Total Pageviews

Sunday, October 26, 2014

New Force Accretions Are Welcome, But There's More On The Waiting List-2

The Indian Army’s (IA) special operations forces, known as SF (Para), will at last begin acquiring the vital force-multipliers that were promised to them as far back as 2004! Yesterday, the MoD’s Defence Acquisitions Council (DAC) cleared the decks for the DPB to initiate sole-source contractual negotiations for a number of items for not only the SF (Para) formations, but also for the IA’s newly-created XVII Corps, which, essentially, is a warfighting formation that will specialise in highland warfare and will also be air-mobile in nature.  
To be ordered in the near future will be 8,356 Spike-SR ATGMs (FROM Israel’s RAFAEL) and related 321 ultra-light ATGM launchers worth Rs 3,200 crore, plus ELTA Systems-built ELM-2138T ‘Green Rock’ Tactical Counter Rockets, Artillery & Mortars (C-RAM) Systems, and ELBIT Systems Electro-Optics’ Long View CR optronic sensors. On the other hand, for equipping the Indian Army’s existing 356 infantry battalions (inclusive of 44 mechanised infantry battalions) of the 1.13 million-strong IA and the projected 30 new infantry battalions to be raised in the 13th five-year defence plan (2018-2022) 1,914 FGM-148 Javelin ATGM launchers and up 37,860 missile-rounds (including war wastage reserves) and 12,000 SMAW-2NE launchers and up to 80,000 rounds of various types are planned to be procured in future.
Presently, the IA is authorised by the MoD to have a total of 81,206 ATGMs, with each infantry battalion deployed in the plains being armed with four medium-range (1.8km-range) and four long-range (4km-range) ATGM launchers (each with six missiles), and those in the mountains have one of each type along with six missiles for each launcher. In reality, however, the IA’s total existing inventory of ATGMs now stands at only 44,000 that includes 10,000 second-generation MBDA-developed and BDL-built SACLOS wire-guided Milan-2 ATGMs and 4,600 launchers; 4,100 second-generation MBDL-supplied Milan-2T ATGMs; 15,000 second-generation 4km-range 9M113M Konkurs-M SACLOS wire-guided ATGMs licence-built by BDL, plus another 10,000 that are now being supplied off-the-shelf by Russia’s JSC Tulsky Oruzheiny Zavod. Also on order are 443 DRDO-developed third-generation Nag fire-and-forget ATGMs along with 13 DRDO-developed NAMICA tracked ATGM launchers.
The DAC, led by then Defence Minister A K Antony, had taken up the procurement of the fire-and-forget FGM-148 and SMAW-2NE for clearance on April 2, 2013, following which the MoD’s approved the DRDO’s proposal for jointly developing the high-altitude warfare-optimised warheads for the two anti-armour weapon systems. By the first half of next year, therefore, the MoD and its wholly owned DPSUs like Bharat Dynamics Ltd (BDL) and Ordnance Factory Board (OFB) will be able to ink military-industrial agreements with US-based Raytheon for both the joint development of thermobaric and HE/FRAG penetration-cum-blast warheads as well as the licenced-production of the FIM-148 Javelin’s missile rounds (the launchers will be licence-assembled by BDL) as well as the SMAW-2NE’s modified 83mm Mk80 rocket (containing a thermobaric HEDP warhead), while the re-usuable launchers will be licence-assembled by OFB.
The IA had zeroed in on the FGM-148 Javelin as far back as 2008 after it had conducted in-country summer user-evaluations of the RAFAEL of Israel-built Spike-ER ATGM. During these evaluations, seven out of the 10 missiles fired missed their targets because their on-board uncooled long-wave infra-red (LWIR) sensors failed to distinguish their targets from their surroundings (an identical problem had also beset the Nag ATGM’s uncooled LWIR sensors in 2012 during user-evaluations). In contrast, the high-altitude warfare-optimised Javelin will use a cooled mid-wave IR (MWIR) sensor that will be able to passively lock-on to targets at up to 50% farther range than an uncooled sensor, thus allowing the firing crew greater and safer standoff distance, and less likely to be exposed to counter-fire. As far as weight is concerned, the cooling equipment adds less than 2 lb per weapon. The uncooled sensor is not only less reliable, but its long-LWIR spectrum is only compatible with a dome made of softer materials that vulnerable to abrasion in harsh environments (e.g., deserts) and consequently require replacement more often. The cooled seeker’s MWIR spectrum allows a durable hardened dome, and it is better than LWIR in discerning threats in certain geographic locations or environmental conditions. An uncooled sensor thus brings increased repairs, decreased operational availability, and dangerous vulnerabilities, while a cooled IIR sensor saves lives, lessens fratricide, minimises collateral damage, lowers risk, and protects its firing platforms/crew.
It was in 2003 that IA HQ had formulated a General Staff Qualitative Requirement (GSQR) in 2003 for acquiring the Milan-2T, armed with a tandem-warhead. The tandem warhead was to be licence-built by BDL under ToT from MBDA. The GSQR of the in-service Milan-2 had provided for an essential range as 1,850 metres and a desirable range of 2,000 metres. The GSQR of 2003 for the Milan-2T had indicated the range as 2,000 metres. The RFP for procurement of 4,100 Milan-2Ts was issued to BDL in January 2007. The MoD’s Technical Evaluation Committee (TEC) did not find the product offered by BDL compliant with the GSQR as the range of 2,000 metres offered had only 1,850 metres under wire-guidance phase, while the last 150 metres was left unguided (along with the first 75 metres after missile launch). The case for procurement was therefore closed in May 2007. 
Subsequently, BDL confirmed that the guidance-range of the Milan-2T would be 2,000 metres. The case was re-opened and trials of the Milan-2T were conducted in February 2008. Based on the firing trial results, Indian Army HQ did not recommend its introduction into service in view of difficulties in engaging moving targets during the last 150 metres. In addition, the requirement was not met in terms of flight-time and overall weight. Furthermore, third-generation ATGMs were already available in the global market by June 2006. Based on  representations from the staff union of BDL to the then Minister of State for Defence Production & Supplies (since non-placement of orders for Milan-2Ts would result in redeployment of BDL’s workforce and already procured materials common to Milan-2/-2T would have to be junked), it was decided to procure a minimum required quantity of Milan-2Ts in May 2008 by amending the GSQR in August 2008 for the Milan-2T with 1,850 metres range and with the waiver of in-country firing-trials, after considering the long lead-times required for procuring third-generation ATGMs, and the fact that the shelf-life of existing stocks of Milan-2 would expire by 2013. The revised RFP was issued to BDL in September 2008 as per the amended GSQR. The MoD concluded a procurement contract with BDL in December 2008 for the supply of 4,100 Milan-2T ATGMs at a cost of Rs.587.02 crore with a staggered delivery schedule to be completed within 36 months from the effective date of contract.

