Total Pageviews

Saturday, October 18, 2014

2nd Test-Flight Of Nirbhay Strategic Cruise Missile A Total Success

The nuclear-capable LACM yesterday had a flight-time lasting 80 minutes and cruised over a distance of 1,157km at a speed of Mach 0.7. Eight more test-flights now remain to be conducted prior to its entry-into-service with India’s Strategic Forces Command in ground-launched, submarine-launched and air-launched versions. 
New-Generation Surface Combatant Designs From Russia
New-Generation Surface Combatant Designs From Europe
LPH Options For Indian Navy
 The two-cornered contest to supply the IN with four locally-built 25,000-tonne LPHs will be between Larsen & Toubro teamed with Spain’s Navantia, and Pipavav Defence & Offshore Engineering Ltd/Mazagon Docks Ltd teamed up with Fincantieri of Italy. The winning design will be required to be equipped with an integrated full-electric propulsion (IFEP) system.
Bombardier Aerospace Global 5000 for 
R & AW’s Aviation Research Centre
Two types of SAR antenna—one for ground mapping (a modified version of the EL/M-2060P) and the other for GMTI (EL/M-2055)—are housed within the unberbelly installation.  


Anonymous said...

Rudra said...

Hey,Drdo press release said Nirbhay covered a little more than 1000 km in a little over 1 hr 10 mins. Most say the missile covered 1050 km. So its a cruise speed of M0.9 and not M0.7 . How are you getting the M0.7 speed?

Pankaj said...

Dear Sir

PLEASE , Would you be kind enough to tell me
why A Hypersonic Missile like SHAURYA is NOT sufficent
ie Why we also need a SUB SONIC missile like Nirbhay

rad said...

HI Prasun
Fantastic literature on the Nirbhay, and its avionics.It surely did quench the thirst of jingos like me at least to an extent.
My question is when we have such mil specs nav systems why on earth are we importing from sagem?.The economics of large production will reduce the cost considerably.
The x band SAR seems to be the same for the brahmos missile, can the radar be jammed ?. Saying that of course no one can have jammers every where. Can it be used as a homing head for a anti shipping missile as well?. we could put nirbhay to many uses like anti shipping, land attack from subs, anti runway, ecm jamming like a drone etc . Has any one flown a tomahawk size missile on an fighter?. Can the range be increase to 2000km as the tomahawk?.

Gessler said...

Prasun ji, you need to check this out NOW -

The presentation at IIT-Bombay by VK Saraswat speaks some new bits of info about Indian missiles - some excerpts :-

Brahmos can reach up to 600 km in optimal (no sea skimming) Hi-Hi trajectory.

Agni-6: same range as Agni-5 but 3 times the payload (3 MIRVs each of 1 Ton).

SLBM in the works with 6000+ km range and 2 Ton payload (4 MIRVs).

LFRJ (Liquid Fuel Ramjet) - supersonic cruise (3.2M), range: 600 to 1000 kms.

Explanation of what requires to be done for AD-1 and AD-2 interceptors.

ASAT1000: Agni booster+AAD

Helina: will have a different nozzle system.

Electromagnetic bomb: Work in full force.

Agni 5: 50Ton, single payload 1050kg, range 5000Km, Caniterized

Agni 6: 56Ton, MIRV payload 3000Kg (doesn't say how many, maybe 3-6), range 5000Km, Caniterized, all 3 stages composite motor casings

SLBM: seems like a variant of A6, 4 MIRV payload 2000Kg, 6000+Km, all 3 stages composite

He says our missiles are heavy because our propellant and material technology not to par. He gives 240 ISP for our propellants vs 260-280 for US/Rus/Eur. But that doesn't reduce capabilities of our missiles and also for the same reason our missiles costs much less.

Your opinion on these revelations?

Here are some of the slides screenshots -

dushyant hardaha said...

mr prasun can you explain us this new development?

Anonymous said...

Hi prasun, i m reproducing your comment made in 2008 ."To Sontu: The Nirbhay will NEVER be an operational cruise missile for the simple reason that it is powered by a Russia-supplied turbofan. Consequently, Russia will NEVER allow India to develop any weapon system which contains Russia-origin systems/sub-systems and which exceeds the range limitations as specified by the MTCR. If Russia allowed India to develop cruise missiles incorporating Russia-origin components, then it would be in direct violation of its NPT and MTCR obligations. Therefore, the Nirbhay will be unarmed, will not carry any weapons-related explosive materials on board, and will be used primarily as a UAV used for simulating the flight profile of a cruise missile. The ASL anf the LRDE will utilise the Nirbhay for evolving a ground-based cruise missile defence system, comprising both surveillance/early warning component (including aerostat-borne AESA radars) and a missile-based interception component.

VJ said...

That wrap-around antenna was meant to be for Pinaka ER. Has it found multiple apps

Darius said...

Sir, will you be answering the outstanding question from the previous blog entry or shall i post my questions front there, here?

Abs said...

This suggests IA went inside PoK and neutralised Pakistan Terror Camps with a possibility of 2000 terrorist casualties.

Abs said...

And I second Darius' request. Please respond to my 8 questions asked last night.

Arup said...

Hi Prasun,

1.How much payload can Nirbhay carry to a distance of 1200 km and 1500 km?

2. U have alwyas said Nirbhay is for sfc.Wont there be any conventional warhead version?

3.Which engine did Nirbhay use this time?The HAL gtre one or is it under developement now ? This is worth a look.

