system?

Thanks in advance. Abhijit

DefenseandAerospace said...

Prasun , you probably have already done the analysis so I am not spelling out the details here . The thing is the SPIKE ATGM is far more superior technically to the Javelin and is also relatively cheaper .

So why does the Indian Army have a fixation for the Javelin ?

Anonymous said...

Dear prasunda,
very well said about our robotic pm controlled by auto pilot. Aptly put. (And our RM is man who cant even defend himself. (fallen n no of times on dias)... I was laughing straight 5 min after reading that. Hats off to u...

Anonymous said...

Sir,I have the follwing queries.

1.With wingtip rail launchers the no of available hardpoints will go up.More ground ordance can be carried with a given aam load.

2.Previous reports put tejas mk2 weapons at 5 t.

3.With Tejas mk2 ADA % HAL could have taken the approach used by Saab. When new ac is being designed why not built the best available features in it without major modifications and flight tests ??

4. ??

5.As the prefix no goes up so doesnt the radar performance ?

6.Tejas mk 2 & Gripen ng has similar emty weights.Why is ng having a heavier payload at more than 6ooo kgs

7.If Skyguard can be used with Vixen so can Pirate.Pirate must be preferred.

Tejas said...

Sir, When IAF asked DARE,BEL to come up with Tarang mk3 version what were the QRs?Did AF ask for alr-69 level performance?

When HAL is having 27000 crores of revenue why cant RM utilise some of that money to sign important IAF contarcts in this year itself ?
HAL can set up a massive greenfield final assembly line for rafale with its cash whicg will be able to deliver 18-20 rafales per annum.Why is HAL settling for just 11-14 acs per annum.? If extra skilled manpower is required HAL can employ foreign aircraft OEMs within this new facilty.

When will the final 50 ordered ?It was you who have first told about it.Then IAF chief disclosed this to some English news channel.He told the total no will go up to 350 but he never told how. HATS OFF TO YOU, PRASUN SIR.

With 125 kg and 250 kg AASM , Brimstone and Spear from MBDA ,JAGM from LM Tejas will be an all weather CAS and limited strike platform. Just one problem. LDP-2 being optronic based wont be able to look through fog, cloud and smoke covers.

ADA and HAL can begin fabricating tejas mk2 by this July.If everything goes well the 1st prototype can be rolled by mid to end of 2014. LSIPs can be produced from mid 2015 preceded by basic powerplant and airframe flight tests. In stead of 3 LSP 5 can be produced for carrying out parallel flight tests and validation of various LRUs,mission sensors,fbw system.Tests can last upto mid to end 2016 followed by service induction in early 2017. Various avionics and sensors like NG cockpit, vixen 850 ,skyguard irst,virgilius jammer,msws,towed decoys can be tested on one of mk1 LSIP.With the voracious and pro-active approach being taken By Dr Avinash Chander there is really some hope of an earlier foc of mk2 if not in 2015 as everyone is believing nowadays.

If the wing area is to be increased in mk2 why not the wing span?

Anonymous said...

Sir,How many APP-50 countermeasures launchers are present in a sukhoi-30mki.How many chaff,flares these cmds carry?
The sukhoi pilots do they come directly from MOFTU units after graduating from airforce academy or are they reequired to log in some hours in Mig-21,mirage,Mig-29.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To SUBIR: 1) That makes it even worse. The mission computer uses Intel 486 processors. 2) No changes. 3) Once an aircraft’s design is frozen, there can be no changes to even the smallest component. 4) Of course it has done. But what happens when the OEM (BEL) can’t comply with the ASQRs? 5) That’s true, since the Tarang functions sub-optimally, as was revealed in an IAF presentation at Aero India 2013. 6) JF-17 comes powered by higher-thrust RD-93 turbofans with superior acceleration. 7) Totally false.

To ABHIJIT: 1) Sea Hake heavyweight torpedoes & SM-39 Exocet ASCMs. 2) MSMC was developed for CQB & will therefore be more useful for CAPFs & State Police SWAT teams. 3) Nothing more than what I had highlighted in 2011. 4) It will be hypersonic & its prototype development has already begun. 5) Barak-2 is more than enough for such supersonic ASMs. 6) It has already been developed for the P-15A DDGs & will also be on the P-15B DDGs & P-17A FFGs. 7) ASCMs, torpedoes & depth-charges. 8) It can use such kits, but they’ve not been ordered. 9) Such data-linking already exists with LINK-2. 10) Within 6 months after June 17. 11) All documentation regarding Maitri SR-SAM co-development is ready for signature. Data patterns commenced work on the Ashwin radar a year ago.

To DEFENSE&AEROPSPACE: Spike is an ATGM family, whereas the Javelin isn’t. The latter is more like the mini-Spike & has been ordered in far larger numbers than the mini-Spike & therefore, by applying economies of scale, per-unit cost of Javelin is much lower. In addition, the Javelin will be ordered under an FMS scheme-controlled contract, meaning no hanky-panky, no middlemen, no commissions, etc.

To GOURAV: VMT. It is both laughable & most regrettable at the same time, given the opportunities India has wasted since 2008 to turn the economy around & continues to do so. Top give just one example, just look at the sheer comatose attitude when it comes to the commercial exploitation of the huge offshore hydrocarbon reserves that are still waiting to be tapped along the Andaman & Nicobar Islands!

To Anon@9.42PM: 1) Making such major airframe modifications will push the R & D deadline by at least a further three years. 2) Everything depends on whether or not the Tejas Mk2’s airframe design will be able to optimally exploit the higher thrust-levels offered by the F414 turbofan. Interestingly, ADA has yet to publicly display any illustration of the redesigned air-intakes of Tejas Mk2. 3) There’s a heaven-and-earth difference in terms of R & D capacities between what Saab can do & has done & what ADA/HAL can do & has done so far. 4 & 5) Totally erroneous report, to say the very least. 6) Refer to Point 2 above. 7) It can, but who will pay for the enormous R & D costs associated with such integration work, since Pirate hasn’t yet been integrated with any member of the Vixen AESA-MMR family?

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To TEJAS: 1) Tarang Mk3 is ostensibly meant for the Super Su-30MKI project. Do you know how big a deal it is to train the human resources reqd for licence-building the Rafale? Not just for HAL, but for all its sub-contractors as well? Where in India are such highly skilled human resources available? Even for running the private-sector airlines of India, almost all the CEOs are foreigners. Employing foreign personnel at HAL’s final-assembly line will only serve to further increase the HAL-built Rafale’s per-unit cost. During bad weather in any case, fixed-wing aircraft are not used for close air support, only attack helicopters are. Assembling the first prototype of any aircraft isn’t a small matter as you seem to think. That’s why I already explained above what exactly are the intricacies & challenges ahead & how long it will take to meet these challenges. And no matter how voracious and pro-active Dr Avinash Chander may be, he too cannot change or manipulate the laws of physics, as I’ve clearly explained above. We’re not dealing with Playstations & Xbox here, for God’s sake!

To Anon@1.10AM: Why should MOFTU send pilots to Su-30MKI squadrons? As the term suggests, MOFTU is MiG-specific & that too MiG-21-specific. Even pilots for MiG-29s nowadays come from IAF Flying Training Academy after graduating from Hawk Mk132 AJTs.

Bhaswar said...

Prasun Sir,

1) You had mentioned something about certain issues arising with the Kolkta Class Destroyers? Any update on that? When can we expect the other two ships in the class to be commissioned? And when can we hope to see the Barak-2 validated in a ship board test?

2) IF the Sudhashan is being developed into a family of LBG/PGMs then-

a) When can we hope to see them in service?

b) Can we expect the addition of range extension kits. GPS receiver and INS to make it an all weather system? Perhaps even add a semi-active laser homing system for using it against moving targets. Are such options on the cards, are we capable of realizing them IF we decide to?

3) When can we see the commissioning of the Kamorta ASW ships?

4) We're still waiting for the air launched Brahmos version? Still waiting for tests of the the Astra from the MKI?

5) If the IA TCS will only come about in 2016 then how much longer will we have to wait for the BMS?

6) What do you think of Ajai Shukla's article which states that the project for the replacement of the Avros is structured in a way which will lead to assured failure by the Indian Private sector?

7) Wasn't the Arihant reactor supposed to go critical by now? What's the deadline on that?