The RPO-A & C-90A LAW Procurement Sagas
The IA had, since the 1980s, never really embraced the idea of procuring one-man portable shoulder-fired, reusable anti-armour weapons (LAW) capable of defeating armoured vehicles, enemy bunkers and other reinforced positions. It was only in 1996 that LAWs were procured in small quantities and this was followed in June 199 during OP Vijay, in an effort to meet its urgent requirements, by the Army HQ proposing the procurement of 1,800 disposable bunker-bursting LAWs (600 RPO-A Shmels from Russia’s Rosoboronexport State Corp and 1,200 from Spain’s Instalaza SA). The proposal also indicated that 600 more LAWs were required under the 9th Army Plan. In response to the MoD’s enquiries, Russia’s KBP Tula offered to supply its RPO-A Shmel at a unit price of US$3,600 for an order of 600 and at the rate of US$3,500 for an order of 1,200 units. The MoD urgently concluded a procurement contract in June 1999 for 1,200 RPO-As each priced at US$3,500 with a delivery schedule in two lots of 600 pieces each, thereby aggregating US$4.2 million (Rs.18.22 crore), with deliveries commencing within two months from the date of contract signature. A delegation of the IA had witnessed a live-firing demonstration of the RPO-A as early as in September 1995. In its evaluation report, the delegation had observed, among other things, that target engagement could not be analysed beyond 350 metres vis a vis the 1,000-metre range claimed by KBP Tula in its technical offer; the firing could be conducted only during daylight as no night-sighting device was developed; and the thermobaric warhead’s terminal effect could not also be assessed as there was no incendiary effect. The then Chief Scientific Adviser to the MoD had also brought to the notice of the MoD in November 1995 that the DRDO representative in the delegation had reported that during the demonstration of September 1995, 14 RPO-As were fired at a range of 200 metres and none of the shots hit the targets at that range. However, the delegation recommended procurement of the weapon only as a one-time buy, suggesting that future requirements be met indigenously by the DRDO and OFB. Accordingly, 300 RPO-As were procured in September 1996 as a one-time buy. Against these recommendations of the delegation, the MoD at the instance of Army HQ once again decided to go ahead with follow-on procurements of another 300 RPO-As at a total cost of Rs.18.22 crore even though it did not meet the end-user’s operational requirements. Deliveries commenced only after August 1999.
The MoD concluded a procurement contract on June 30, 1999 with Instalaza SA for the off-the-shelf supply of 1,200 C-90A LAWs worth US$1.66 million (Rs.7.15 crore). As per the terms of the contract, Instalaza SA had to offer the C-90As for inspections at its premises within six weeks from the date of contract signature, and immediate delivery and transportation by air-freight in one lot thereafter. Two days after signing the contract, Instalaza SA indicated that the consignment could be despatched by air and it would extend all co-operation to deliver the goods by air after receipt of instructions from the MoD. Accordingly, the MoD amended the clause regarding the mode of despatch from ‘Ship’ to ‘Air’ on July 8, 1999 Instalaza SA intimated its readiness to despatch the consignment after it was duly inspected by its authorities in August 1999. However, Instalaza SA expressed apprehension on airlifting the goods as they fell under the ‘dangerous category’. The freight agent also intimated the MoD by September 1999 about its inability to obtain requisite airspace transit clearances from the country of origin and the other countries involved. Consequently, the MoD amended the contract clause relating to the mode of despatch on October 7, 1999, reverting back to ‘Ship’. Eventually, the C-90As arrived on December 11, 1999, four months after being ready for dispatch, while the MoD had in August 2000 claimed that the delay occurred due to factors beyond its control.
Which ATGMs For Rudra & 
LCH Helicopters?
Any Takers For SAMHO?
Further Force-Multiplier Accretions On 
The Way
The ELM-2138T C-RAM is a mobile, autonomous system designed to respond to evolving light artillery threats in land operations, and support a variety of ground forces missions, including force protection, fast-response to enemy-attack, and friendly-fire correction. Installed on all-terrain vehicles (ATV), the system comprises a dual-band radar to acquire and track trajectories of ballistic munitions such as rockets, artillery and mortars. The ELM-2138T calculates the launching point and predicts the point of impact. Whenever a threat to friendly forces is detected, a warning is sent to the area’s control centre and to the interception systems to respond to the threat and its source.
Elbit Systems Electro-Optics’ Long View CR, weighing less than 12.5kg, combines a very long-range continuous optical zoom FLIR, long-range day cameras, integral eye-safe laser rangefinder, GPS and a magnetic compass all in one, compact configuration. For dismounted operations, the Long View CR is operated on a miniature electronic goniometer enabling high azimuth and elevation accuracy. It can be carried in a backpack or mounted on a vehicle, making it especially suitable for long-range intelligence-surveillance-reconnaissance (ISR) missions performed by special operations forces, or forward observers (FO) in stationary observation posts or reconnaissance vehicles. With its proprietary algorithms and technologies, the Long View CR has the unique ability to acquire long-range targets or to observe small targets, such as enemy combatants, in high spatial resolution under severe visual conditions day or night.
The XVII Corps will in future be equipped with two force-multipliers: the  TAC-4G broadband fourth-generation cellular network, and the Real Time Intelligence Center (RICent) multi-sensor modular Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (ISR) system—both from ELTA Systems. TAC-4G is based on a flat-IP network architecture which provides flexible and fast communications between many users. This includes fast-and-secure communications between different points and support of concurrent running of multiple applications, many of which require high bandwidth. The high flexibility of TAC-4G along with additional inherent capabilities such as information security, on-the-move network infrastructure, and support of multiple applications, positions the system as an optimal solution for addressing the complex military communications requirements. 
TAC-4G also supports a wide variety of multimedia applications and allows quick and easy addition or removal of applications. It also implements the ‘network-centric warfare’ principle; allows various-level commanders the highest level of control and effective activation of various warfighting, logistics and maintenance forces; allows, real-time battlefield management and control; uses the cost-effective commercial cellular network providers’ infrastructure, which allows shorter implementation time and fewer risks in comparison to other alternatives that are not based on COTS infrastructures.
RICent is designed to produce 24/7 all-weather geo-spatial  imagery intelligence (IMINT) through the real-time processing and integration of images generated by a variety of space-based, airborne and land-based IMINT sensors. RICent’s multi-sensor exploitation and intelligence dissemination processes employ a variety of automatic and semi-automatic tools essential for quick detection, acquisition and identification of time-critical targets, extracted from the huge volumes of imagery data. Its field-proven capabilities for very high-throughput automated geo-spatial image intelligence processing are also essential in effective wide-area environmental monitoring and for responding quickly to natural disasters.
For further improving command-and-control connectivity for those IA and ITBP detachments responsible for both manning the LAC and undertaking long-range reconnaissance patrols, the fast-track acquisition of up to 80 lightweight ELK 1895 manpack tactical SATCOM terminals has been approved. The IA presently has 280 briefcase-based SATCOM terminals built by ECIL, but they are getting outdated technologically. The ELK 1895 manpack SATCOM terminals with Ku-Band transmission/reception capability for almost unlimited ranges will thus be welcomed as a vital force-multiplier. Each such terminal will include two-three suitcases to hold an antenna, dish and other equipment. The first 40 ELK 1895 terminals are meant for the IA’s Northern, Central and Eastern Commands, which together cover the three sectors of LAC—western (Ladakh), middle (Uttarakhand, Himachal Pradesh) and eastern (Sikkim, Arunachal Pradesh). 
MoD-Owned Goa Shipyard Ltd Building Two Wholly India-Financed 75-Metre NOPVs For Sri Lanka Navy, Bags Contract For Supplying Four More To Vietnam
China’s Border Infrastructure Landmarks
ITBP At Chumar
NORINCO’s NLOS Anti-Armour Missiles

254 comments:

1 – 200 of 254   Newer›   Newest»
Anonymous said...

Prasun-da

so you are saying that both Spike and Javelin will be procured...seems nobody else is reporting the Javelin, it means they have only half the story...

Also, the 6 75I subs, do you think they will be scorpene, if so, why look for another shipyard, Mazagon already has the experitise, no?

Thanks

Ashish

Mr. RA 9 said...

But Spike-SR are suitable only for use in urban environments. Is it OK.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Mr.RA 9: Not quite. It can also be used with devastating effect against fortified structures located on the plains, highlands & mountains. And since it is extremely lightweight, it is ideally suited for airborne/air-mobile special forces & paratroopers & the IA's 'Ghatak' mountain warfare platoons.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To ASHISH: YES. Both Spike-SR & Javelin ATGMs will be procured for totally different missions. Yesterday's procurement-related go-aheads pertained to only the special operations forces of the IA, IAF & IN & in this area, the 'desi' news-reporters are ignorant of the hard facts 99.9% of the time. Had the decision been taken to order Spike-MRs instead of Javelins, then the number to be ordered would have been much higher since the winning ATGM is required to replace existing Milan-2s & Milan-2Ts. But even this commonsensical fact-of-life has been overlooked by the 'desi' press-corps!

Project 75I will be implemented jointly by MDL & Pipavav Defence & Offshore Engineering. Both companies have already inked PPP agreements to this effect & it was Pipavav that has carried out most of the plate-bending that's required for the first six Scorpene SSKs.

Who Cares said...

Si, it's curtains fir NAG?, if the javelin is ordered.

lachit said...

there were reports that this project 75i will have a separate module to launch brahmos missile, is it true.
and can nirbhay missile be fired from torpedo tubes or from VLS containers?

Biswajit said...

Hi Prasun,
Will d midget submarine that will b procured for IN's MARCOS be built by HSL OR by L&T?
Any status report on Adamya AUV?
Thnk in Advc...

kaku said...