Pravin claims Drdo bought 5 turbofans from Russia and used up 3 of them.Russia isnt very welcome to the idea of Nirbhay being a nuclear tipped missile.
How much truth is there in this ?

4.The ASAT1000 which Gessler has told about,can it be used a midcourse intercept ABM with some modifications? OR is the missile cluster developing a midcourse intercept system akin to the US GBI system?

5. Does any Mirv weigh as much as 1 ton? Or did he talked abt Marv or Mirv bus?

6.The poster from the links Gessler say Agni-5 has a launch weight of 50000 kg. But u had once said the entire launch system weighs that much and the missile weighs a lot less like 17 tons. Will u shed some light on this.

Shashank Shekhar said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anand said...

Hi Prasun,

Please see this link :

It says "Halfway through the test, the Nirbhay did a pre-programmed U-turn and headed back to Chandipur. After travelling 1,050 kilometres, the test was terminated and the missile splashed into the Bay of Bengal."

Did Nirbhay make a U-turn as claimed here?



Rational Jingo said...


Have you come across the claim by the Russian Ambassador on the Rafale being easy to shoot down for Chinese Sukhois? Is this just hot air.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To RATIONAL JINGO: Of course it is hot air…after all the Ambassador in question is neither from the Russian Air Force nor is he an air combat tactician! One must also take note of the fact that today a beleaguered & financially strained Russia can export only two commodities: weapons & hydrocarbons. And that’s why Russia will in all probability agree to sell China the licence for locally producing 20+ Amur 1650 SSKs as well as supply off-the-shelf to China Topaz-2 nuclear reactors that will be used by China on board its six projected ocean reconnaissance satellites.

To ANAND: There were no U, V, X or Y turns, period. Nor did the LACM fly just as the crow flies. Any long-range LACM Like Nirbhay navigates via waypoints so that hostile air-defences are avoided. That’s how the stealthiness of the flight profile is maintained. Consequently, the Nirbhay’s flight-profile was not a straight line, but incorporated a few arc-like flightpaths as well (just like BrahMos-1)—but definitely not a u-turn, kindly rest assured.

To ARUP: 1) 1,200km range envelope only & payload is 450kg. 2) Of course there will be a conventionally armed Nirbhay as well, especially the air-launched & warship-launched versions. 3) Nirbhay was, is & will be powered by the HAL-developed turbofan, whose specifications are in the first visual I had uploaded yesterday. The specs are from HAL’s own product brochure. All claims by others about NPO Saturn’s 36MT turbofan being used for Nirbhay’s LACM variant are patently FALSE. 4) These are all paper designs so far for ‘hittile’ systems. 5) Unitary manoeuvrable re-entry warhead-type can weight 1-ton, if required. 6) I stand by what I had explained earlier.

To ABS: I was waiting for the PM’s speech yesterday & will answer all your queries within the next 48 hours.

To VJ: Not for Pinaka ER, but for Sudarshan family of LGBs & yes, it has multiple applications. And that’s the reason why the Nirbhay while airborne was accompanied by a Su-30MKI chase aircraft equipped with a specially developed underbelly pod containing telemetry tracking receiver.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Anon@7.37PM: Of course I had said that in 2008, because the Nirbhay project was originally conceived as a cruise missile target simulation product way back in 2007 so that the Barak-8 LR-SAM could be tested against it when this cruise missile target simulator is employed to mimmick the flight-path of an inbound ASCM or an inbound LACM. It was only in 2010 that the IAF & IA & IN insisted on acquiring air-launched, ground-launched & warship-/submarine-launched versions of this cruise missile simulator & thus the LACM version of Nirbhay was born sometime in late 2010. The original cruise missile target simulator version of Nirbhay is powered by the 36MT turbofan imported by Russia & that’s why only five such turbofans were imported from Russia—all for the Barak-8 LR-SAM’s R & D effort. And there’s nothing wrong with two products (Nirbhay LACM family & Nirbhay cruise missile target simulator) sharing the same name. That’s why the ELTA Systems-supplied EL/M-2084 MMR is called Arudhra by the IAF, while the DRDO has another R & D project for developing a ground-based Arudhra multifunction actve phased-array radar.

To DUSHYANT HARDAHA: The Iranians have always suspected that Pakistan-based Sunni terrorist groups like Jundullah & Lashkar-e-Jhangvi have been infiltrating via Balochistan into southeastern Iran, just like the LeT & JeM have inside J & K. That’s why Iran has adopted a zero-tolerance policy against such Pakistani infiltrators.

To GESSLER: Nothing earth-shattering in terms of revelations. Most of them are still R & D projects classified as technology demonstrators. Surprisingly, he hasn’t mentioned the turbofan-powered anti-runway cruise missile project, nor anything about directed-energy weapons.

To RAD: That’s because end-users like the IA & IAF prefer solutions like the SIGMA-30 & SIGMA-95N for the sake of equipment communality. All radars can be jammed, provided there’s adequate time-on-hand to do so. If a LACM or ASCM is making a stealthy approach by adopting a zig-zag flightpath in order to avoid en- route air-defences, then active jamming will be largely ineffective. The X-band terminal seeker has multiple applications & can even be used for anti-ship strike. All that is required is a customised target recognition algorithm to be developed for each type of mission/target to be engaged.

To PANKAJ: That’s because any ballistic missile is incapable of making pinpoint strikes. Salvoes of ballistic missiles like Shaurya can only be employed for saturation strikes over a particular area & that too with questionable effectiveness. For cost-effective precision strikes with high probabilities of mission success, precision-guided missiles like BrahMos-1 & Nirbhay are far better options.