Thank you for your answers and time sir.

rad said...

hi prasun
An aerodynamic question, why is the later astra missile sporting such large mid body wings when all contemporary missile ie amraam,sd-10, have small mid body wing, obviously they has been a trade of , though on the outset it points out to more lift, sacrificing drag and less range. please explain.
The US could not intercept ma-31 target russian anti shipping missiles that skimmed at 2.8 mach above the sea level, and there is no data to prove that it has been done later as well, so being the case it would be impossible to intercept the bramhos missile . Has it been demonstrated that missiles like the barak or any other missile can do that .
you have rightly pointed out the massive tech and advanced human skill to manufacture the rafale it will surely end up 50 % more costlier .It will ultimately cost more than a f-35 . Nobody gives a thought to it .It will be like a trying to teach a rural student who has learnt his subjects in his local language sit in a senior cambridge school exams! we know what the results would be , much alike the populist policy of RTE of the NDA gov.I really wonder why nobody passes a bill of" RIGHT TO CORRUPT FREE GOVERNMENT"

Subir said...

19.Pls ask dassault rafale stall guys the following.
a.Which variant of M88 will IAF Rafales have ?TCO or uprated ECO?
b.Whats the status of contract negotiations.It seems to go on for eternity
c.Is RBEAA having similar no of TR elements as APG-79 , E-Captor?
d.Whats the detection range against a standard 5 sq m target?
e.Does DDM-NG maws povide 360 dgree missile warning coverage like DASS?
f.What is the status of 32000 lb M88 variant?
g.Is active cancellation present in Spectra?
h.Is RBEAA having LPI air to air,SAR,ISTAR over GMTI and GMTI&T modes like APG-79?
i.Whats the improvemnet in detection,tyracking and id range of FSO-IT over FSO.
g.And if contract is igned by October when can first deliveries expected to begin.
h.Is it possible to increase TR power rating at customer's request?UAE asked for a more powerful radar with a larger range.The TR peak powerhad to be increased and it was amojor hurdle in negotiations. dassault planning to introduce a bigger nosed Rafale?
In all total pls let us know about the latest stuff on rafale

If I could have gone to Paris i could have asked them myself.i will obviously visit The Dassault stall in aero india '15.

19.The past Astra control and lifting surfaces were much better than the current one.the current one creates lots of drag. After proceeding with so many launches and captive flight trials the missile had to be redesigned is very mysterious. The past missile was very similar to R-77.Could it be that Astra was violating the IPR of R-77 and Russia asked MOd to change the missile design.

Thanx in advance.

Subir said...

Sir, VMT again for answering.

1.Does tarang mk2 cant even pick out and warn the aircrew of hostile mmr in PAF,PLAAF acs,sam networks,IADS radars from appreciable distances?

2.Can Tarang mk2 pick out PL-9,SD-10 , other Chinese active and semi-active radar seekers,AIM-120?

3.This sort of thing is criminal negligience. Our Su-30mki doesnt possess any mwas and now the rwr is of substandard quality. How the hell are going to survive in a BVR duel if they wont dont have advance warning. AWACS will provide info of a n incoming missile.

4.Whats the earliest possible thing that IAF can do to rectify this problem that it has highlighted in aero inida 2013 .Arent airforce officers worried about this ?Afterall Su-30 are the crema de la crema of IAF.

5.Can a new Russian origin rwr be fitted across the fleet of su-30 on an emergency basis like how cmd was fitted on all MiG-27m,mig-23bn after Kargil war.

6.CAG reported about faults in Tarang rwrs from BEL.I heard that they faulty units were subsequently repaired and they are now functioning at an optimum level.

7.Sorry to be talking about Tarang but it is utterly depressing to see a frontline fighter of a respectable airforce with so many 4++ gen fighters having shitty rwr installed in them.I fear in any future contigency when ourSu-30 comes in contact with PLAAF Su-30MKK,J-11 or even PAF F-16C they will just get fall out of sky and then IAF HQ will truely understand the great benefits emanating from providing BEL with business

8.Is Brahmos batteries already deployed in A&N triservice command ?

9.Is there appreciable air cover for them from Spyder and other MRSAM ?

10.Is it true that Ka-27 of IN can carry upto 3 Kh-35 for ASW?

11.Whats the difference between MM-38 and MM-39 Exocets?

12,.What will be the range of MM-39 Exocets.there are various subblocks of MM39,40 having range from 70 to 180 km. Which is gonna be it for our Scorpenes?

13.I am very curious about one thing and i have googled it but didnt find anything appreciable. How can a submerged sub provide targetting information for a ashm and provide it with mid-course updates?

14.How many Exocets Rafale can carry ?

15.Rafale can carry 2 Kepd 350 in the inner hardpoints of its wings and one in the centreline pylon.Whereare the other two Kepd carried ?

16.Just after an AN-32 crash in NE in 2009,IAF signed a 400 miliion package with Antonov for AN-32 TTSL expansion and upgradation. The 2009 event was a CFT due to poor visibilty due to fog. Does the AN-32RE upgrade include a terrain avoidance radar or other similar deviceso that AN-32RE can fly in and out of ALG safely even under white-out conditions and so that such crashes dont take place in the future?

17.The truth is finally emerging.Ultimately desi media is reporting BMD phase 1 is READY for deployment and can be deployed in Delhi provided GOI issues the directives. You were spot on.

18.Paris international airshow is from next day.I know u are on your way there.Pls gather the latest info on Rafale.

DefenseandAerospace said...

Prasun ,

The Arjun MK 3 as & when it comes out will at best , be an equivalent to the Abrams M1A2 which the US will replace with the M1A3 by the time Arjun MK3 comes out .

Therefore, does it not make more sense for India to purchase the M1A2 off the shelf from the US instead of wasting billions in developing the Arjun Mk 3 which in any case will be surpassed by most other western tanks by the time it makes it's debut ?

Anonymous said...

now Tejas would be a synonym of failure .

Mr. Ra 13 said...

Anyhow your joke on DRDO and PMO robotics was a masterpiece.

Mr. Ra 13 said...

Can we say that for our requirements the Tejas Mk2 is almost as good as the Gripen or not.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To BHASWAR: 1) A new class of warship hosting an entirely new range of sensors, weapon systems & on-board electrical systems is bound to be beset several teething problems, all of which have to be tweaked & fine-tuned & therefore there’s nothing surprising or negative about it. Barak-2 validation will take place only in the first half of next year. 2) Sudarshan LGB kits will enter service at best only after another two years. LGBs don’t require GPS or INS kits. Rocket-powered kit for the basic glide-bomb version are under development. 3) Project 28 ASW corvette’s commissioning has been delayed due to Kirloskar’s inability to supply indigenous gearboxes. Consequently, RENK’s gearboxes are now being imported for fitment. 4) Air-launched BrahMos-1A’s flight-tests will commence only next year at best. Same with Astra Mk1 BVRAAM. 5) Waiting period for both TCS & BMS is the same. 6) Nothing new at all, since I was the first one to state it & explain the reasons behind it as well. Thus, the ‘desi’ journalists who don’t seem to understand the workings of international aerospace businesses almost everytime take too long to activate their brain-cells. To put it simply, I’ve to date eaten more salt than all the rice these ‘desi’ journalists have consumed so far & therefore it is far more easier for folks like me to see the writing on the wall. 7) It has already achieved criticality & harbour acceptance trials have already commenced at Vizag.

To RAD: That’s simple. Obviously the Astra Mk1’s nozzles are not of the thrust-vectoring type & consequently larger control fins are reqd for agility. Smaller supersonic ASMs like Kh-31A are best intercepted by on-board tactical lasers & that’s what the US Navy has done. However, for heavier & bigger supersonic ASMs like Raduga Kh-41, Yakhont & BrahMos, the Barak-2 is the optimum solution. Regarding your proposal on ‘Right to Corruption-Free Govt, in my reckoning it ought to be ‘Right to A Govt that Rules by Common-Sense’.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To SUBIR: All those questions were already asked during Aero India 2013. A) IAF Rafales will have the same turbofans that the French Air Force is now using & which are now in production. B) No contract will be inked this year for as long as the Rupee keeps sliding against the US$. C) Already told you several times that NO OEM reveals such data for public consumption. D) Already told you several times that NO OEM reveals such data for public consumption. E) Of course. F) Under development. G) No. H) Yes. I) Already stated several times that NO OEM reveals such data for public consumption. G) It will never happen. J) No contract will be inked this year for as long as the Rupee keeps sliding against the US$. It is always possible. 1) It can in a sub-optimal manner. 2) It can in a sub-optimal manner. 4) Await the commencement of Super Sukhoi upgrade programme. 5) Retrofits for internal fitment are totally different than those for external fitment. It’s not like going to a workshop for getting a new oil-filter for cars. 6) Totally wrong. 8) Not. 9) No. 10) Nobody in India operates Ka-27s. 11) What’s MM-39 Exocet? 12) Scorpenes will have SM-39. 13) It can’t. 14) As many as a customer wants. 15) Check out photos of Rafale carrying Scalp ALCMs. 16) No such avionics is on board An-32RE. These aircraft fly to & fro ALGs only in clear weather conditions. 18) I’m not going this time.