Prasunji So you saying for P-75I Pipavav will be chosen and not L&T.

vishakh said...

Hi

Carl-Gustaf M4 is better option as it predessor is already with army and its supports more rounds and higher range and lighter than 7KG.

Why and what advantage does SMAW-2NE provides over Carl-Gustaf M4??

SS said...

Prasunji,

Some time back you wrote that the IN is thinking of developing SSN submarines instead of P-75I project. Since the P-75I is given a go ahead, where does the SSN development stays now. VMT.

sumit sen said...

dada.. Why opted for spike?? Why 2 agtms?? If we can have javelin for both special operations and for general army batallions??

Master said...

What is stopping Rafale?

India lacks funds?
French refusing ToT?
French insitance non-HAL (RIL) as partner?

what's that that is holding this deal?

Please share with us if you have some info.. Thank you.

Master said...

or Dassault does not want to be responsible for HAL made Rafales?

what made dassault think HAL made rafale is qualitatively not equal to paris made rafales?

or for that matter how does RIL can be a good partner which has no experience as such? HAL has over 50 years in this business even if it not on par with west..

if quality check is not passed eventually HAL made rafale won't find the HAL exit door anyway.. so why should dassault object?

if french claim is valid how does indian govt proceed? will they form a corporation and give french some director level posts? there by HAL and Dassault can have good mfg base in HAL?

how many decades a deal go through?

DAshu said...

thank you for the clarification.
By reading news, One would easily assume something might went wrong with US so sudden drift towards spik. :)

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To WHO CARES: Why are you comparing the Nag/HELINA with Javelin or Spike? 4km-range Nag & 7km-range HELINA ATGMs are for totally different missions & platforms. Don’t forget that the 4km-range Konkurs/Konkurs-M ATGMs too need replacements.

To LACHIT: Way back in 1997, when Russia had first proposed to the IN its Amur 1850 SSK with VLS plug-in containing BrahMos-1 ASCM, the IN did an analysis & concluded that any SSK equipped with such VLS will make it unstable & it will be a nightmare to control the SSK’s neutral buoyancy levels. This is because ASCMs like BrahMos-1 are best launched from either VLS or inclined launchers encased within much heavier SSGNs. It was for this reason that Russia way back in 2001 wound-up its efforts to market the VLS-equipped Amur 1650 in India. The IN, rightly, now believes that long-range ASCMs are best when on-boars SSGNs & not SSKs simply because such ASCMs are used almost solely for targetting hostile carrier battle groups & only SSGNs can shadow them given their higher cruise speeds. SSKs just can’t do this job due to their limited endurances & much lower cruise speeds. This being the case, it becomes senseless to equip SSKs with ASCMs like BrahMos-1 & that’s why Russia itself NEVER built any SSKs designed to accommodate such long-range ASCMs. So, the IN will be much better off if it opts for ASCM solutions launched from torpedo tubes, like the Novator 3M-54E Club S ASCM & 3M-14E LACM, or SM-39 Exocet or UGM-84L Harpoon. Even torpedo tube-launched ASCM & LACM versions of Nirbhay will be far better options for the IN’s Scorpene SSKs.

To BISWAJIT: Not midget submarines, but Diver Propulsion Vehicles for MARCOS, whose requirement was made official way back in late 2010. The IN’s AUV reqmt has already been met through imported ROVs submerged mine neutralisation.

To VISHAKH: If that is so, then why has Saab Bofors Dynamics developed its 84mm AT-4 LAW?

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To SS: It all boils down to making well-articulated decisions on the IN’s future fleet composition. For instance, if the IN wants to acquire a fleet of SSBNs like S-2/Arihant, S-3, S-4, S-5, S-6 & S-7, the it is logical that the IN also requires SSNs to protect the SSBNs. This automatically translates into the need for developing nuclear propulsion systems for both SSNs & SSBNs. Furthermore, since it now almost confirmed that the IAC-2 too will be nuclear-powered, it makes sense to develop two types of PWRs: a 190mW PWR for SSBNs & IAC-2, & a more compact version of the S-2/Arihant’s 84mW PWR for single-hulled SSNs using the hull-design of the Scorpene (like what Brazil is doing). If this line-of-thought (which is my personal preferred option) is implemented, then Project 75I can morphe into: first, acquiring an additional three Scorpene SSKs equipped with either AIP or with lithium-ion batteries (this being done by India’s private-sector OEMs teaming up with Japan’s GS Yuasa Battery) to add to the six Scorpene SSKs now being built; & secondly, modifying the design of the last three Scorpene SSKs (like Brazil has) of Project 75I to accommodate a 84mW PWR.

To SUMIT SEN: Different types of ATGMs with different weight categories & range envelopes have been developed worldwide for different missions. ATGMs like Javelin, Spike-MR, Milan-2T/3, Konkurs-M, Kornet-E all require a crew of two to be operated, whereas the Spike-SR requires only 1 person to operate—which makes it the preferred choice for both special operations & mountain warfare. For operations in the plains, deserts & highlands, the Javelin is best-suited. There has never been & there will never be a universal weapon system suited for all types of operations in all types of terrain & altitudes.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To MASTER: Not due to lack of funds, but due to new directives from the Govt of India in terms of according higher priority to public-private partnerships for sub-contracting purposes. Under UPA-2, the bulk of the beneficiaries for licenced-production subcontracts were the DPSUs, which would have imposed an enormous financial drain on the MoD’s annual defence budget since the operating expenditures of all the DPSUs also have to come from the annual defence budget. With the adoption of the public-private partnership formula, such financial drain is avoided & consequently a greater portion of the funds will become available for capital expenditure, i.e. for procuring weapon systems. It’s simple, elementary economics which the UPA-2 stubbornly refused to acknowledge & hence the widespread misperception about the Rafale M-MRCA procurement being cost-prohibitive had gained ground. HAL may well be an experienced aircraft manufacturer, but it is totally inexperienced when it comes to being & performing like a global aerospace OEM. And that’s because it is wholly owned by the MoD & consequently, its Board of Directors & CMD are all either bureaucrats or technocrats that don’t enjoy any management autonomy, nor are well-experienced corporate outsiders allowed to become decision-makers. For instance, had HAL become a publicly-listed corporate entity, it could well have implemented eons ago the performance-based logistics (PBL) formula under which it would have been able to generate from the stock markets all the funds required for creating a chain of bonded warehouses housing ALL the spares (rotables/consumables, tyres, lubricants, additives, etc) that the IAF will require over a 5-year period for the IAF’s Su-30MKI fleet. In fact, that was the very reason why HAL & Rosoboronexport State Corp had in 1993 created the JV called Indo-Russian Aviation Ltd (IRAL). But since HAL is MoD-owned, it had to rely solely on the quantum of funds received from the annual budgets to stockpile spares & consequently, it was the IAF which successively vetoed the need to spend so-much of the MoD’s money on such MRO-related activities. The result: both the IAF & HAL are now inside the doghouse!

Similarly, the IN does not need to own & maintain its naval dockyards for undertaking periodic refits of its warships. After all, why spend on duplicating infrastructure & skilled manpower? Why can’t the shipyard which originally built the warship also be entrusted with the task of refitting/upgrading the warship? If MDL can become become both the manufacturer & upgrader of the Class 209/Type 1500 SSK, then why can’t this very same formula be applied to all other warships of the IN? If warships are built by GSL or GRSE or CSL or HSL, then why should they have to go to a Naval Dockyard for refits? Why can’t these very shipyards undertake such refits? Why this penchant for duplication of effort that only causes enormous wastage of funds?

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

REPLIES TO QUERIES FROM THE PREVIOUS THREAD

To VIKRAM GUHA: The new BMP-2s are meant for equipping the mechanised infantry units meant for deployment in Ladakh, Uttarkhand & Sikkim. They will be improved variants featuring TISAS DFCS & slat-armour packages. There’s no truth to the reports about the IA going for any new type of SHORADS like SONA-R.