To RUDRA: My reply above to ANAND will also answer your query.

Muttu said...

Is Nirbhay capable of striking a moving target ?

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

Top MUTTU: If it is a warship, yes. If the target is a MBT, then no.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...


To RD: Regarding the much-touted recent revelation by Lockheed Martin's Skunk Works about the so-called breakthrough on cold fusion was in fact achieved by the early 1990s itself by a consortium of US-based OEMs led by General Electric Co--all under a Black Programme financed & supervised by the US Dept of Naval Intelligence, an institution whose very existence continues to be denied by the US till this day. The hardware developed is known as the Total Annhilation Reactor, which achieves 100% thermal efficiency & does not generate any form of residual fissile material.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

Excellent Q & A session with former Indian NSA Shiv Shankar Menon on various issues on national & regional security, at the Brookings Institution:

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To RAJ SHEKHAR, SANGAIOINAM, SUNIT & BISWAJIT: The above-mentioned Q & A session with Shiv Shankar Menon clearly explains the situation along the LAC & China-India bilateral relations. Of course, there are various vested interests embedded within military-industrial publications & hyperventilating Indian TV channels (usually hosting spin-doctors of all hues) that want to either paint the Chinese as being 9 feet tall or as dwarfs. The reality, however, is quite different. For instance, there exists between the two countries a LAC up to which each side exercises administrative jurisdiction. In determining the boundary between the two countries, certain geographical principles, such as watersheds, river valleys and mountain passes, are equally applicable to all sectors of the boundary. The areas where PLA “incursions” occur are claimed by both sides as lying on their side of the LAC. In the Arunachal Pradesh sector, the Chinese treat the McMahon Line as the LAC. But they challenge India’s claim that the Line should follow the watershed or the highest line of mountains. They point out that the coordinates of the McMahon Line—as set out in the Simla Conference of 1914—depart at places from the watershed. These “grey areas” south of the watershed are the places where Chinese “incursions” have been occurring & continue to occur in this sector. Given these differing notions of the LAC, any exercise in clarification is likely to succeed through the application of GPS-based demarcation & delineation of borders. Until then, w can only agree to disagree. The good thing is that we know the areas of disagreement. What’s more, BOTH sides have continued, do so & will continue to intrude into these areas. At one level, this is tactical jockeying. Chumar, for instance, is the only place along the LAC in Ladakh which the PLA cannot directly access. Hence, the spurt in PLA probing near Chumar. Demchok is one of two “mutually agreed disputed areas,” but that does not stop India from going ahead with its activities. At another level, “incursions” are essential for both sides to keep alive their territorial claims. Indeed, the only way to put an end to “incursions” is to settle the boundary dispute, which was discussed in great detail last month during Xi Jinping’s visit. In fact, I’m highly surprised by the inability of various India-based ‘desi’ journalists & spin-doctors to bring out the details of such deliberations out in the open.

During delegation-level talks, Xi Jinping clearly explained his POV, which is: 1) the entire LAC can easily be demarcated & delineated with ease & swiftly using GPS technology. 2) Maps of notional LACs of both sides for all 3 sectors have already been shown to one another & can be formally exchanged ASAP. 3) China started claiming Arunachal Pradesh with greater vigour ONLY AFTER India’s Parliament passed a Resolution on Jammu & Kashmir dated 22-2-1994 which stated that State of Jammu & Kashmir has been, is and shall be an integral part of India and any attempts to separate it from the rest of the country will be resisted by all necessary means. 4) If India can nullify this resolution & also wind up the Tibetan Govt-in-Exile at Dharmasala, then an everlasting deal fair to both sides can be easily achieved.

Thus, as one can see, for China, it is very easy to solve the boundary issue. Problem is with India, since India will next be required to clarify what exactly is her position regarding POK, Gilgit & Baltistan. It is for this very reason that China finds it very easy to propose a fair, just & everlasting solution to the LAC issue, while India—in NaMo’s own words— is more in favour of first ‘clarification’ of the LAC, followed by its eventual demarcation.

Cont’d below…

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

The main questions which remained unanswered are these: why have PLA transgressions & incursions have increased since 2005? Is it because on that year both countries agreed not to disturb one another’s ‘settled’ areas? If so, then what defines a settled a ‘settled area’? Does India’s administrative control extend only to such settled areas or goes well beyond them where there is neither human habitation nor permanent military border outposts? Why did the Govt of India chosen to deliberately leak information on periodic PLA incursions only since 2010 to the ‘desi’ mass-media? Isn’t it true that any ‘desi’ journalist has no other way of ascertaining whether or not there has been any incursion or transgression? Why did India’s Union MHA admit only earlier this year that Indian Army/ITBP long-range recce patrols too have periodically engaged in such transgressions inside China-claimed territory?

Coming now to the so-called PLA military threats, a cursory look at the prevailing ORBAT & force modernisation efforts of the PLA’s Tibet Military District (TMD), Lanzhou Military Region (MR) & Chengdu MR will clearly demonstrate that the PLA has been modernising only its 3 existing Mechanised Infantry Brigades within the TMD, while the bulk of new hardware accretions have gone to the Highland Divisions of the Lanzhou & Chengdu MRs. And as the names suggest, Highland Divisions are not meant for mountain warfare & are instead, meant for deployment mostly against far greater threats, such as the restive Central Asian Republics (CAR) of Tajikistan & Kyrgyzstan inside which Pakistan-origin proselytisers owing allegiance to the Hizbul Tahrir grouping are very active. The last thing China therefore wants is being bogged down inside both TAR & countries bordering its Xinjiang province. This is what Xi Jinping’s ‘Look West’ policy is all about, i.e. ushering in stability around the periphery of China’s borders with the CARs & TAR. It is for this reason that Xi Jinping wants to settle the LAC issue with India ASAP. As I had said earlier, Shiv Shankar Menon’s answers during the Q & A session clearly bring all this out.