To DEFENSE&AEROSPACE: Not at all, since the industrial eco-system for Arjun family of MBTs is already in existence & continues to grow. Consequently, importing any other type of main battle tank will be downright expensive to maintain & support. Furthermore, Arjun Mk1A, Mk2 & Mk3 FMBT will all incorporate several India-specific vectronics that are not available on any other MBT of foreign origin. That’s why it was downright criminal on the NDA govt’s part to import T-90S medium tanks & also undertake their licenced-production. For instance, at nighttime, hows will one distinguish the silhouette of the T-90S from those of the T-80UD, Type 85IIAP & Al Khalid medium tanks of the Pakistan Army? Just think about it.

To DASHU: What makes you say that? I’ve already explained that the tandem-seat version of Tejas Mk1 has a very bright future for both the IAF & IN, PROVIDED my unsolicited suggestion is accepted as a commonsensical option.

To Mr.RA 13: VMT. Of course the projected Tejas Mk2 will be the optimum MRCA solution for the IAF, PROVIDED the remaining foreign-origin LRUs are indigenised, the COCKPIT-NG solution is implemented, the Vixen 850 AESA-MMR/Skyward IRST combination is ordered, actiated aerial refuelling probe is installed, & the air-intake design is optimised for the F414 turbofan. All this is indeed doable by 2018.

SK said...

"For instance, at nighttime, hows will one distinguish the silhouette of the T-90S from those of the T-80UD, Type 85IIAP & Al Khalid medium tanks of the Pakistan Army? Just think about it."

Don't tanks carry ground version of IFF Transponders. A simple solution to avoid friendly fire incidents. With transponders friendly forces location will be known from a long distance. If the T-90S at present do not carry such equipment then they can get them retrofitted. I agree that NDA decision to go for T-90 instead of Arjun MBT is downright bunder but the above mentioned reason by you doesn't carry much weight.

Subir said...

1.U have said many a times that IAF Rafales will have uprated 20000 lb M88. Just check out the comeents portion of your 2012 thread.

2.Ka-28 can also carry Kh-35.

3.How will Scorpene provide targetting data to the fired Exocet ?

4.Whats the range of SM-39 Exocet ?

5.U said IAF had specified hgher thrust m88 for all of its Rafales.

6.When will Arihant go for sea trials ?

Anonymous said...

dear prasun da,
vmt thanks for insighful comments. If india having large reserves of hydrocarbons then what our current oilman said is true. Oil importing lobby putting pressure for not importing oil. What to do sir?
Also i was surfing came to this aricle... Its very comedy article from our desi journo... But just for checking is it contains grain of truth?
Also what is folding fin rocket?


Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To SK: No, MBTs generally don’t carry IFF, unless an operator specifies it, like the IA has. The downside is that any IFF emission will give one’s position away. Hence it is far more desirable to use passive optronic means for target discrimination, meaning the optronic sights must have bloody good visual & IR profiling capabilities, something that the IA has learnt rather painfully.

To SUBIR: 1) Yes I did say that, but in what kind of timeframe? Immediately from Day 1 or in the course of its TTSL? 2) No Ka-28 has ever been certified to fire any ASCM. 3) That can be done through submarine-mounted search radars. 4) Google it. 5) Yes I did say that, but in what kind of timeframe? Immediately from Day 1 or in the course of its TTSL? 6) After completion of HAT.

To Gourav: Which article is that?

Bhaswar said...

Thank you for your patience sir,

1) Sir but systems like the AASM Hammer do incorporate GPS, INS and semi-active laser homing? So why not the Sudharshan family?

2) Sir, this may be an odd question- back in 2011 I believe our NSG waiver was almost rolled-back due to new rules which would have again imposed technology restrictions on completely slipped my mind..what was the final conclusion?

3) Is there any chance that the MOD will see reason and decide to develop the AMCA as only a naval fighter rather than saddling the IAF with my amateur opinion I think the IN would be the real beneficiary of any such project.

4) Has the decision to not make the 2nd carrier a nuclear powered one already been finalized or is there still room for course correction?

RaviN said...

You are shooting questions like a terrorist who shoots using an AK-47 with an intention to mayhem people. Most of your questions have been discussed previously by this blogger. If not, please do some research. Just check how many questions you have been asked in the last two threads. As a reader to this blog, I find it is really annoying because some of the questions have already been discussed.
Mr. Sengupta will not say anything because he has being nice to many of the readers. But I can see your questions have become a kind of nuisance to him (boring to me), by looking at his answers to your questions. You said "Pardon me Prasun sir if i ask too many ques.Next time i will limit my questions." Then again you are shooting questions. You are making yourself a fool.

Of course everybody learns from others' questions. But do not use the habit of shooting 20 questions every time to create difficulties to others. Ask questions that are worth pursing, preferably related to the thread, technical details, etc.

I like your enthusiasm and interest in defense related topics. If you are really interested in defense related, use your enthusiasm to educate yourself by understanding the science and technology behind the machines. You will gain a lot. And thus one day you can become another defense blogger answering readers questions just like Mr. Sengupta does. Otherwise you will become like a desi defense reporter, who knows only to write in English, but have no scientific and technological know-how of the defense machines and parts.

Somewhere in his blog, Mr. Sengupta mentioned he could answer the questions from the readers because of the knowledge he gained in the last 2 decades or more. Gaining knowledge is not easy, but shooting irrelevant questions are easy. Respect others time.

Take this as a constructive criticism for your well-being. Good Luck!

Subir said...

Ok Ravi. But i havent been asking the same ques thrice or twice.

Subir said...

@Ravi. Well said. But remember this i have no intention of creating mayhem for others. And i try to educate myself in these matters. And Prasun sir has not much time to ans technical queries.

Anonymous said...

Hi Prasun, check this out -

IA has completed trials of 2 types f trucks to replace vast majorities of Tatras in IA service. One 6x6 type and one 8x8 type.

Any light on what these vehicles are? I presume Tata LPTA-series and Ashok Leyland Super Stallion, am I right?

Which of those 2 companies' trucks is better in your opinion?

Anonymous said...

Prasun da,

Mr. A Sivathanu Pillai (scientist, and CEO and MD of BrahMos Aerospace) has claimed BrahMos (don't know which version) missile can't be intercepted for next 20 years. Is it true or just an empty claim (a propaganda as usual shoot time to time).

Your comments have credibility.

Anonymous said...

Dear prasun da,
sorry for talking about a link and not posting it. Here is the link.
also plz tell what is folding fin rocket called hydra?
Us making those missiles guided one. Are they of any use in india. For rudra etc?

Anonymous said...

To subir
1.why dont u limit ur questions to 2-3 per time. That way it will be easy for other readers and for prasud da to shift through ur pile of questions.
2. Make google ur friend.
3. This is very rare interactive kind of blog. Plz dont abuse it. Have some patience. Prasun da must be devoting his personal time for this blog... Plz respect that.

Tejas said...

Sir, Livefist once showed a photo of Tejas mk2 intakes. they are very similar to that of mk1. But a little bigger. It would have been nice if wedge shaped intakes would have been adopted and GE,Boeing asked to design such an intake.

Can Mica ir,em be cleared on Tejas mk1 within 2014? Are there any such plans ? MICA IR is the first aam whose IIR seeker can be used as an air -air IRST. 2 mica ir on the 1 and 8 hardpoints can serve as good irsts.

Are there plans for installing pylon mounted Cassidian maws ? Its a drop fit solution and will not require major flight testing. Mica IR and maws will enhance the capabilties of tejas mk1 and take it to an entire new level.

Isnt Tejas mk1 a noth below Gripen and mk2 will be a notch below NG. Gripen with 6800 kg empty weight is able to carry 5300kgs of missiles and ordnace. It has similar dimensions,it has a greater internal fuel load giving it a better range of action and its Volvo aerojet produces similar thrusts as F404. Gripen is having a much better glass cockpit. JF-17 designers closely emulated this.

There were rumours of Saturn Lyuka AL-31FP with greater TTSL,thrust,3D TVC being available for super sukhoi from 2014 onwards. Was this the reason of super 30 prototype rollout in 2014?
Is the TsNIRTI developed expendable rf decoys still schduled to go on super su30?

How does HAL plan to spend its 27000 crore guranteed revenue?On tech demonstartors like HTT-40 which IAF is not very interested.