To GESSLER: The Mistral built by a France-based South Korean shipyard qualifies as LPH as well, but cost-wise, the LPH offer from Navantia & backed up by GE-Alsthom is likely to be financially more attractive. An LPH with displacement of no more than 25,000 tonnes will be preferred. The IN doesn’t want LPDs, since they’re role-specific & are not as versatile as LPHs. As for ocean-going FRVs, up to five more new-build ones will be procured from private-sector shipyards. AS for next-generation DDGs, the orders will not be for more than 3. P-17A FFG is being wholly designed by the IN’s DND. SW-ASW vessels (not corvettes) are now being designed by the DND as well. Why should such vessels need cruise missiles of any kind??? The stupid idea of acquiring foreign designs was that of the former CNS of IN, Admiral Nirmal Verma who is now enjoying life as India’s Ambassador to Canada. As for carrier-based Gen-5 MRCA, what makes anyone assume that the FGFA will be superior to the Rafale? So far, only IAC-2 is planned for. INS Vikramaditya will soldier on for another 20 years. No navy in the world puts serviceable aircraft carriers into any kind of reserve. Nuclear propulsion is the only feasible option for any aircraft carrier that will have EMALS as well as directed-energy weapons for close-in air-defence. Furthermore, a 190mW PWR for IAC-2 will be of the very same design as that for the projected S-5/S-6/S-7s SSBNs.

To PRAV: P-17A FFGs will have the same hull design as the P-17 FFGs, but the structure will differ significantly as they will host the same type of masts as those of the P-15A DDGs & composites-built structures will be used in the interiors just like what has been done with the latter two P-28 ASW corvettes. Turbofan for Nirbhay is HAL-designed & HAL-built. It has been explained several times before.

To FARIS: You’re overlooking the fact that submarines today have flank-array sonars.

To SUJOY MAJUMDAR: Mini-UAVs can presently be used only by state-level & central law-enforcement agencies & up to certain altitudes only. No other private corporate entity is permitted to use mini-UAVs for private business activities. If anyone is, then that’s a clear violation of the DGCA’s directives.

Gessler said...

Very very much thanks for the answers Prasun ji, I was waiting with bated breath.

1) What about 40,000-ton Fleet Support Ships like Brave-class? Isn't IN also going for like 4-5 of them?

2) What are we going to replace the aging 4 Project-25 Khukri and 4 Project-25A Kora-class corvettes with?

3) What's up with the IN going for pitiful numbers of each class of vessel? 2, 3, 4 this is such a nuisance, really. Why not just build like 8-10 of a single class?

4) Any news on Tejas Mk-2?

Again VMT in advance!

Gessler said...

Also, is there anything called a Project-15C DDG? Is this the DD-21-type design?

Anonymous said...

Thanks Prasun-da for the answers and also the details in your reply to SS@11.43,

a follow up question then, why would IN not just go for 6 SSNs given the 84Mw PWR is relatively mature (S2/S3) and even acknowledging a potentially slower adoption in to the scorpene, it would still mean a better longer term solution. Who is to say the AIP or Li-I options will not be tough to integrate?

Ashish

Anonymous said...

1) does the sacking of Tibet commander Yang Jinshan have anything to do with what went down at the border during the Chinese premier's recent India visit?

2) can the AQIS threat to oil shipments passing through strait of hormuz be used as cover for PLAN deployment from Gwadar (assuming a few attacks do take place).

3) i read about Władysław Turowicz and other Polish serving pak. what is the current situation there in terms of foreign sourced manpower? is India attempting to attract global talent?

4) any progress on UAC/HAL mta?

5) has the IN given thought to developing tilt-rotor (Osprey) AWACS for operating from IN carriers?

6) is it politically possible for India to now withdraw recognition of Tibet as Chinese?

7) could the ground based BMD be fielded on follow-on Kolkata class? what would it take? and are there any plans for doing that from IN?

8) could the dhanush be further developed, canisterised and deployed as potential ASBM from future surface ships?

9) NASA working on high-bandwidth laser comm. system which is apparently more secure. is India working on something similar?

10) can Dhruv compete in the international market with EC135?

11) could the IN go for a modified Juan Carlos I class with lifts and arrestor gear?

Rahul said...

Sir,

1.This process is still ongoing & involves the construction of fortified & camouflaged infrastructure

Will u pls elaborate on the camouflaged and fortied structures which are now being built.

2. Are these structures for housing Lacm tel ,artillery assets ,armour OR they are only meant for personnel?

3. Are any above and sub terranean bunker complexes being built in the N,NW and Western sector and along LAC in Ap and Sikkim and Ladakh?

4. Are we building a chain of fortifications within 2 km of IB and WB which will serve both as outposts and firebases ?

5.Arent there any takers for Kestrel within IA? It being an indigenous product must be procured in bulk alongwith Arjun mk2.

6. Instead of doing a JV with US cant we develope a 4th gen versiin of Spike MR with Mwir seeker and a variety of warhead options customised to our needs?

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To GESSLER: 1) Yes, I have already mentioned it above. 2) The P-25s w& P-25As will eventually be replaced by the same type of stealthy hull design as that selected for the SW-ASW vessels. These littoral warfare strike corvettes, six in all, will be armed with ASCMs lighter than BrahMos-1/BrahMos-A. 3) That’s because no Govt of India has shown any respect for long-term integrated perspective plans. 4) Nothing new to report. A new-generation DDG design is still a few years away. So far, there’s no Project 15C.

To ASHISH: It all boils down to money & strategic visioning. Personally, my belief is that since the IN has already decided to invest in a fleet of SSGNs (S-2/Arihant, S-3 & S-4), SSBNs (S-5, S-6 & S-7) & a nuclear-powered IAC-2, then logically, the Govt of India should encourage the IN to go in for nuclear-powered Scorpene SSKs (like Brazil’s SNBR), since this will considerably reduce the R & D and production costs for naval nuclear propulsion systems.

To Anon@1.58AM: 1) No, it does not. It was to do with the failure of internal security & border domination arrangements in Xinjiang & along the China-Pakistan border. 2) PLAN does not intend to use Gwadar as a replenishment base. 3) No. 4) It is progressing at a snail’s pace. 5) And who will finance cost a cost-prohibitive R & D venture? 6) Impossible. 7) What for? 8) Which country has so far successfully demonstrated an ASBM? 9) India has never undertaken any ground-breaking R & D activity of the kind undertaken in the US, Russia, Europe or China. All India-made products developed so far are re-engineered versions of products already developed elsewhere. 10) Only if it secures airworthiness certification from either the FAA or EASA. 11) Nope.

To RAHUL: 1) Not as of now. 2) Both. 3) Yes. 4) Yes. 5) The IA has shown great interest in it. 6) Yes, it can be done, but in what kind of a timeframe? How long will it take to develop, considering the Nag ATGM has been under development since 1984 & has yet to enter service?

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

For those fringe-loonies who still claim that the Spike has SPIKED the Javelin, here’s some reality-check:

1) The Spike-SR costs about US$55,000 per unit, while the Javelin is priced at about US$145,000. Therefore, there’s no way Raytheon will be able to compete pricewise against RAFAEL UNLESS it is competing against the Spike-MR, which is priced almost the same as the Javelin.

2) Whenever any buyer negotiates a contract under the ‘buy & make’ category, the contract always includes the total number of missiles to be procured, inclusive of options. Consequently, contracts with licenced-production clauses are NEVER negotiated in a piecemeal manner or in successive tranches. For instance, when contracts for Milan-2 & Konkurs procurements were inked in the 1980s, the former called for procuring 4,600 launchers, 16,000 missiles & an option on producing another 16,000 missiles—all written down in a single contract—this being done in order to get the best & most economical per-unit cost offer from the seller. The same was the case with Konkurs. The contract to be inked for Spike-SR is valued at only some US$550 million for only 8,300+ missile rounds, meaning it is a onetime off-the-shelf buy.

For those who refuse to acknowledge this stark reality, all I can do for them is refer them to the bottommost visual uploaded above!

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To KITTU: SUDIPTO & JAYESH MELEDETH: WRT the state of R & D inside India, reality is that India has always offered scant opportunities for its best and brightest. If the opposite were to be true, then Commodore Arogyaswamy Joseph Paulraj, who led the R & D team that developed Indian’s first sonar, the hull-mounted APSOH, would not have left the country & settled in the US as Professor Emeritus at Stanford University’s Information Systems laboratory, & the late Amarendra Bose would have chosen India, & not the US, for establishing BOSE Acoustic Systems. The following are some additional hard facts:

China's expenditure on R & D totaled 868.7 billion yuan (US$139.2 billion) in 2011, up 23% year-on-year, according to a joint report published by the National Bureau of Statistics, the Ministry of Science and Technology and the Ministry of Finance. R & D expenditure was the highest in terms of the total amount and also its share in GDP, it said. R & D funds accounted for 1.84% of the country's annual gross domestic output (GDP) in 2011.