Anonymous said...

Prasun da,

i donot think that the Chinese incursions increased only because of 2005 agreement. Then that will not explain their more aggressive postures vis-a-vis Japan, Philipines, Vietnam etc. I guess it is to do with the 'hide your claws' attitude. till early 2000 China was on full steam with its stringent policies with personal freedom and on growth. Once a whole lot of people were pulled out of utter poverty the need for an aggressive stance came up, and it was time to reveal the claws. In fact china became more assertive after the 2008 recession which saw massive deceleration in western economies, where as China was sitting pretty at an uncomfortable 2 trillion or so foreign reserves. It also coincided with Obama's first tenure (and his initial Nixon style appeasement for G2 did more harm). Infact in ASEAN summit of 2011(if i remember correctly) there were hardly any neighbours who had no issue with China. This ran against the usual Chinese policy of not interfering with the politics of the nations it wanted to engage with, to win more friends especially in Africa. I guess that was perhaps one of the reason why China, 'the all weather ally'of Pakistan did never overtly support the latter in any Indo-Pak skirmishes or wars.
The Tibetan exile government or the separatist issues of Tibet are cold war relics, i dont think Chinese will be taking them any seriously now.
the border issue can be resolved only if both parties sit together and seriously ponder the ways out. Asking for Tawang and denial of the McMohan line are bogus arguments, because Tibet itself was occupied by Chinese saying that it was a vassel state of the Hans. It has only that much sanctity the way we claim aksai chin to be ours. If these bogus arguments are done away with and coupled with adjustments of a few kilometers here and there both can resolve it peacefully.

Sreenivas R


Prasun Da,
How come Pakistan developed Babaur cruise missile even earlier than India? How will it fair against Nirbhaya??? Again, is it true that Chinese Sukhoi will down the french Rafale like mosquitoes ??? Is it so much inferior in dissimilar air combat against Chinese Sukhois??? plz clarify.

Pankaj said...

Dear Sir

Please tell us if RAFALE is At least slightly better than SU 35 WHICH CHINA is buying

That is SHOULD we have gone for
SU 35 ?

And will Super Sukhoi 30 MKI
be AT least EQUAL to SU 35

DAshu said...

The Resolution on Jammu & Kashmir dated 22-2-1994 was an excellent one .

India should clarify that POK, Gilgit & Baltistan are part of it and hence all the boundary issues with PRC gone & settled .

DAshu said...

what is the connection between J&K with
AP? is it to provide pak a helping hand and keep pressure on india

Anonymous said...

i tried to watch former NSA video but the first 20 mins tested my good patience. I wonder he is so poor in articulating his words, expressing his views, one needs good amount of patience and energy to wait, watch and hear when he is going to speak.

NSA need good negotiating skills, clear and skillful presentation.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To DASHU: India's 1994 Resolution includes Aksai Chin as well. This stands in the way of resolving the boundary issue with China in the western sector. If China was interesting AP then the PLA would never have unilaterally vacated all the territory it had captured in NEFA in 1962. But by withdrawing from NEFA at that time, China signalled that it too respected the MacMahon Line.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To SREENIVAS R: Figures of the Union MHA clearly prove that the PLA's LAC transgressions increased after 2005.If the Tibetan Govt-in-Exile is a Cold War relic, then how come it wasn't dismantled after 1991? Why does it still function out of India?

Anonymous said...

@Prasun Sen

1) i thought PLA withdrew from AP in 1962 to fall back on more defensible locations since by then Indian mobilisation had gathered momentum?

2) do u think China has a legitimate claim to Tibet (regardless of the fact that they are in control now). do u think India should have intervened in Tibet back when the Chinese moved in? and if India didnt have the capability then, u think hey should have at least kept the issue alive through non-recognition?

Gessler said...

Sir ji, what's your take on the DND researching trimaran warships? Could India's future destroyers/frigates (after P-15B/P-17A are done) be based on this concept?

What are going to be Indian Navy's aspirations for surface combatants (DDGs & FFGs) after P-15B and P-17A?

VMT in advance.

Anonymous said...

Prasun da,

i agree, the 'incursions' increased after 2005. But my view is that it was the regular tactic of China with respect to most other neighbours at different time periods of 2000-2014, only to concur with issues propping up (a trigger factor).
Do you see any potential effect of Tibetan Govt in exile on china either now or in future. I thought it is virtually defunct and only serving a cultural purpose. Just like the Maori kings or Native American rulers.
I guess India should guarantee China that no political activities would be allowed on Indian soil against that nation (and ask a quid pro quo). The tibetans can either stay as refugees or take Indian citizenship.

Sreenivas R

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To SOUBHAGYA: Have already explained that several times before: the Babur is nothing but the Ukrainian Korshun LACM whose design rights/IPRs were bought over by China in the late 1990s & it was next re-engineered to emerge as the CJ-10 for & Babur. Pakistan NEVER either developed the Babur or produced it.