Indian IL-76 has life left in them. Still will IAF phase them out with gradual induction of C-17?

Subir said...

Sir, lots of lots of thanx for answering.

1.DDM NG apertures are mounted high up on both sides of tail fin.How can it provide 360 degree coverage ?There is blind spot underneath the ac and ddm will be uable to track those missiles approaching the ac from below in the frontal hemisphere.Its another blindspot.

2.In the previous Navy day, CONS said that there was good news regarding Arihant? What was that ? The pec attaining critical stage ?

3.The surface search radars onboard any submarine has a small antenna, small emitted power . How can it search for ships at a distance greater than 100 km ?

4.How can Scorpene utilise the full range of SM-39 Exocet if its serach radar cant detect targets at < 100 km. All the times Ka-31 wont be available for over the horizon targetting and for providing midcourse updates.

5.Who manufactures minute components like receivers,transmitters,exciters... and who fabricates the complete radar system which are built in India under license from Elta?

6.HELA systems can be awarded the contract for manufacturing Trang mk2 and mk3 rwrs.Atleast then IAF will get a good end product.

7.What are the assurances that BEL can produce top grade AESA radars like EL/M-2084 when it cant meet all the ASQR of Tarang mk3?

8. If u open this site you will find a flash plugin of a Rheinmetall AD 35mm cannon mounted on a high mobilty 8X8 truck. Does this indicate that these cannons are in service ?

9.Will GE F414-IN-56 incorporate the core of F414 EPE?

10.Gripen NG was able to supercruise at M1.2 with F414G. So,there are great chances of Tejas mk2 supercruisng ??

11.What can RBI do to check the downfall of rupee against $?When do you think value of money will again go up?

12.Why cant HAL,ADA ask GE , Boeing to design the wedge shaped intakes for mk2? Another case of short-sightedness ?

DefenseandAerospace said...

Prasun ,

The "industrial eco system " for the Arjun series of tanks exists primarily because a large portion of the inputs are imported . Israeli fire control systems , Swedish Camouflage System , German engine to name just 3 . You know,I know the DRDO knows a dick about any of these technologies but still suggest that it is a collaboration to justify their billion dollar budget . Or else why would an organization start a MK 2 or MK3 project even before the MK 1A has been developed . The norm around the world is that a MK 2 is an improvement over the MK 3 , a MK 4 is an improvement over the MK 4 , so on & so forth . So when the DRDO already has the design & expertise for a MK3 (FMBT) why are they still trying to develop a MK1A or MK2 ?

The Arjun project is going the same way as the LCA project . DRDO says there is a LCA MK2 but till date even the LCA MK1 has not gone into production .

The systems that the DRDO is touting for the Arjun MKII & MKIII are basically legacy system compared to the Abram MK3 . In other words when the US will get a state of the art MBT the DRDO will ( if at all) roll out a legacy MK3.Even the Abram MK2 will win a war against the Arjun FMBT anyday , hands down .

RaviN said...

Anon @8:02 PM.
This guy Subir does not want to listen anyone. He again posted same set of questions. I have a feeling that he is a disgruntled, frustrated, dump, moron yellow journalist who wants to waste Prasun Sengupta's time. If Subir guy has some culture left then he will stop asking these many number of questions. Useless guy!

Sayan said...

Sir, India-made trucks may push Tatra out. Seems army will soon order 1500+ Tata high mobilty trucks. Are these meant for blk3 tels and Swathi blr?
What happened to the tatra contract with beml

What will be the fate of 24 Il-76 once C-17s start arriving.
Prasun sir you have said prviously the latest series of pakistan army exercises were the same as practised a decade ago. But why is the Pakistan press so gungho about this exercise?Why r they branding it as their response to cold start? Gen Kayani is also telling the same. Are these medias tpakis's desi yellow media?

Isnt Dr Pillai claiming too much when he said Brahmos cant be intercepted for the next twenty years !

Poor Subir, next time cut down some of ur ques.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To BHASWAR: 1) The AASM is modular, i.e. different PGMs of different payloads—all of which also come with three detachable terminal guidance options, i.e. GPS-guided, TV-guided & laser-guided. The Sudarshan LGB kit is totally different, i.e. three types of gravity glide-bombs all using the very same laser seeker. A detachable rocket booster for the 1,000lb LGB is now under development. 2) There was no roll-back & that’s why India’s existing PHWRs are all functioning at optimum levels, since imported uranium fuel-stocks are now freely available. 3) I see no logical explanation for developing the AMCA at all. And the IAF agrees with me when he recently stated that: “homegrown” projects shall be continued, especially in the area of mission equipment and fighter engines, since “nobody will give us these technologies.” Mind you, he didn’t say a word about developing new-design airframes & their related accessories. 4) IAC-2 will have to be nuclear-powered, no doubt about that any more.

To Anon@4.23PM: VMT for highlighting this news-report, which again is a classic form of yellow journalism being practiced by the ‘desi’ journalists, since such reports always fail to contextualize, even when such data is freely available from expos like DEFEXPO 2012. The reality is that all weapon systems already qualified on the BEML-TATRA TEL will continue using the BEML-TATRA trucks, while those systems that have yet to be form-fitted on TELs will go for alternative TELs from TATA or Ashok Leyland. These include the Barak-8 LR-SAM for the IAF & its EL/M-2258 active phased-array volume search radar, Maitri SR-SAM, Pinaka-2 MBRL & upgraded 122mm GRAD MBRL, plus tens of thousands of water-tankers, mobile field-kitchens, fuel bowsers, field repair workshops for various types of hardware, land-mobile commnunications & EW systems, etc, etc.

To Anon@5.24PM: In case he was referring to the supersonic BrahMos-1, then where’s the need for developing the hypersonic BrahMos-2 for the next 20 years? The fact remains that kinematic systems like Barak-2, Aster-15/30 & SM-2/3 are now available for intercepting supersonic ASCMs, while directed-energy weapons like Raytheon’s Tactical High-Energy Laser (THEL) are already being tested on some US Navy warships. Therefore, in terms of ASCM defence against subsonic or supersonic or hypersonic ASCMs or even LACMs, directed-energy weapons like tactical lasers will become operational over the next five years at the very least. Do read this as well:

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To GOURAV: Firstly, I’m sure you will agree that the discredited authors of such useless reports tend to reveal their true colours whenever they tend to make use of terms like ‘Brahmastra’—a weapon system that was so destructive that it was never even meant to be used. Secondly, no one in the world is developing such ASBMs. Instead, the focus still remains on developing either precision-guided subsonic or supersonic ASCMs that can be salvo-launched (the so-called swarm-attack) against a CBG. The PLA Navy itself has developed the turbojet-powered WJ-600 UCAV that will be swarm-launched against a CBG (up to 36 at a time), while the Russians believe that a swarm of 24 Raduga Kh-41 Zubr or 3M-80 Moskit supersonic ASCMs launched simultaneously is more than enough to overwhelm the inner-defences of a US Navy CBG.
Folding-fin rocket means a rocket encased within a cannister with fins folded inside & once fired, the fins open up after exiting the cannister. The Nag too is a folding-fin missile, as is the BrahMos & Shaurya. Hydra is the old 70mm unguided rocket. Its latest version is the Dagr from Lockheed Martin which is laser-guided. Similar rockets are available from BAE Systems & France’s FZ & even Turkey is co-developing such a rocket with China. Such rockets will be force-multipliers when used by attack helicopters or even helicopter-gunships.

To TEJAS: Air-intakes of Tejas Mk2 will be larger than those on the Tejas Mk1, but will retain the same type of aerodynamic shaping. The original air-intake design for the Tejas Mk1 prepared by GE Aero Engines had a box-like structure similar to what exists on the JAS-39 Gripen today. Boeing or any other aircraft OEM won’t be interested in helping out ADA. R-73E & Python-5 are the only two WVRAAMs selected for Tejas Mk1 & MICA-IR has no chance now. MAWS or MSWS is never a drop-fit solution & it requires major rewiring so that it is connected with the EW management computer & mission computer & therefore there’s no chance of MAWS going on board the Tejas Mk1. Tejas Mk2 will be comparable to Gripen NG ONLY if the modifications I had highlighted above yesterday are implemented by 2016. Saturn Lyuka AL-31FP with greater TTSL/thrust but with 2-D TVC is due to make its debut next year for the Super Su-30MKI. Expendable decoys too are meant for Super Su-30MKI but they can also be retrofitted on to non-Russian combat aircraft as well. HAL will definitely have to come up with Greenfield industrial facilities for building both the FGFA & the IL-214 MRTA.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To SUBIR: 1) So what? Which IR-guided AAM or SAM ever attacks its target from the front or vertically from below? 2) It was about the PWR going critical. 3) Why should it search for targets beyond the horizon? 4) What’s the SM-39’s max range? 5) Which radars of ELTA are being licence-built? 7) None. 8) No, it was just a technology demonstrator. 9) Yes. 10) That’s totally wrong. 11) Ask the RBI. 12) Boeing or any other aircraft OEM won’t be interested in helping out ADA in such matters.