India published a mere 233,027 scientific papers in 2010 compared to 969,315 research articles by China. This is data from Elsevier, one the biggest publishers of scientific research in the world. China recorded a 22.83% growth in publishing scientific research compared to 14.27% by Indian researchers. Elsevier data shows that Chinese scientists are also much more up to date than the Indian scientific community. On an index of state of art science, China was placed at 0.86 with India coming on the negative end of the scale at -2.48 though the citation levels (how many other researchers read the papers) was higher for India than China on average. The publishing giant also looked at areas of competencies or quality research and again came up with the vast difference between the two. India had 159 areas of competencies in different scientific fields while China had 885 such areas. While India is publishing more in chemistry. engineering, biology and biotech, China is publishing a lot more in computer sciences, medical specialties, mathematics, physics and health sciences. The vast difference between the two is not just in published science but also patenting of technology--taking pure sciences forward into applications. China patents five times more than India for every billion dollars of GDP and the growth in registering new patents has risen rapidly over past five years. In 2005, China had filed 93,485 patents and this galloped to 153,060 in 2007. There is a reason why India is nowhere close to the Chinese scientific behemoth--Indian government doesn't invest half as much as the Chinese state does in scientific research and development and the distance between the two is widening. China is going to target investing 3% of its GDP into scientific endeavours by 2020 while India is still 'aspiring' to ramp it up from the current 0.9% to 2% by 2017. Percentages, however, do not tell the whole story. China's GDP is $6,980 billion as per IMF compared to India's $1,843 billion. China investing about 2.5% of its GDP last year in S & T works out to $174 billion compared to India's 0.9% which works out to roughly $16.5 billion. By Indian government's own admission, even a decade ago in 2002-2003, China had 8.5 lakh researchers producing 40,000 PhD theses in sciences compared to India's 1.5 lakh people producing about 1,000 PhD theses in R & D. The route both countries have taken to enhance their prowess in the world of science is also different. While China invests heavily through state-run scientific institutions, it also pulls in a large amount of private investment from outside. It has nearly 100 international research facilities that have come up since 2003. India's public investment in R & D has, in comparison, gone down with time and has been unable to attract partnerships with the private sector as well.

Cont’d below…

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

Let’s now turn to the military R & D scene inside India. As I had explained earlier, 100% of all R & D activity undertaken by the DRDO involves re-engineering of existing products, i.e. no fundamental R & D. Consequently, the DRDO should rightfully be renamed as Defence Re-Engineering Development Organisation. But here too, let’s examine some hard facts. Presently, 95% of India’s air-defence radars are imported, while for air-traffic control/management, 100% imported hardware serves both the civilian & military ATC reqmts. While common-sense would suggest that there’s much more money to be made in developing dual-use civilian/military ATC/ATM radars, precision approach radars, NDBs, & VOR/ILS systems, NOT A SINGLE such system has been developed or produced indigenously. The DRDO, which prides itself in developing S-band APARs for EMB-145I AEW & CS, has not even been able to develop terminal precision approach radars (now being imported from Selex Galileo), or meteorological radars (being imported from Brazil & the China) for either field artillery or for the IMD. The Rohini 3-D CAR was originally developed by Poland as the TRS-17. 100% of naval radars are imported. While hull-mounted panoramic sonars have been developed, fibre-glass domes housing them have to be imported. While airframes for combat aircraft are licence-produced, all their cockpit transparencies are imported. And without such imports, neither the ‘desi’ sonars nor the ‘semi-desi’ combat aircraft will become operational. This is the kind of haphazard & directionless activity that is being touted as R & D. For as long as the most critical components continue to be imported, India will never have any autonomy in exporting weapon systems that have been conceived & fabricated indigenously, be it the Tejas MRCA, BrahMos-1, Akash-1, Nag, etc etc.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To REDDY, DASHU & ABS: Re: Cold Start. That is a typical oversimplification of the ‘Cold Start’ concept. The term ‘Cold Start’ originally arose in February 2004 when the former COAS Gen S ‘Paddy’, while reflecting upon the 10-month OP Parakram of 2002, stated: “You could certainly question why we are so dependent on our strike formations and why my holding Corps don’t have the capability to do the same tasks from a COLD START. This is something I have worked on while in office. Perhaps, in time, it will be our military doctrine.” What he was referring was while the IA’s ‘holding’ or ‘pivot’ corps formations (minus armoured support) along northern Punjab & Jammu were ready for battle within 72 to 96 hours of receiving orders, the three ‘strike corps’ (1, 2 and 21 Corps) took almost three weeks to complete their mobilisation due to their reliance on interior lines of communications within India’s hinterland & external lines of communication in the border areas. The PA on the other hand relied on only interior lines of communications to deploy both its defensive offensive forces within 48 hours along a frontage extending from Sialkot right up to Chhamb. Consequently, post-OP Parakram, the IA made 3 transformational changes: first, since future wears will be only limited & not all-out, it made no sense to retain the IA’s 8 independent armoured brigades as strategic reserves & consequently, some of them were shifted to northern India & permanently attached to the Pivot Corps, thereby dramatically increasing their offensive might. Second, through a series of exercises, the IA perfected the art of mobilising such formations within 36 hours, instead of the earlier 72/96 hours. Third, the IA began acquiring precision-strike NLOS-LACMs like BrahMos-1 for targetting all the transportation nodes (like railway/road junctions & bridges) that will be used by the PA while rushing towards IB/WB along Jammu & northern Punjab. This process is still ongoing & involves the construction of fortified & camouflaged infrastructure—all of which has made the PA extremely jittery & hence its efforts since 2011 to push large numbers of infiltrators as both terrorists & spies in order to disrupt such construction activities.

It must also be noted that the presently-overstretched PA had been hoping till 2008 that India & Pakistan will be able to formalise the ceasefire that had been informally agreed upon by the DGMOs of the IA & PA because the that would have meant that both armies formally agree not to A) undertake construction of fortified structures along a 2km-depth on either side of the WB/IB & LoC; & B) withdraw their field artillery assets 30km away from the WB/IB & LoC. Since this formalisation never materialised, the PA is now extremely worried about the rapid mobilisation of the IA’s Pivot Corps formations that now have both offensive armoured/mechanised capacity & adequate fire-assault support for both the contact & deep battles. This is the real reason why all the former PA Generals appearing on various recent talk-shows have stopped referring to India as the ‘regional bully’ & now refer to India as ‘the cunning enemy’.

RD said...

Prasunda,
Regarding the recent defence acquisitions, 2 midget submarines will be procured for the navy. Which OEM's or design will be selected for this. Will it be similar to the X-crafts used by Pak navy. Also why 2 numbers, it should have been minimum 6 for orders.

Rahul said...

Hi Prasun,
1.How will the infiltrators,spies able to disrupt such construction activities? These projects must have adequate security cover.

2. Will u pls shed some more light on these constructions . A little something more than yes.There has been no media coverage on these camoflagued fortifications.

3. Will the structures now being put built able to take 155 mm arty shells,250 kg bomb direct hits. Upto what degree they are hardenned against a massed fire assault?

4.When we placing some of our independent armoured assets close to the IB and WB,we must make sure they have proper ADcover against a pre emptive missile strike with cruise,Tbm,Nlos-bsm,Mbrl. Do we have any such sam systems in place which can provide organic ABM cover and anti cruise cover to these formations and IBG which are stationed close to the IB.

5.DACcleared a Uran missile deal worth 1436 crores.. Will they be the latest 245 km ranged variant with a new guidance system and seeker?

6.how many Kh-35 will be acquired and for what platforms are they meant?

7. Does the OFB made Dhanush have the automatic loading system,crane and the Apu which the original F#77b had? Will the IA ones have these systems in them OR it will just be the howitzer .

sangaioinam said...