To PANKAJ: The Rafale is leagues ahead of the Su-35. No one can dispute that.

To Anon@9.55PM: 1) The IA was not in a position to build up defences-in-depth throughout NEFA until 1967. The PLA’s mountain warfare forces of 1962 were combat-hardened formations that had successfully taken on the combined might of the UN forces in Korea between 1951 & 1963. 2) Irregardless of whether or not doubts China’s claims over TAR, what matters today is India’s recognition of TAR as an integral part of China since 1954.

To GESSLER: The IN has had a bad experience with high-speed wave-piercing catamarans. Thus far, only two of the 6 planned Makar-class survey vessels have been delivered & both these vessels are extremely unstable in the high seas & cannot sustain their seaworthiness. The remaining four such vessels are stuck in the shipyard since Alcock Ashdown in Gujarat is bankrupt & cannot complete delivery of these 4 vessels. For next-generation surface combatant designs, therefore, the DND is more interested in DDG-21-type warship designs & not catamarans or trimarans. The CNN-IBN video only depicted conceptual designs in animation that are not representative of final designs & therefore cannot be treated with seriousness. Far more detailed designs are available from Russia now (see newly uploaded visuals above), for instance.

Hamilton said...


1)There was news the DAC had approved a purchase of a few hundred TATA LAMVs some weeks back- any credibility to these reports?

2) Will the Modi govt move ahead with the long pending need for an Indian Special operations and cyber tri-service commands?

3)What exactly is happening on the NMRH front? One report stated the entire deal had been scrapped and would be restarted under a "make India" plan but another stated the deal was moving ahead as is.

4) Will the Italian court's findings have any bearing on the blacklisting of AW and will the AW-101s now truly be put into service to fly Indian VVIPs or will there be a new tender, possibly a FMS fast tracked deal for the S-92 for this role?

Anonymous said...

Hi Prasun,

How far is DRDO from developing high energetic propellants that would allow for lighter missiles?

Best Regards

Prav said...

Sir can you go into detail about how the Rafale is superior to the Su 30/35

Gessler said...

VMT Sir ji. I'm sure you mean the DD-21 designs, (from which the Zumwalt came out of), cuz the "DDG-21" is pointing me toward a crappy old destroyer called USS Cochrane.

The DD-21 design :

So if at all we're working on such designs, can you tell what has been the progress so far? Cuz as far as I know, the designs of both P-15B and P-17A are completed and DND sure can't be just sitting around idle??

rad said...

HI Prasun
pLease do an article on the special mission aircraft from bombardier and israel.

rad said...

HI prasun
I did some reading on DSMAC and tercom because they sounded fancy and were claimed by pakistan to be used by them in the cjines cloned ukranina missile called Babur.
I was surprised to find that there were not state of the art as the missile had to be pre programmed with map data etc. contrary to this the inertial nav + x band homing head what we use seems to be a generation ahead. Please expand on this .What sort of terminal homing does the spice missile have as they have eo and claim 1 meter accuracy

Saikat said...

Hi Prasun,
From where did u got those photos ( New-Generation Surface
Combatant Designs From
Russia)? From some expo or somewhere else? It would be nice if u can tell about its source.

prtik said...

is india truly interested in above deal? will it beneficial ?

Anonymous said...


the pics of the new designs are very surprising. Why are they so asymmetrical?. But again the Helo deck in the first few are quite large. What is the stealth logic in these designs. I guess the second last designs (with pennants 052) are inspired by the zummwalt class. The last design (522) trimaran is quite interesting. I think it has around 124 VLS cells (if my count is correct) and should be quite huge.

Sreenivas R

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To HAMILTON: 1) Yes, they are meant for the ITBP, especially for those battalions that are deployed throughout eastern Ladakh, as well as for those detachments that are presently in Afghanistan. More ITBP detachments will be headed for Afghanistan in future & they all will be equipped with such ATVs. 2) Not so soon, but definitely yes. 3) The NMRH has not been scrapped. It’s the original NLUH reqmt that’s been scrapped. For the 10-tonne NMRH, the S-70B Seahawk will emerge as L-1. For the shipborne NLUH, a twin-engined helicopter with tricycle landing gear will be selected between the offers of Bell Helicopter Textron & Eurocopter. 4) No S-92 for VVIP transport. AKA had made matters far worse when he encashed Finmeccanica’s BG that was deposited with SBI & therefore AgustaWestland had no other option but to sell of two of the AW-101 VVIP transport helicopters originally meant for the IAF, to Nigeria. The new Givt of India has not yet decided whether or not to pursue the international arbitration route, meaning the Govt of India is involved in negotiations with AgustaWestland aimed at reviving the AW-101 contract in a face-saving manner. If the contract cannot be revived, then it is the Govt of India that will become the nett loser in the arbitration process & will consequently will also stand to lose a lot more money than has been already lost.

To RAJ: The process began I only 2012 & therefore only by 2017 will some tangible results be achieved in this area.

To PRAV: That issue had been discussed in great detail last year in the thread dealing with the Rafale’s selection as the M-MRCA.

To GESSLER: Yes, it is the DD-21. Design of P-17A FFG has not yet been completed. The DNS also has its hands full with designing the shallow-water ASW vessel as well as IAC-2 which will be nuclear-powered & will have the EMALS aircraft launching system. And the Rafale’s naval version will go on board as well.