To DEFENSE&AEROSPACE: Mk1 version of Arjun was ready for fielding by 2004 itself, while Mk1A version was ready by 2012. Mk2 version’s R & D is still on-going, while the Mk3 FMBT is yet to be formally born. Any product takes a long time to mature & the Arjun MBT is no exception. Just looks how long it took Russia to mature from the T-90S to the T-90AM. The Arjun MBT will mature once its Mk2 version surfaces with a 1,500hp powerpack, autoloader, all-digital vectronics suite, etc. Things would have moved far more faster for both the Tejas MRCA & Arjun MBT had the MoD played the role that it is supposed to do. If those institutions responsible for R & D goal-setting fail to deliver, then R & D agencies like ADA or CVRDE and OEMs like HAL or HVF cannot be blamed, can they? The problems & challenges for military-industrial R & D in India are structural & systemic in nature.


Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To SAYAN: The reality is that all weapon systems already qualified on the BEML-TATRA TEL will continue using the BEML-TATRA trucks, while those systems that have yet to be form-fitted on TELs will go for alternative TELs from TATA or Ashok Leyland. These include the Barak-8 LR-SAM for the IAF & its EL/M-2258 active phased-array volume search radar, Maitri SR-SAM, Pinaka-2 MBRL & upgraded 122mm GRAD MBRL, plus tens of thousands of water-tankers, mobile field-kitchens, fuel bowsers, field repair workshops for various types of hardware, land-mobile commnunications & EW systems, etc, etc.

Regarding EX Azm-e-Nau-4, suffice to say this: Pakistan Railways presently has 465 engines, out of which 325 are non-operational and have become heaps of garbage. Does anyone then expect the Pakistan Army to mobilise rapidly against either the eastern or western front? And if at all the Pakistan Army has TNWs then where’s the need to respond conventionally to any potential offensives of the Indian Army? Let’s get real here.

In case Dr A S Pillai was referring to the supersonic BrahMos-1, then where’s the need for developing the hypersonic BrahMos-2 for the next 20 years? The fact remains that kinematic systems like Barak-2, Aster-15/30 & SM-2/3 are now available for intercepting supersonic ASCMs, while directed-energy weapons like Raytheon’s Tactical High-Energy Laser (THEL) are already being tested on some US Navy warships. Therefore, in terms of ASCM defence against subsonic or supersonic or hypersonic ASCMs or even LACMs, directed-energy weapons like tactical lasers will become operational over the next five years at the very least.

Subir said...

Sir, lots of thanx.

1.Dear RaviM,wishing you the vry best of luck in all ur endeavours.And pls know this i am not a yello journalist. I am a btech student.

2.When an incoming hostile ac fires at a fighter ac from the head on direction. When rafale will try to penetrate an IADS field or network,The rafale will be coming perpendicular to the iads sam engagement envelope. At that time any sam fired will approach the aircaft from beath in forward direction.

3.If all aspect 360 degree maws wasnt required why is Typhoon, F-35.RMAF Su30mkm having 360 degree systems.

4.SM-39 has a max range of just 50 km.Got it from mbda. It solves the problem then.

5.Then whats the purpose of such missiles ? If Scorpene comes within 50 km of any FFG or DDG then the onboard ASW helicopter will torpedo it to oblivion.

6.Isnt BEL license buiding EL/M-2084 aesa MPR under the name Arudhra?

7.Can you expalin the logic behind not adopting wedge shaped intakes when GE aeroengines had already provided it on a silver platter to ADA?

8. Check powerplant portion. It says F414 allows Gripen to supercruise at Mach 1.1 .

9.What is OFB there for ? Its tank ammos explode prematurely in the barrel,its INSAS rifles often misfire,the magazines develope cracks in low temperatures.its INSAS LMG jams too often is not very reliable,its optronic factories cant produce decent optics,NVGs,HHTI,its howitzer rounds are also faulty and cant perform at 100% level.

10.can the extra su-30 be procured this fiscal if not this year ?

11.Can you say more about Upgraded Grad 122? Whats its range ?

12.Doesnt IA has nly 150 Grads ?

13.Will the MIRES aesa be available from 2014 ?

14.In one of my previous comments u answered that facilties are coming up at HAL Ozar for MRO of su30. The per annum rate will be 12. Will the upgradation rate also be 12 ?

15.If our desi defense media is yellow , those of Pakistan's are deep deep yellow. And their Army senior officers are very polished and experienced bluffers.

16.The question i ask u sir, i couldnt get them anywhere in net. All defesne blogs are full of shit. Wikipedia is not to be much trusted. I try to dig out as much as possible. Nly when i am unable to do i ask you. VMT for answering inspite of Ravi's sayings.

17.Have u stopped going to expos and instead r u sending over your subordinates. Your defnse expo coverage is the best o ahve ever seen. no cheap publicity.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To SUBIR: 2 & 3) No inbound BVRAAM or SAM comes head-on just like the crow flies. Furthermore, any inbound SAM of that type will always have a long flume-trail. That’s why such missiles never gome in head-on, but make use of proportional navigation techniques. That’s why 360-degree MAWS coverage is not reqd for fixed-wing combat aircraft, but only for helicopters. 5) And how will any warship or ASW helicopter know if there’s a lurking SSK 50km away? 6) BEL is not touching any radar like that even with a barge-pole. Does this radar’s name/model no figure anywhere in BEL’s on-line products listing? 7) There were several terribly ill-informed smartarses within ADA at that time in the late 1980s—that’s the only explanation. 8) Reserve your judgements on this topic till the conclusion of the Gripen NG’s flight certification. 10) Those ordered two years ago will be delivered this year. 11) More than 25km. 13) Yes. 14) Yes.

Subir said...

Sir, VMT.

1.I am now trying to understand proportional navigation.If that is the case and it indeed is why is Typhoon having a 360 degree mawcoverage using small radars and why is F-35 having 6 apertures distributed all over the airframe ?

2.Can FSO detect and track amm and sam launches ? OLS-30 can track aam launches.

3. All DDG and FFG have active medium and low frequency sonars.They all have huge range greater than perhaps 100 km.They continuously acxtively search the waters around the ship.

3.nowadays all DDG and FFG are being fitted with ultra low frequency TAS.They have even more range. plus theres the onboard ASW helicopter.

4.But which agency in India is responsible for license assembling,building the rest of Arudhras and Thales Raytheon GS-100 radars?

5.Hindustan Aeronautics Sets Five-Year Goal for Fighter, Trainer Production from AIN ONLINE reports the jaguar Darin 3 which flew in November of last year was a maritime variant.Thats why it had a radar. You have told that around 120 Jaguar IS will get EL/M=2032 radars. I pray that such a wonderful thing happens. The 1st IS will fly in July.

6.You were spot on regarding jaguar is darin 3 upgarde.It was you who had nly said that flight testing will occur ofr another 18 months.Thats consistenet with 2014-2015 service induction.

7.You ahve prviously said that PLA's Su-27SK have reached the end of their TTSLs and needs to be decommisoned. But just like we have extended the TTSL of mig21,jaguar why cant the PLAAF do the same.

8.Why does IA need to call for RFPs for BP jackets. TAML produces composites light weight jacket which according to them can stopn ak-47,slr and even dragunov rounds.

9.Can u tell about the status of NVG and rifkle mounted night vison kits for army ? Last heard tata SED has teamed up with a German company to provide the Armt=y with gen 4 NVG which are gens ahead of what the BEL or OFB can deliver.

VMT in advance.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To SUBIR: 1) 360-degree coverage does not mean full hemispheric coverage. 2) Detection, of course. No tracking as yet. 3) So, in your reckoning such sonars can detect targets up to 100km away??? You really are wasting valuable bandwidth & my time by making such remarks! Do engage in some fundamental research before making such laughable statements. 4) What makes you think the Arudhra radars are being licence-assembled in India? 7) Because Russia has stopped product-support for such aircraft after China began reverse-engineering them into the J-11A & J-11B & J-15. 8) Every procurement of hardware is done through competitive bidding. How would you feel if you had only 1 place to buy all your perishable commodities from? 9) Nothing new about such issues.