@Prasun K. Sengupta - AFAIK it is unlikely that the Chinese will agree to resume the process of LAC clarification after having walked out of it in 2002 without any cogent explanation. They even dispute the McMahon line itself of where it runs. Am not sure why you say everything is clear from Chinese side for border settlement unless you meant we have to give them AP and AC.

SS said...

Prasunji,

Does a new R&D effort for Scorpene based SSN (Like Brazilian effort you've mentioned above) will still be totally new effort which requires new PWR design(which should also be compact enough to fit and also power the submarine) which could take good many years to materialize. So isn't the Russian proposal of an SSN design based on S2 Arihant is more preferred choice?

And why the P-75I project is costing almost double that of P-75 project (50000 Crs compared to P-75's 25000 Crs for the same 6 number of submarines).

http://www.defencenewsdaily.com/europe/dcns-outlines-an-aip-design-based-on-the-nuclear-powered-barracuda/

How does the above Barracuda based SSK fares. If the data in the article is even half true then isn't the design remarkable enough for IN's P-75I SSK's project consideration? VMT

SS said...

http://idrw.org/?p=45841

An excellent article by serving Air Marshal on how IAF is shaping it offensive and defensive capabilities. Mr. Karnad should now invent new theories for his articles... :)

Gessler said...

VMT for the answers Prasun ji, also check out this video about SMX-Ocean concept by DCNS -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x875HaNzvag

Gessler said...

Also, sir are you saying the FSS & FRV are one and the same? I suppose you do.

P Singh said...

Prasunji, while your point about the numbers of SPIKE ATGMs does indicate that these are rather limited and thus not for the Infantry battalions but only for the Special Forces (Army, Navy?, Air Force?), what about clarifying this ANOMALY? The SPIKE SR is a short range (800m)single shot, fire and forget, disposable weapon. What, then, are the Launchers being contracted for? AFAIK, the SPIKE-SR does not have a separate launcher but only a display unit attached to each missile case, to be discarded after firing. Could you clarify please?

rad said...

Hi Prasun
The stated flight range of the nirbhay is 1000km, that would be nearly comming down to chennai , so what would be the possible flight test path of the nirbhay .It could be that it was made to do a turn around and fly back and terminate near the test range.How come the chinese have a cruise missile which can go to 2500km having the same dimensions?
It goes with out saying that the chinese and yanks would be monitoring the telemetry data of the flight that emanates from the missile . Can they gather intelligence from it and develop means to counter it.Can radar sats track the flight of a cruise missile from space?.
This applies to all flights from chandipur.It would be a good idea to use our desi made awacs to track the flight of the nirbhay so as to verify and correct the awacs algorithms for tracking cruise missiles.
Does the spike missile deal also cover the algorithms for the seeker and avionics? and TOT for making the IIR seeker.?. Why have we not gone in for the longer ranger missiles and only for the SR ones.Is it due to the NAg , helina etc.Why are they saying that the Nag will be ready in 2 years as it is made out to be that it has been fully qualified apart from the launcher.
The likes of self appointed defense experts like Bharat karnad should be castrated to keep his mouth shut!@#$

Ved said...

Why do we need diesel electric sub for P75I? Why not SSN?
Prasunji your views.

Halpart said...

Sir,
1) I saw the picture of Modi in the Mi-171 you linked to in the last thread, so I'm glad to see this VVIP helicopter drama is over. The AW-101s are old news and the IAF will stick to what they have (the trusty Mi-17s).

2) I saw a report today that the Rafale deal won't be signed this year (calendar or finical) contrary to the claims by the IAF and Dassualt previously as it seems Modi is engaging in the same socialist welfare schemes as the UPA and thus there isn't the budget for procuring such expensive systems. It's a shame Mr Modi has failed to live by his election promises and has followed the same appeasement paths as his predecessors.

3) Could you outline some of the other equipment cleared for the Indian Special Forces over than the diver propulsion vehicles for the MARCOS and SPIKE-SR, you said there was other equipment too. Does this include the MARCOs' new generation ICS i remember first reading about on this very thread a few years back?

4) Does the NSG still have their Reualt Sherpa vehicles? I saw them in the 29th NSG raising day celebrations in 2013 but this year around in the 30th raising day celebrations the Sherpa was not demonstrated. Did they return them? Is it true the SPG have Renault Sherpas too?

5) When will the LUHs of foreign design but built in India now enter service now Modi has retendered the deal? And which heli do you think will eventually win and enter service with the IAF and IA?

MPatel said...

This is brilliant. This is what the forces have been waiting for, for the last 10 yrs at least!!!

What i dont get is why go for two different variants Spike and Javelin?

Its the hypersonic missile is a reality:

http://www.janes.com/article/44897/images-show-jf-17-flying-with-cm-400akg-hypersonic-asm

What do you make of this? Is this a Bramos like system. They seem to have a land and sea versions.

MPatel said...

Sir,

Your response to one of the members " what makes anyone assume that the FGFA will be superior to the Rafale? "

If this is not the case why do we need to go for the FGFA?

Prav said...

Thank you for your answers sir .
You have written in detail about naval platforms . I hope that you can answer a few questions .
1. The project 28 corvettes appears to have limited armament compared to ships of similar displacement/size . Referring specifically to the lack of ASCM. Is it due to to it's role as you stated an escort for fleet tankers ?
Are the project 28a corvettes envisioned with a different role as a multi purpose platform perhaps ? Would such a platform have export potential ?
2. As you stated that the project 75I should interchangebly have nuclear as well as conventional propulsion . But wont nuclear propulsion have issues on such a small platform and aren't single hull designs for nuclear subs very unusual? Would it not be better to convert the arihant class to SSNs after the larger follow on SSBNs are in service while producing an SSN class similar to the arihant saving on time . Considering the dimensions of the arihant is comparable to many SSNs in service .
3.Also don't you think for a ship of the Arhihants size 83MW reactor is low considering that the Akula(a sub of similar size ) has a 190 MW reactor ?

vishakh said...

Hi,

This news says SMX submarine is AIP based Baracudda submarine which meets all IN navy NEXT GEN Requirement and it is based on Baracudda design which is well proven . Is it being offered ???

http://www.defencenewsdaily.com/europe/dcns-outlines-an-aip-design-based-on-the-nuclear-powered-barracuda/

SOUBHAGYA said...

Dear Prasun,
I do agree with you regarding man power analysis between India and China. It is Govt. of India who is responsible for losing the cream layer students of India to USA and other European counties. That's why today we are so much of our nationality saying that 40% work-force of Microsoft are Indians, 35% of NASA are Indians Blah Blah Blah. By the why we are so much afraid of failure??? Take for instance the development of Kaveri engine. I feel the development of Kaveri engine was a good start without any proper planning and motivation along with lack of support from Govt. of India. What is your say???

sathead3 said...

Psingh @ 4:39 pm Oct 27 raises an excellent point Prasun. If indeed this is a "SR" missile then where is the need for launchers and CLU? In fact, Rafael's website does not list a SR version at all: http://www.rafael.co.il/Marketing/342-1000-en/Marketing.aspx
although you have a photograph showing the SR designation. so a bit confusing. Is it the MR version that was ordered perhaps?

Mr. RA 9 said...

Spike-SR :

http://defense-update.com/20120214_rafael-unveil-a-light-affordable-member-of-the-spike-missile-family.html#.VE6PPVcrOXV

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To RD: That report on midgets is false & erroneous. Had explained yesterday what will be procured for MARCOS.

To RAHUL: 1) Where there is a will, there’s always a way. Hence the BSF has moved almost up to the Zero-Line along the IB/WB to increase 24/7 surveillance of the Zero-Line & this has drastically reduced Pakistan’s infiltration options. 2) Cannot. It would be inappropriate at this stage. 3) Why should they be vulnerable to field artillery of any type? Hostile field artillery assets can’t just sneak up….their movements will be monitored in both peacetime & wartime with ISTR assets like UAVs. 4) Of course such multi-layered AD cover exists. 5) Yes. Guidance system remains the Garpun Bal-E radar. 6) They’re meant for replacing those on board the P-15 DDGs, P-26A corvettes & 560-tonne Project 1241E.1 guided-missile corvettes. 7) Yes, they’re all there on the Dhanush.