To RAD: Have uploaded visuals above of the Bombardier Global 5000 special-mission aircraft. PGMs like Spice or Popeye have track-via-missile guidance systems that transmit a TV or IR image of the approaching target in real-time to the launch aircraft & course corrections are therefore possible in near-real-time. But such guidance is limited to only line-of-sight range envelopes.

To SAIKAT: Those scale-models were displayed at the IMDS expo in St Petersburg, Russia, way back in 2011.

To PRTIK: Of course. The IN has wanted the third batch of Project 1135.6 FFGs since 2008.

To SREENIVAS R. Hull asymmetry is for faceting purposes in order to achieve stealth.

Gessler said...

VMT Sir ji. But still more questions -

1) So how many of these DD-21-based destroyers/frigates can we possibly be getting after P-15B/P-17A?

2) Is P-17A based off a foreign design? In that case it's design may have deviated a lot from the original Shivalik-class ? Or is the design still our's, but we just sought some foreign assistance in smoothing out the rough edges?

3) I thought the designs for the shallow-water ASW corvettes will be foreign and we would just build them - so now they're an indigenous design? These are the ships for which there's a requirement of 16 nos. isn't it? Will they be equipped with cruise missiles?

4) Awww, shucks Prasun ji. There goes my dream of seeing 5th generation fighters flying off Indian carriers anytime soon. The CATOBAR & EMALS obviously mean we cannot convert & use any available version of FGFA (which, even if developed, will be suited for STOBAR), but it'll give us the advantage of using E-2D Advanced Hawkeye as well as some jet-powered UAV/UCAVs.

5) So how many IAC-2 class ships are we gonna build ultimately? Only 1 has been contemplated so far, but I'm sure we'll need a 2nd one soon after that to be ready by the time comes to replace Vikramaditya, while we're at it, why not go ahead and build a 3rd one and push the IAC-1/Vikrant into reserve ?

6) Obviously we can't stick with the Rafale-M for IAC-2/Vishaal forever, which 5th generation plane is gonna replace it in the distant future? Naval AMCA?

7) The most important thing - can you, when you have the time, explain in detail about the rationale behind IN's aspirations for a nuclear carrier? As far as I believe, we have no global military commitments like what US or France have, that can require the full time deployment of a CBG, so why are they going for a nuclear carrier? Wouldn't a conventional one save a lot of time in development as we already built one of that type and wouldn't have to develop anything new for propulsion? Just expand on the previous design but with a CATOBAR this time?

Again VMT in advance.

sujoymajumdar said...

Prasun Da,

Hope you are doing good.

I had one question about the usage of UAVs for commercial purposes in INDIA.

Earlier this year Amazon said that they will use India as the testing grounds for Amazon Prime Air, its new scheme to use drones to deliver products purchased on its website.

Now DGCA released a circular on 7th October that says that until & unless DGCA formulates regulations for using UAVs for domestic purposes they cannot be flown in India.

However, I have seen real estate users in Mumbai and coal mining companies in Orissa use UAVs for aerial photography. Therefore,are they violating the laws?



rad said...

Hi Prasun
VMT for the scoop on special mission aircraft. Compared to the other ac like jstars and sentinel, the antenna looks small.Is it as effective as the others?. After all the bigger the antenna the better its range and power and long range capability, what made us go in for the israeli stuff when US offered the same tech to india.

F said...


Apologies for going off-topic again.

When MH17 went missing, the RMN said that the Scorpenes could not be used for the search as they were not equipped.

1. Why was a Royal Navy Trafalgar class SSN later deployed in the Indian Ocean to assist the search? Does it have a sonar that can detect objects on the sea bed?

2. Doesn't the Scorpene have an ''obstacle voiding sonar'' that can detect objects on the sea bed like mines?

Is there any way for submerged subs to communicate with each other and it is normal for SSSKs to lie on the sea bed? Doesn't lying on the sea bed poses risks in that the props can be damaged?

Thank you.

Anonymous said...

submarines CANNOT fly to UKraine, so the scorpenes are NOT good for MH 17 search

Abs said...

A gentle reminder. You had promised to answer my queries posted in the previous thread after 48 hours, which is today.

Hamilton said...

Thanks for the replies sir!

1) Why are more detachments of the ITBP headed to Afghanistan? What will they be protecting out there?

2) Has the IA shown any interest in the TATA LAMV? Any hope of them procuring this awesome vehicle in the near future?

3) Thanks for clarifying the AW-101 mess, so the GoI is at this moment in talks assessing whether the AW-101 deal can go ahead as planned so it is still unknown if the Aw-101s will be used to ferry the PM? What do you think are the chances the GoI will successfully come to a favourable agreement for both sides (th completion of the original contract) with AW on this front?

4) If the GoI areunable to come to an agreement with AW-101 on this front what will the IAF do for VVIP helos then? You have made a valid point the V5s are not intended for PM/President use and are unsuited for head of state transport on safety grounds but with the IAF's current VVIP fleet of Mi-8/17 coming the end of their service lives very soon (literally within the next 18 months) what alternative do the IAF have? They need a dedicated fleet for head of state transport ASAP and yet you have ruled out a fast tracked FMS deal for the S-92 that I would have though was ideal.

5) When will construction work on the P-17As begin? They are desperately needed and work on the P-15Bs has already started last year itself.

Reddy said...

RAW ARC's Global 5000 is looking stunning and gives us a feel that so much tech goes into it.

Hope this machines protects Billion people with it's SIGINT capability.

Anonymous said...

Hi Prasun,

Why are best of our scientist still hooked up in superstitions. i don't understand, this is the same case with ISRO. Why is not scientific thinking not initiating free thinking ?