Subir said...

VMT sir.

ashok said...


Gaurav said...

Any idea who those lobbies could be?

Anonymous said...


Richard Armitage agrees with you, and he should know a thing or two?

DefenseandAerospace said...

Hi Prasun ,

(1) What are specific technical challenges that Unmanned Ground Vehicles manufacturers have to face in the US ?

(2) What are the key factors impacting supply and demand of Unmanned Ground Vehicles ?

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To ASHOK: As I had explained yesterday, the problems & challenges for both apex-level national security management & military-industrial R & D in India are structural & systemic in nature. Throughout the world, all self-respecting countries have a hierarchical decision-making process in which the armed forces play an integral role. If India wants to be the exception to this norm & wants to try in vain to swim against the tide, then she has been, is being & will be on the wrong side of history. The institutionalised post of a permanent CDS is imperative amidst the nuclear backdrop & no one can argue convincingly against it. The Cabinet Committee on National Security even during peacetime ought to meet with & discuss with the CDS at least once every 90 days at the very least. However, in India’s case, the Chairman of the Chiefs of Staff Committee gets to meet & brief the PMO face-to-face maybe only once every three years! At the same time, the Govt of India should come up with a documented, holistic & formal national security posture at least once every five years. That is the very least that any well-meaning democratic Govt ought to do if it stands in favour of serving India’s enlightened national security interests.

To GAURAV: There are several. The thermal power producers, for example, which want to continue using furnace oil instead of converting to LNG. Then there’s ONGC, which wants to sustain ONGC Videsh through risk-sharing stakes in on-shore oil blocks abroad just so that it is not asked to invest in deep-sea offshore drilling technologies.

To DEFENSE & AEROSPACE: They face no major technological challenges since they are at least four decades ahead of the rest of the world. For instance, do read this:

Mr. Ra 13 said...

Antigravity gets first test at Cern's Alpha experiment

Gravity itself may be basically formed out of a complex dimension and apparently appearing out as a mere space time relationship.

Abhishek Dhar said...

1]Sir we have seen reports of chinese buy su-35BM with irbis and new 3d TVC.Considering first rafales won't even be coming before late 2016,should we be worried about this development as it outclasses MKI.

2]Also there are reports that china is building 2 aircraft carriers to add to its current training one.Given that their carriers can carry more su-33s than our mig-29ks it seems 2-3 chinese CBGs protected by their new air defence destroyers forcing their way into the IOR around 2020 would be serious problem for us.
Because both of our carriers then would be seriously outnumbered in number of mig-29ks vis a vis the number of j-15/su-33 the chinese will field.

Vikram Guha said...

Prasun Da ,

It was reported (link below) that MoD has reissued a tender to buy 100 armored personnel carriers . The tender was send to :

General Dynamics in the US, Rosoboronexport of Russia, Ukrainexport of Ukraine, Poland’s Bumar, Finmec­canica of Italy, BAE Systems of the UK and Krauss-Maffei Wegmann of Germany.

Which APC according to you is ideal for the IA ?


Abhishek Dhar said...

Just a couple of more questions sir.

Is the pakistani/chinese a-100 MBRL better than smerch given its greater range?

How many mig-29 UPGs have been upgraded by now ?
When will the mirage and mig upgrade be completed.

What is the attack mode delivery package of the mi-17v that we are buying?


Tejas said...

Sir, What will be the prospects for Spice 250 in IAF ? is IAF HQ interested in this potent PGM. A low cost 100 km range PGM with terminal guidance.

Tejas can carry 16-20 such 113 kg PGMs. If integrated with Tejas it will become a potent strike platform. Spice 250 will be best for Su-30mki. With a 20 round payload Su-30mki can perform serach and destroy role of time critical targets like TELs of ballistic missiles,cruise missile,Nlos-bsm. Its also a potent air-base strike pgm.

Is any trd being evaluated for Tejs mk1?
Do u know anythinga bout MBDA LEA active radar decoy?it is now being developed for Rafale.

Mirage 2000 wont be having any IRST. But by carraige of Mica IR on 2 extreme hardpoints. Are any MBDA Spear 250lb pgms to be acquired for Rafale ?

Wont the uprated AL-31FP have a slightly bigger fan module for sucking in more air ? Unless the production contract with Ryazan state plant,NIIP is signed for Mires aesa deliveries for IAF super wot begin. Uptill now the contract hsnt been signed.

Regarding radar decoys for Super sukhoi, IAF had already zeroed in on cassidian Ariel mk3 TRD. Is the Russian TSNIIRT radar un towed decoys in addition to this ?

And is the green field assembly line for Rafale coming up ?

Anonymous said...

Hi Prasun,

Can you share the status of naval EOI/ tender for ASW shallow water crafts? Also, what are the plans to replace Veer class and Khukri class corvettes? Are Veer class boats relevant in any future war against PN, PLA navy?

Subir said...

Sir, Thanx .

1. Active sonars dont ahve much range. The most powerful and latest towed array sonars and hull mounted sonars can detect subs at max 30 km range. For corvettes it will be 10-15 kms. in fact alot depends on the power of the active sonar.If a powerful sonar emits a 10000 watt /m2 insenity sound beam it will reduce to 1 W/m2 at just 100 m ditance due to inverse square law. Even my estimates are muchg higher.So , with a 50 kmExocet Scorpenes will reamin well outside a FFG,DDG's detection range.

2.When a sub surafces to use its surface serach radar it will be detected by the ship borne volume search radar. no submarine radar exists which cen be deployed at periscope depth. Once detected the FFG or DDG will dispatch its ASW helicopter to the last known position of the sub. What will happen then ?

3. Even if the sub isnt detecetd with raadr, its own radar emissions will be detected with the ship ESM system and its position can be acertained to a certain degree.

4.I have watched a video of IN Il-38 launching a Kh-35. How many Kh-35 are usually carried by Il-38 ?

5.In IACCCS thread and 2011 Arudhra thread some EL/M-2084 were being imported off the shelf and others will be manufactured in India.

6.In an answer to a fellow blogger u said all maitri sam documents were ready for signing. hasnt work on the maitri missile already started between DRDO and MBDA ?

7.What was the 6 billion US dollar meant for ? many Su-35BM is China procuring? There are various reports . some say there was no deal,some 48,some 42,some 24.

9.Is C-17 Globemaster 3 capable of alnding on hard unpaved mud as Broadsword is saying ? Sucha big ac landing and taking off froma dirt strip ?

10.Will the 24 IL-76 going to be phased out as evrybody is saying ?

11.F404 has a TTSL of 7000 hours. Is the tejas airframe having similar lifespan ?

12.Only 7 submarines are deployable at any particular time. keeping this in mind will IN go for phase 2 life extension of Kilo class as quick as possible ?

13.Whats the status of user certification trials of Prthvi-3.

14.Can it be expected that you will upload the thread on Indian army firepower especially artillery over the next few days .

15. Some guy was ranting about the independnce of PAF logistics on PA railways. the guy , a Paki claims it takes just 12-24 hours for Pakistan army to deploy its strike elements. Is this true ?Its a matter of great concern for our militray establishmnet.

दुष्यंत कुमार said...

is this real
or photoshoped?

Mr. Ra 13 said...

Looks like to be a beautiful new Chinese frisbee.

Abhishek Dhar said...

@subir,what do u mean only seven submarines are deployable?

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To ABHISHEK DHAR: 1) Su-35BM does not feature 3-D TVC, but only 2-D TVC—same as Su-30MKI. And as I had explained before, the single-seat Su-35BM is optimised for air superiority & therefore the PLA Navy (& not the PLAAF) wants only a limited number (48) of such aircraft but they will all be deployed against Taiwan & Japan, & not against India. 2) The IN too will have three aircraft carriers, i.e. INS Vikramaditya, INS Vikrant (IAC-1) & INS Vishaal (IAC-2). 3) A-100E MBRL with 120km-range is superior to 90km-range Smerch-M as of now but longer-range rockets are now being developed by Russia to neutralise this temporary advantage. 4) Only four MiG-29UPGs are available as of now, & two more will be available later this year. MiG-29UPG project will be completed by 2017, while Mirage 2000UPG project will be completed by 2022.

To VIKRAM GUHA: The list of recipients of the RFP is incomplete, since OEMs from France, Finland, Austria, Singapore & Turkey also received the RFP. Of these, the 8 x 8 APCs from France, the US, Germany & Finland are the top-of-the-class since they have all been combat-proven in Iraq & Afghanistan.