To SANGAIOINAM: The LAC clarification process started way back in April 1960 when China first presented its version of the entire LAC on a scale map. Next, between 2005 & 2012, maps of all 3 sectors were shown by both parties to one another. McMahon Line’s alignment was always disputed because it was drawn without any accompanying ground survey work & therefore its territorial veracity has always been suspect. That’s why Krishna Menon himself was in the dark about this & in early October 1962 when he visited Tezpur he ordered the IA to advance 18km beyond the Thag La Ridge—an order that was countermanded by IA HQ within a day, meaning the MoD & IA had totally different notions of the LAC’s alignment on the ground! On top of that, since the colonial British administration had drawn up as many as 11 survey maps of Aksai Chin stretching all the way down to present-day Uttarkhand & depending on its colonial geo-strategic interests, had claimed various such maps to represent the boundary between Tibet & colonial India, India’s post-independence leaders NEVER reached a consensus of what India’s northern territorial boundaries were & hence the contradicting official survey maps issued by India in 1949 & 1953. Despite this, China until the mid-1990s never challenged the political status of the McMahon Line & that was precisely the reason why the PLA unilaterally withdrew in November 1962 north of the Thag la Ridge, while retaining almost all that it had captured in Aksai Chin. What’s required is an objective analysis of this issue from a historical perspective based on facts/events that have taken place, & not mere emotional oversimplifications based on assumptions of the kind stated by you.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To SS: Not a brand-new PWR design at all, but a scaled-down & re-engineered one, which the DAE can easily do so in cooperation with India’s heavy-engineering industries. After all, the DAE has now already mastered both the reactor physics & reactor engineering associated with a PWR design. Hence, if done on a mission-mode, a PWR-based propulsion package customised for the Scorpene SSK can be validated within a five-year period. And DCNS, just like in Brazil, will be only too happy to offer its expertise in the area of integrated full-electric propulsion systems, which will ensure further compactness of the entire nuclear propulsion package. Don’t forget that France is the only country that has succeeded in building the smallest-ever operational SSNs. And since the IN too prefers a single-hulled SSN design concept, a nuclear-powered Scorpene like the Brazilian SNBR project makes perfect sense to me. Existing financial figures for Project 75I are just guess-estimates & do not represent the authorised project costs. It is obvious that DCNS’ Barracuda-based SSK incorporating AIP is aimed directly at Australia’s submarine procurement programme. I for one would not recommend it for Project 75I & would rather stick to the Scorpene SSK’s hull design for the sake of keeping project costs under control.

To GESSLER: SMX Ocean is aimed directly at Australia’s submarine procurement programme. FSS & FRV is one & the same.

To P SINGH: What’s the anomaly? The launchers are required for being mounted in a stabilised manner when the Spike-SR has to be fired from 4 x 4 ATVs/LAMVs by SOF scout & recce units. Such ATGMs cannot be fired from such vehicles from an infantryman’s shoulder when they’re on the move & therefore launcher stabilisation is required.

To RAD: Had already explained the Nirbhay’s flight-path during the last test-flight in the previous thread. China’s CJ-10 LACM has a longer airframe. Telemetry data can always be intercepted by airborne recce assets like either manned ELINT aircraft or ELINT-configured UAVs, but not from space. Spike-SR deal is strictly off-the-shelf purchase & does not involve any ToT of any kind. For ATGMs, target recognition algorithms do not require any customisation. Longer-range ATGMs will follow in the form of Javelin & hopefully Nag.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To VED: Had already explained yesterday the far greater need for SSNs & have added to it above in my reply to SS.

To HALPART: 1) Who said it is over? That flight on a IAF-owned/operated Mi-171 was a short 10-minute flight from Srinagar Airport to the Governor’s residence & is not at all representative of average VVIP transportation flights by helicopter, which can last for up to 50 minutes. 2) Totally wrong assumptions & conclusions. I had already explained yesterday why contract signature is being delayed & there’s no other alternative. In fact, what NaMo & Jaitley are now attempting to do is something the UPA-2 ought to have done long ago. Had this been done, then the Rafale M-MRCA contract would have been inked by now. 3) Had uploaded yesterday data & visuals on additional hardware procurements for SOF. Kindly browse through them again. 4) Both the NSG & SPG have those vehicles in service. No one has returned anything. 5) No foreign-design LUHs for either the IA or IAF. The HAL-designed LUH is coming up just fine & hopefully before Aero India 2015 it will make its maiden flight.

To MPATEL: The air-launched CM-400AKG’s captive carriage trials have only begun. Its range is far lesser than that of BrahMos-1. Shipborne Barak-2s will make mincemeat out of them, rest assured. FGFA is still a long way away & won’t be inducted into service until 2025. The Rafale would well have been inducted into service by now had the UPA-2 not adopted regressive policy stances .

To PRAV: 1) Yes. ASW corvettes worldwide don’t carry ASCMs. As of now, P-28’s design remains role-specific. If a multi-purpose hull design is reqd for export, then GSL’s 75-metre OPV design of the type already sold to Sri Lanka (2 units) & now being offered to Vietnam will be the ideal candidate. 2) All SSNs of the US Navy & Royal Navy are single-hulled designs, if I’m not mistaken. S-2/Arihant, S-3 & S-4 will eventually become SSGNs (armed with BrahMos-1 or Nirbhay SLCM) AFTER the S-5, S-6 & S-7s SSBNs enter service. 3) The S-2/Arihant has smaller displacement compared to the INS Chakra.

To VISHAKH: SMX Ocean from DCNS is aimed directly at Australia’s submarine procurement programme.

To SOUBHAGYA: I fully agree. The Kaveri project has not been a failure at all. Even if one promises the moon but succeeds in scaling only the rooftop, then that too is a success. After all, one can learn only from setbacks.

To SATHEAD3: The launchers are required for being mounted in a stabilised manner when the Spike-SR has to be fired from 4 x 4 ATVs/LAMVs by SOF scout & recce units. Such ATGMs cannot be fired from such vehicles from an infantryman’s shoulder when they’re on the move & therefore launcher stabilisation is required. Spike-SR was first publicly displayed at the Singapore Air Show in February 2012.

HALPART said...

VMT for the replies kind sir!

1) So the NSG still has the Sherpa, have they displayed such vechiles at all their Hubs? And I have yet to see the Sherpa with the SPG, I've seen lots of cavalcades of the PM but other than the BMWs and Mercedes ambulance haven't seen the Sherpa Assault truck in the convoy. What are the SPG doing with such vehicles?

2)I understand what you are saying about the flight not being representative. If that is true, then where do the IAF go now? Do they have to restart the tendering process for VVIP helicopters? I've seen the current helicopter fleet of the IAF's communication squadron will be at the end of their serviceable lives within the next year or so so will the IAF be in the humiliating position to have to rent helicopters from private operators as a stop gap measure? It's sad times for a nation like India if we have to fly our Prime Minister in leased aircraft like Pakistan.

3) I notice the information regarding equipment for SOFs thanks for pointing that out, any news on the MARCOs' ICS (their equivalent to the FINSAS project)? Weren't they meant to get it in 2014?

4) Any news on the LSVs for the IA's SFs that was being scouted a few years back? It's sad to see the SFs having to make use of the Gypsy in this day and age.


5)Wouldn't you agree that on the Special Forces front and equipment we are badly lacking as compared to our Western counterparts? We are where they were maybe 10 years ago but now they are cutting edge in terms of equipment.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To HALPART: 1) The Sherpas of NSG are all at Manesar. Not at any of the hubs outside the NCR. The SPG’s Sherpas are meant meant for use in cavalcades. They’re used for protection of fixed installations like VVIP residences. 2) Why start counting the chickens until they’re hatched. There’s still time left for deciding whether or not to resolve any dispute through either arbitration or closed-door bilateral negotiations between the Govt of India & AgustaWestland. Such matters take at least 8 months to resolve & results cannot be expected overnight. 3) ICS is still far away from any kind of user evaluation. 4) Eventually the TATA Motors-built LAMVs will be ordered, just as they’ve been ordered for the ITBP. 5) Not at all. The SOF of the IA, IN & IAF have adequate hardware at their disposal based on what their respective mandated missions/taskings are. Of course there’s room for further accretions & they’re being achieved gradually.

HALPART said...

VMT again sir for your swift replies!