Kaustav Bhattacharya said...

Dear Anonymous at 9:10 AM - What perfectly senseless language!!! If you mean scientific thinking initiates free thinking, I fail to see the relationship. Scientific Thinking and Logical Processes certainly go hand in hand but we should also remember that these guys are more engineers and technicians rather than Scientists in the true sense of the word. Why focus on such inconsequential things which might give them some peace of mind although not at the cost of being meticulous and quality conscious while carrying out their tasks. Even the current Director ISRO is an Engineer MBA and not a scientist.

Which brings us to the main problem .... Why are the best brains of the country not getting into pure science and mathematics? Why is our research output on fundamental science which will create the most breakthroughs for the future Indian society lagging behind? Why do we not have more original research papers, more projects and finally more patents and certainly international recognitions and awards?

Rahul said...

Hi Prasun,

The latest IAF press release says that the ejection seats had fired while the su30mki was coming in to land. Isnt this a bit spooky? Ejection happening automatically without the pilot unaware of this? Is it even possible that some malicious softwares had been installed or some instructions have been uploaded deliberately to cause this. An act of sabotage perhaps?

What could have caused such an incident? The premature ejection have added a supernatural element to this crash .

Ex Intelligence said...

@Kaustav Bhattacharya,

I fully understand why you are so hell bent in justifying this idiotic practice of offering Puja before a missile launch. But please tell me why is it that a number of missile tests in India FAIL despite the fact that Puja was offered?

Prav said...

1.I am sorry I did not ind the article on the Rafale . Could you please link it .
2.Are the project 17a frigates being redesigned ? At first they would be similar to the Fremme frigates . Is the navy looking at a tumblehone hull design for the 17a s ?
3.Could you give us some more details on the engine of the nirbhay? Which organisation is responsible for it etc ?

saurav jha said...

Hi Prasun,

Why is IN looking for LPD sized 40K Tons..?

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To RAHUL: Did the IAF ever use the term ‘premature’ in its press statement to describe the ejection process? Before the ejection seats are manually activated, the cockpit canopy severance system too has to be activated manually. All that the IAF statement says is that the ejection seats had fired. It never says anything else, like an accidental activation (which is impossible) or a deliberate activation by the aircrew. So why all this needless speculation by imbeciles affiliated with the ‘desi’ press corps?

To SAURAV JHA: Elementary. Because it is the LPHs that will be procured, not LPDs. I have been stating this since 2004.

Gessler said...

Prasun ji - so what is the exact breakdown of our purchases here? Don't the Mistral/Juan Carlos count as LPH/LHD ? They're displacements are just around 21,000-26,000 tons at full load.

Are we gonna buy LPDs? (like Jalashwa/Trenton or San Antonio-class)?

I thought the vessels of 40,000 tons displacement will be Fleet Support Ships (FSS) like the DCNS BRAVE-class?

Are we also gonna buy some more dedicated FRVs?

I will be glad if you can provide a full breakdown of all kinds of ships IN wants to procure, including the new RFIs.

Vikram Guha said...

Prasun Da,

Happy Diwali and Kali/Lakshmi Puja

Russian media is reporting that India has abandoned a SAm project with Ukraine and will instead purchase the Russian SOSNA-R

Is there any truth in this report?

Shreya said...

Hello Sir,

1.Is there possibility of India getting a LPH that is similar to South Korea's Dokdo ?

2.What precautions has India taken to avoid cyber sabotage in Defence electronics procured from international suppliers ?

3.Will the IAC-2 Nuclear , be built in Cochin Shipyard or at L&T ?

4.IS there plans to expand IRNSS coverage from regional to global, by launching more satellites ?

Thanks in advance

DefenseandAerospace said...

Hi Prasun,

Ruskies are screwing India once again by overcharging for tank ammunition

Why can't India stop purchasing the T-90 and go in for the German Leopard which in any case is far better than the T-90? In any case there is no state of the art military systems that the Ruskies can sell to India.

Kaustav Bhattacharya said...

Dear Ex-Intelligience,

Not only did you not go through my post you have not understood the gist of your own words..TESTS..a classic case of missing the wood for the trees

The prayers were meant for peace of mind not for divine intervention or miracles. That is why tests are conducted to seek out problem areas, faults, rectify errors and to keep testing till acceptable levels of success are attained. Adherence to proper Planning, Commitment to Quality and Good Manufacturing practices and following proper SOPs will ensure low failure rates after the product has been developed after rigorous testing and development.

Now in what way does a few prayers affect the above set procedure either positively or negatively. The Media wants news bytes so they try to sensationalise it forgetting that Indians practice Bhumi Pujans, casual Pujas, Shastra Pujas without seeking to blame supernatural powers for failures which are a stepping stone to success.

Having said that Failure rates of productionised items chould be reduced by adherence to GMPs TQMs & SOPs

Anonymous said...

1) KC390 just rolled out. whats the progress on UAC/HAL mta?

2) was wondering - can a tilt-rotor (Osprey) be modified to E3D AWACS type for operating from IN carriers?

3) is it tactically possible for India to withdraw recognition of Tibet as Chinese?

Parikrama said...

prasun Da.
What is the status of rafale deal really? When its proposed to be signed? And whats this cost which everybody keeps quoting. Do you have any breakup like what these figures include really.. Seems too much venom is being spewed in media against rafale.

Gessler said...

Wish you & your loved ones a very HAPPY DIWALI, Prasun ji !!