To TEJAS: Spice 250, Spice-1000 & Spice-2000 all have great sales prospects within India & the Spice-2000 has already been ordered for Mirage 2000IPGs. Spice-250s will be the optimum weapon of choice for aircraft like the Su-30MKI, Jaguar DARIN-3, MiG-27UPG, MiG-29UPG, Mirage 2000UPG & MiG-29Ks as well. No towed-decoys are planned for Tejas Mk1 & Spear PGMs are not planned for Rafale either. Russia-origin expendable decoys are not towed nor are reusuable like the Ariel Mk3. HAL’s greenfield final-assembly line for Rafale cannot come up for as long as the Rafale procurement contract isn’t inked.

To Anon@11.51PM: No tenders have been drafted or released so far for such shallow-water ASW vessels. Veer-class & Khukri-class corvettes still have lots of life left in them & are due for mid-life upgrades.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To SUBIR: 2 & 3) It takes at least 4 minutes for a shipborne helicopter to get airborne at the very best, enough time for any SSK to launch its SM-39s & escape into deeper waters. 5) None of the Arudhras are being licence-built in India. Those earlier plans were abandoned quite some time ago. 6) Not yet. 8) 48 in two tranches. 9) Yes. 10) No, they could be upgraded to IL-76-90 standard. 11) Yes. 12) 7 SSKs only during peacetime. In wartime the number will go up. 13) Completed long ago. 14) No. 15) Total hogwash & balderdash. Unit activation, unit mobilisation & unit deployment to staging areas are three different things.

To DUSHYANT KUMAR & Mr.RA 13: There’s no reason at all to doubt the authenticity of such photos. But what is extremely interesting is that the flying-disc was not visible to the naked eye while being visible to the camera’s optronics. The flying-disc appears to have a diameter of almost 30 feet & closely resembles the flying-disc that was recovered almost intact on May 18, 1953 after it made a controlled landing near Kingman, Arizona. There were four aliens on board.

To Mr.RA 13: It appears that national disaster management in India is by itself a disaster! Watch this:

Daedalus said...

Hello sir,
Last month you wrote an article, "Taking Stock of PLA’s Rapid Deployment Capabilities: Lessons Learnt From National Emergencies." Will you be writing something on this line on the current floods.
How do you this we fair in tackling natural disasters?

Vikram Guha said...

Thank You Prasun Da .

Just two questions :

(1) Am I right in assuming that the requirement of the IA for armoured vehicle in order of priority is - MRAP ; ICV ; APC and MBT .

(2) Is the IA more interested in modernizing the artillery divisions before committing funds for armoured vehicles ?

Thanks again.


raw13 said...

A good insight into the goings on wrt to the peace process in afghanistan:

The only workable solution, what do you think Prasun?

Subir said...

Sir, VMT for answering.

1.Nw will elta supply all 34 Arudhras off the shelf ? Is it the same case with Thales Raytheon GS 100 LLTR ?

2.Isn't IAF also buying Spice 1000 kits besides 2000.

3.Besides Mirage 2000 upg what are the other acs on which Spice will be integrted ? Spice 2000 has a 60 km range when launched from alltitude.

4.Why will it take 9 years to upgrade just 49 Mirage 2000?

5. Why can't the entire upgrade take place in Dassault facility in France? What's thevresson behind upgrading the bulk incountry ?

6.Knaapo site says Su-35BM has all aspect TVC 117S engines. That's why it doesn't require canards.

7. What happened to the 3D version of Al-31FP that you had wrote about in the 2011 thread? Will the uprated al31 able to supercruise ?

8.All modern FFG and DDG have sophsticated CIWS . Just launching one or two SM39 will not saturate the airdefense system and score a hit.

9. Can AK630M,Palash, Kashtan, PLAN Type 730M ciws and FL3000 intercept sea skimming high subsobic ashm ? of now as the rear hull sections of the Scorpenes hasn't been fabricated yet will IN install mesma aip on the last 3 Scorpenes?

11. Is the EL/M 2106 fire xontrol and survellience radar of Spyder the LPI type. If it has LPI modes it can't be targtted with anti radiation missiles.

12. The 6 billion dollar deal with France was meant for R&D of Srsam radars, C3 centres, missiles, launchers and orders for the 3 armed forces. I learnt this from your previous comments. Then how come missile sevelopement hasn't started yet.

दुष्यंत कुमार said...

when LR-sam and MR-sam available to india why some people advocating for s-300

AKHIL SURI said...

Hi Prasun,

Did you hear about this new snooping program that GOI plans to start ?

It seems that all our calls and emails will now be hacked by the Government .

Mr. Ra 13 said...

Disasters and their management are like controlling the supersonic flow through a convergent divergent nozzle especially when the rubble are flowing with the fluid. Any missing step and the whole thing crumble down. India clearly does not have the proper disaster management capability for such disasters at such places once they occur.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To DAEDALUS: No I won’t be doing so, since the ‘desi’ TV news-channels are doing a far better job of pointing out the glaring deficiencies of the national disaster management, mindset, infrastructure & activities. Bottomline: everyone’s involved in a rat-race for getting rich quickly by using every means at one’s disposal, especially by exploiting the discredited ‘Hindutva’ model of development through unscrupulous tourism-related real estate development businesses in Himalayan states like Uttarakhand, along with related business mafias engaged in mining for stones, sand & other raw materials used for wanton & unregulated real-estate construction within eco-fragile areas. For as long as this continues unabated, such disasters will continue to happen in states like Uttarakhand, Himachal Pradesh, Sikkim & Bihar as well. It has happened before & it will happen again & again, because the general feeling among most Indian citizens is that all sins will inevitably be forgiven by the all-merciful almighty (as per the wooly-brained Hindutva advocates) for as long as one makes a pilgrimage to one of these so-called holy sites, whereas the law of nature clearly states that ‘actions always have consequences’ & no matter what, one’s actions cannot be undone at a later stage & therefore penitence is a must.

To VIKRAM GUHA: 1) No, It’s MBT, ICV & APC. MRAPs are for CAPFs. 2) No, they’re both running concurrently.

To RAW13: I wouldn’t be so sure about that. Watch this:

To SUBIR: 1) Yes to both. 2) No. 3) None other. 4) Ask HAL. 5) Ask HAL. 6) Engines, yes, but no 3-D exhaust nozzles as yet. 7) Under development. No. 8) Show me a single photo in which SM-39 has been shown as being intercepted successfully. 9) On paper, yes. 10) No. 11) Yes. 12) Ask P Chidambaram.

To DUSHYANT KUMAR: Because they’re certified morons on the payrolls of certain vested interests.

To AKHIL SURI: Not hacked, by accessed, since Google & Blackberry are now legally reqd to ‘share’ their databases with the Govt of India.

To Mr.RA 13: Capabilities are there, but the decision-makers aren’t. It all boils down to an already available pool of donkeys to do the job, but no lion to take the crucial command-and-control initiatives! Consequently, all that these decision-makers have being doing since 1947 after such disasters is to meekly watch such disasters with a stone-face via the perpetual ‘aerial surveys’ & later visit the disaster-victims in hospitals while being accompanied by FL-2000-toting SPG bodyguards & creating chaotic situations for the hospital's administrative staff. Welcome to Incredible India!!!

Abhishek Dhar said...

Sir,do the kamorta class corvettes carry KLub missiles?

What will be difference between p-28 and p-28A.

As of now it seems we have only 4 relatively modern kora class guided corvettes with 16 kh-35 switchblade SSMs.Rest are mostly fast attack interceptor dubbed corvette or useless old boats with styx ASMs.
I understand IN will use kamorta and p-28a to replace ASW corvettes [4+8],but what about replacing the obsolete missile corvettes?
Seeing how much weaponry the russians have packed into the stereguschy class corvette which is same displacement as kamorta,but packs 12VLS cells 100km plus S-400'systems medium range SAM,2xCIWS,gun,helicopter hangar,8xoniks/16xswitchblade,torpedo tubes plus 1x6 medvedka anti sub missile....isn't this a great choice for replacing these old corvettes.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

No ASCMs on P-28 ASW corvettes. And there’s no P-28A corvette either. Those corvettes armed with Termit ASMs will in future be re-armed with Kh-35s. P-28 is not a multi-purpose corvette & therefore does not require ASCMs or MR-SAMs.

rad said...

Hi Prasun

There is news that the j-15 carrier based fighter is successfully conducting carrier trials , how is this possible ? as you have said that the russians have stopped supporting them . even if the ukranians gave them the plane how did they hack the flight control system software and the fly by wire software?. Because it would have most probably used russian processors whose language and code would not have been known to them.