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

Documentary on Taiwan’s Defence Posture:

Excellent documentary on the Xinjiang situation:

Excellent new documentary on the ancient submerged port-city of DWARKA:

This documentary conclusively proves that it was the UPA-1/2 govts that politicised the issue & sabotaged all efforts by the ASI to continue its offshore exploration activities concerning Dwarka.

Facinating documentary on scenic Gilgit-Baltistan:

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To DEFENSE & AEROSPACE: Everything is not what it seems or appears to be. That's why, NEVER assume anything. It is not the Russians screwing up India, but Indians (like AKA, who refused to sanction emergency purchases for the past 2 years & for this let us all pray that may he disappear into political wilderness for the rest of his life) screwing up India. AKA took this decision because the DRDO had then promised indigenous solutions within a finite period of time & of course this promise wasn't kept simply because the DRDO was unable to set up its own test-firing rig at TBRL & ARDE for the T-90's 2A46M 125mm smoothbore cannon. And whenever any buyer wishes to make last-minute emergency purchase of ammunition, the cost is always much higher. Furthermore, no MBT main ammo manufacturer will ever transfer/export any technology reqd for licence-producing such ammo abroad. So why should Russia be the exception?

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

Wishing all of you & all your loved ones a joyous Deepavali. And speaking of Deepavali, this sure makes some interesting reading:

Pintu said...

same to you prasun da, A very happy Deepavali to all :)

Austin said...

Happy Diwali Prasun and Happy Blogging.

Mr. RA 9 said...

Happy Deepavali

Reddy said...

cold start

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

'India is Afghanistan's all-weather friend', says Afghan Interior Minister:

Storm Clouds Ahead for the "All-Weather Allies"? Today's Pakistan-China Relationship

Soviet-Era Combat Aircraft Showing R-73E AAMs Being Fired 90-degree Off Boresight

Arjun MBT in Combined Arms Manoeuvres at Jaisalmer:

Pakistan-Iran Border Tensions:

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

NaMo’s First Flight On Board A Mi-171:

Anonymous said...


i read in another blog that Su-30 requires each pilot to activate ejection seat individually. But i was surprised hearing that, because ejection of one pilot will surely cause ramming of air in the other cockpit making any further action by the unejected pilot extremely difficult. That would also compromise the ability of one pilot to save the other who might be having a temperory disillution or blackout in a failed a/c.
Why such a system is placed and what is the logic behind individually activated ejection, after all you cannot expect one pilot to bail out while the other manage the open-top aircraft in a bond style back to the base.
thanks in advance,

Sreenivas R

Gessler said...

Good news, Prasun ji -

BTW, waiting for your answers with regard to previous questions.

Vikram Guha said...

Prasun Da,

MoD today cleared Rs.80,000 crores of contracts .

(1) Why is India purchasing Spike ATGM instead of Javelin?

(2) I am not sure why the IA is going in for indigenous production of 363 BMP-2 instead of purchasing state of the art IFVs from Europe?

(3) Now that 6 subs will be built in India, which shipyards do you think stand a chance to get this contract?


pratik said...

hello sir , are u ok with this recent defence clearance.

Parikrama said...

prasun da,
80k Cr deals cleared but no where we know the fate of rafale
a.What is really the status of rafale deal?
b. is it 126 (18 flywaway and rest mfg in India) or now its 126+63 as reported by some journos
c. Whats the cost of rafale (flyaway price and rest TOT service breakup)
d. What abt AH64D deal and chinook..whats the numbers we r looking at and when
e. Do u see any chance of new acquisition now or all being moved to next financial year?

prateek said...

sir ,
the DAC cleared 80k crore worth of acquisitions.

1) 321 spike launchers & 8000 missiles are surely not enough for 400 infantry & 45-50 odd mech inf battalions..
what will be the final figure ? & how many launchers & missile goes to each battalion ?

2) & for the 6 new submarines , what are odds of Scopene making the cut ?

3) sir , if could , will you please share a basic TOE&O of an indian infantry battalion.I just want to know how many LMGs , MMGs , HMGs & night vision equipment is available to each infantry formation in peace & field areas.

I sometimes think the firepower available to individual sections can be greatly enhanced by issuing each with atleast one SAW.
if this were to be done which caliber do you think will be apt , 5.56 or 7.62 ?
P.S- I know the last ques is not the best things to ask , plz ans if you could.

thank you

Mr. RA 9 said...

It is good that at last they are purchasing the Spike ATGM.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To VIKRAM GUHA, PRATEEK & Mr.RA 9: LoLzzzzz!!! The ‘desi’ news-reporters have once again excelled in screwing up big-time. What will be procured are not Spike-MRs or Spike-ERs, BUT SPIKE-SRs. It’s all been explained in the latest thread.

To VIKRAM GUHA: Since all 6 P-75I SSKs will be built in-country, it stands to reason that only the model which is now being built & for which the country’s sole builder of SSKs—MDL—has been acquiring manufacturing proficiency, will now be built in greater numbers, i.e. 6 + 6 Scorpene SSKs, with the latter 6 incorporating AIP. IF the MoD & IN are smart, then they ought to close ranks & instruct the DRDO to team up with Japan’s GS Yuasa Battery for co-developing Lithium-ion battery packs, instead of developing far more complex AIP plug-ins on which the DRDO is wasting enormous time & resources. The more audacious option would be to develop a nuclear propulsion system for the six P-75I boats, similar to what Brazil is attempting to do with its CNBR project.