Again there are reports in idrw that the aesa radar is jointly being developed by india and a foreign nation rather than an outsourced radar , what is the meaning of this statement , has the vixen been selected , there seems to be no confirmed reports of the aesa radar selection.
Is the ground master 200 going to be mounted on trucks or static?
Is it a pesa radar ?.

dushyant kumar said...

what the logic behind developing howitzer by drdo when private offering same product why drdo not concentrating important projects like kaveri aero engine AESA mmr for lca
can india modified c130j or hal's mrta into ac130 type ac for use against maoists or for close air support?

Anonymous said...

"watch such disasters with a stone-face via the perpetual ‘aerial surveys’ & later visit the disaster-victims in hospitals while being accompanied by FL-2000-toting SPG bodyguards & creating chaotic situations for the hospital's administrative staff"well said i was thinking the helicopter which they were used for aerial survey if it was used for evacuating people it would be help for people rather they watching from air.

Bhaswar said...


1)Maybe not now but once the IRNSS is operational then will not make sense to use what we have learnt and will have gained by then out of the Sudharshan program to produce our own PGMs with IRNSS receivers? Hammer and Spice are top notch no doubt, but they are also expensive, would it not make sense to also have a cheaper alternative which can be bought in larger numbers?

2)Do you think we will get transit through BD to the NE this time around. Will the deal finally go through? If not is the Kaladan project capable of completely offsetting the failure of such a transit deal?

3)Sir there is a pic I've found, could you please identify the system within-

4)Sir what happened to the Arudhra radars, have we received the numbers we require? Same with the Rohini radar?

5)Are the Thales GS-100 radars operational, have we received all of them?

6)What happened to the 24 active phased-array EL/M-2084 medium-power radars? Did we receive all the deliveries, are they in operation? Isn't it similar to the arudhra radar?

7) Sir currently we have 6 C-130s, I believe an order for an additional 6 was to be placed?

8)What of the UAC/HAL Il-214? Is it true that we require 45 such aricrafts? How does this project help us in terms of developing an aviation industry? After all we aren't designing it, we will probably just license produce it, no?

9)How effective is the Ajanta EW suite on the Shivalik class firgates?

Thank you for your valuable time sir.

raw13 said...

Thank you for the youtube link! the ground has moved beyond this already.

Following the article in the tribune i saw this one, by one of your own (M K Bhadrakumar): What gets me is that even extremely experienced Indian diplomats see Indo-Pak in a win/lose situation and never in a win/win situation?

This article also supports the idea of a major convergence going on. The USA position has turned full circule. Here are the last two paragraphs:

"Indeed, there is no serious contradiction between the respective American and Pakistani interests. What Pakistan is looking for - stability on the Durand Line, a rollback of Indian influence in Kabul, a friendly government in Kabul and so on - does not really affect the US' vital interests and core concerns in Afghanistan with regard to Washington's "rebalancing" strategy in Asia.

On the other hand, a Pakistani military leadership that is at peace with itself as regards the Afghan situation would be the best mate the US can look for in the region, especially when Washington's relations with Moscow have soured and the US dependence on the Pakistani transit routes is only going to increase even further with the establishment of the nine American military bases in Afghanistan. " by M K Bhadrakumar.

Mr. Ra 13 said...

During the 2004 tsunami, India received offers of help from foreign countries, which were humbly turned down by India. But why this time there is no news of any foreign country offering any help.


Thanks PrasunDa .

The Telegraph had reported that the Indian army has projected a need for

4,000 light armoured vehicles
1,500 light bullet-proof vehicles
4,500 light specialist vehicles
16,000 infantry combat vehicles

Do you concur with these figures ?


Abhishek Dhar said...

Sir then that means we built a 3k ton corvette for a helicopter,a few torpedo tubes,grenade launchers and point defence sams?What was the point then behind such large corvettes.Even pak navy and PLAN navy smaller corvettes have surface attack capability?What extra capability we got for so much tonnage.Seems like fail from IN.

DefenseandAerospace said...

@ Vikram Guha -

The India Army's requirement is for 5000 to 7000 Light & Small Armoured Vehicless over the next 4-5 years .

Prasun, please correct me if my above figures are wrong . I am quoting based on what I heard an Indian Army Colonel state in a conference .

goldblooded said...

what are the technological barriers for developing railgun except high power consumption

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To RAD: The analogue/digital flight-control computers, air-data computers & data-processors of the fire-control systems (like the MMR) for both MiG-29 & Su-27/30 were developed & produced by Ukraine-based OEMs (the very same company that builds the OMUL EW suite for MiG-29Ks). ALL IDRW reports of this nature are total crap, period. GS-100 radar is truck-mounted & is AESA-based.

To DUSHYANT KUMAR: There’s simply no logic behind the MoD’s decision to appoint the DRDO as the lead R & D agency for developing the ATAGS. This job can easily be done by the OFB, for it is the OFB that has successfully upgraded the Bofors FH-77B into the 155X45 configuration with ZERO inputs from the DRDO. Therefore, in my view, the OFB should be encouraged & nurtured to continue to further evolve the 155X45 into a 155mm/52-cal howitzer. No airborne gunship will be of any use against the Maoists since the Maoists are always scattered within the forests & converge only before the ambushes are to be staged. And there’s no way of knowing exactly when & where such ambushes will be staged.

To BHASWAR: 1) Any indigenously-developed weapon system anywhere in the world—be it a pistol or even a PGM—will always be far more expensive than imported solutions. 2) Air-transit corridors are already up & functioning. 3) That’s the TCS’ ELINT component from TATA Power SED. 4) Deliveries are still in progress. Rohini radars have sub-optimal performance in high-altitude & mountainous terrain in sub-zero temperatures, & also in the plains that have high ambient temperatures. 5) Yes. 6) They are the actual Arudhra radars. There’s no other radar called Arudhra except the EL/M-2084. 7) It will be in future. 8) No, it is a joint design & joint R & D effort in areas like airframe, avionics & accessories. 9) The Ellora suite is very effective.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To RAW13: Dunno what you mean b y ‘one of your own’, but this much is clear: the on-going talks between the Taliban & the US is only about creating conditions for a ceasefire during the ISAF withdrawal period. The talks are not about deciding the Taliban’s political future status within Afghanistan, since such talks can only be held between the legitimate & elected Afghan Govt now in power, & the Taliban. For, the fact remains that no matter what some countries might perceive the present-day Afghan govt to be (like Pakistan labeling it as a puppet govt), the reality is that this is the very govt that is internationally recognised by the UN & no one can contest that. In fact, in the post-ISAF period, all indications are that the combined Indian-Russian influence within Afghanistan will be even greater than it is now & that’s the reason why Pakistan is trying desperately to improve its ties with Russia. Another recent problem for Pakistan is the Imran Khan-led PTI’s decision to hold peace talks with the TTP, which has led to widespread popular protests by Afghan citizens against Imran Khan. In international diplomacy, there’s no such thing as full-spectrum sour relations; one may disagree with the other over one or more issues, but there are a whole lot of other issues over which they agree. Take the example of India & Pakistan, where there are core differences, & yet Pakistan gets to export cement-stones & marble to India while India continues to export sugar to Pakistan & in future could export 2,000mW of electricity as well. Similarly, existing US-Russia differences over Syria does not mean that the two countries will oppose one another in Afghanistan.

To Mr.RA 13: This is a very localised event involving only heavy rains & the consequent mudslides & landslides, all of which can be easily managed through internal resources & capacities. The situation becomes different in case of earthquakes.

To VIKRAM GUHA & DEFENSE & AEROSPACE: It ought to be 4,000 8 x 8 APCs for the Army’s existing motorised infantry formations, 1,500 bullet-proof 4 x 4s for Rashtriya Rifles, 4,500 LSVs for the Rashtriya Rifles & the Army’s SF(Para), & 1,600 tracked ICVs (16,000 was an obvious typo-error). The Army wants the LSVs to be of two types: 4 x 4 multi-role & 4 x 4 MRAP-type. The 100 APCs now being sought are meant just for an on-going pilot project to test the BMS & BSS sub-components of the F-INSAS project.

To ABHISHEK DHAR: Not 3K, but 2,500-tonne ASW corvette. The corvettes of the PLAN are for maritime strike. PN has no such surface combatants.

To GOLDBLOODED: Power generation, power storage, & new alloy-based materials, to name a few.

Mridul baruah said...

Dear Prasunda, I read an article by Ajai Shukla on LCA, in which he says to induct the LCA-MK1 in greater numbers. My question, do you think in its current configuration whether LCA is a potent fighter? Can it be used to replace the Mig-21 fleet?