1) Why has the NSG not thought to deploy their Sherpas outside of the NCR? The NSG could need such vehicles at anytime anywhere in the country, what good is having them purely in Delhi? This is the exact thinking that led to the ridiculous delay in getting the NSG to Mumbai during 26/11. What if such a vehicle was needed in Mumbai again by the Mumbai NSG hub?

2)What is causing this delay in the MARCOs' ICS procurement? They haven't even had user evaluations yet despite searching for such a system for at least 3 years now?


3) Are the LAMVs suited to replace the SF's open-top Gypys's as LSVs? Don't the SFs require open-top vehicles? Other than the SFs, have any other IA units (regular ones) got a chance of receiving the TATA LAMVs? It is a very nice piece of kit

4) To an extent you are correct sir but if you compare the average Western SF operator to the Indian SF operator in terms of personal equipment the disparity is quite huge.

Anonymous said...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-29789208

Faulted said...

Sir, isn't the XVII corps' acquisitions of the RICent and TAC-4G duplicating serviices of the F-INSAS project? Or has the F-INSAS project now well and truly failed and thus we are seeing such substitutes being ordered by the IA?

Ved said...

I sincerely wish IN inducts more scorpenes with AIP rather than Amur 1650 or Type 214.
May be Soryu class will be an interesting option.

joydeep ghosh said...

Dear

Prasun da

First of all many thanks for having patience of saint to answer all querries, even at the cost of sleep (I suppose), unfortunately I too have querries for you

1. You say india can make do without saksgham valley/trans karakoram tract, but then to access Wakhan corridor India will have to go through GB that China/Pak simply wont allow, so what can be done

2. India has ordered 6 P75i subs, which sub as per you will be best suited, Super Scorpene or S80

3. Is it viable to convert the last 3 P75I subs into SSNs (like SNBR design which looks like inspired from Barracuda class) as you replied earlier, as that will hurt IN chances of having 24 subs (I think) in total (it will result in 9 P75/75I & 6 SSBN/SSGN (S2 to S7)& 3 SSN)

4. Is it viable to equip the current P75 subs with AIP during mid life upgrade whether or not lithium ion battery or Stirling AIP

5. AIP powered subs drag at as low as 5 knots, so is AIP beneficial afterall

6. Whats about the OSS (ocean surveillance ship) being supposedly made by HSL, other OSS are around 5k tons but IN’s is supposedly over 10k tons, why? will it supplement the LPHs

7. 2 diver support vehicles for Marcos is too small a number, also only the Shishumars have attachments to carry them (I suppose) or will they be deployed via LPH or C130J-SH

8. Tender for 127mm deck guns was cancelled, will IN now push for 155 mm deck guns as you have said

9. You say IN focuses on northern Indian Ocean, but is it ok to leave southern part for others with potentially huge hydrocarbon reserves

10. Will the recent Sukhoi crash lead to change in placements of the switches

11. You had said IA will go for BMP-T that will help in arming the 17 corps, but instead has gone for BMP2, will it suffice

12. Is it true that plans are in place to make Nirbhay 2 with over 2k range

I hope to get answers for all

Thanks

Joydeep Ghosh

RD said...

Prasunda,
In latest Euronaval 2014, Rafael has showcased the ship based iron dome-
http://www.i24news.tv/en/news/israel/diplomacy-defense/48918-141028-israel-unveiling-ship-based-iron-dome

How is it different or effective as compared to barak 8 system. In future can this iron dome deter Chinese DF-21D ASBM.

Prav said...

1.I brought up the project -28 corvettes armament as it is comparable in size and displacement to many ships that are considered frigates . Are we limited in anyway in offering a ship(tailored to the customers needs) based on the project 28 or is there too much competition in this section ?
2. Do you hold the view that India needs to have a larger portion of it's submarine fleet as nuclear considering the objective of having a footprint over the entire Indian ocean (and beyond) . Considering that other countries that operate SSKs have a smaller area to operate in (Mediterranean , south china sea or use such submarines defensively to harass a superior naval force (As China and Russia do ). Considering that the IN outmatches all navies in the Indian ocean with the exception of the USN do you not believe that in the future SSKs will be more limited in context of their service in the IN.

SOUBHAGYA said...

Dear Prasun,
I think that India is better prepared under Modi govt. Cleared most of the long pending defense projects. By the way why India was maintaining silence when China was carrying out infrastructure development nearer to India border. When India is doing the same China is giving warning. Isn't it bull-sheet??? India is also doing right by igniting China further flexing its muscle by joining hand with Vietnam for oil exploration in South China sea. What's your say??? Will it back fire or China will be taught a lesson like this???

Anonymous said...

Sir! Is India going to buy Tor missile system, if not then why tata motors testing that on thier chesis or these are meant for export but if that so then is Russian will allow other countries platform for their weapons system to export not thier own ???

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To HALPART: 1) You seem to be unaware of the NSG’s operating charter. The NSG was created for counter-terrorist operations only within the National Capital Region & that was because although Delhi has a state govt, it is the Union MHA that calls the shots & therefore there are no centre-state frictions when it comes to employ the NSG. Yet, a look at the NSG’s operational employment in counter-terror operations both inside the NCR & elsewhere in the country has been extremely dismal due to the NSG’s inability to swiftly deploy as the first responder. That’s precisely why the Delhi State Police had no other choice to but raise its own SWAT team. And yet when it comes to employing this team for high-risk operations, the Delhi Police has neglected it & consequently, fiascos like the Batla House encounter have occurred. Outside Delhi, every other state too does not like to call the NSG because it’s a waste of time & therefore some states have raised their own SWAT teams, which, in any case arew severely underutilised & used for VIP protection only, just like the NSG hub in Kolkata last Monday was used for providing VIP escort to visiting NSA Ajit Doval’s entourage. By their very nature the NSG & SWAT teams need to be kept constantly preoccupied with a high tempo of on-going operations so that their skills & proficiencies are further honed—just like what the GIGN & GSG-9 do in France & Germany. I myself have witnessed such operations in a foreign country that once involved raiding the residence of a 21 year-old gunrunner, with overwhelming force being used to effect intervention & capture the target alive—the idea of this being to create a shock-and-awe effect due to which the common citizens will be reassured of the concerned internal security force’s ability to neutralise all kinds of high-risk threats, while on the other the criminals will be deterred by the threat of overwhelming response from law-enforcement forces. In Mumbai during 26/11, the entire operation could well have been concluded within 50 minutes by only the Mumbai Police had their armed personnel been proficient in using their .303 Lee Enfield bolt-action rifles. Utter lack of firing proficiency & poor state of firearms & ammo of Mumbai Police were the main reasons why mayhem was let loose on that night.

2) Evaluations of such hardware takes at least 5 years to complete worldwide. 3) No LAMV for any SOF formation is open-top. Only cross-country tactical ATVs are.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To FAULTED: Nope. F-INSAS has nothing to do with RICent since the latter is part of the battlefield surveillance system. Furthermore, F-INSAS is 3-G, a full generation behind the TAC-4G.

VED: The best option is for Project 75 to be extended from 6 to 9 Scorpene SSKs. Following this, Project 75I should focus on acquiring nuclear-powered versions of the Scorpene. 10 years from now, the first 9 Scorpene SSKs should be retrofitted with battery-based AIP systems. India already has two separate lines of submarine production—MDL & Larsen & Toubro. Creation of a third line just for P-75I will be economically impossible—a point that some ‘desi’ journalists are unable to figure out. Soryu SSKs are NOT AVAILABLE to India. They’re available to Australia because it is a signatory to the NPT. Japan’s laws do not as yet permit the export of fully developed military hardware to those countries that have not signed on to the NPT. That’s why even the ShinMaywa US-2I amphibians are being offered MINUS any weapons fitments.

To JOYDEEP GHOSH: VMT 1) Simple—prepare for limited mountain warfare to wrest back from Pakistan the whole of Baltistan & portions of Gilgit. Why else do you think the IA is gearing up for highland & mountain warfare at long-last & why has the IA acquired 290km-range land-attack BrahMos-1 Block-2 NLOS-BSMs when the IA’s surveillance & target acquisition capabilities do not extend beyond a depth of 50km? 2) No one has placed any order for any submarine under P-75I project. Only the project’s launch has been formally approved by the DAC. Next, RFPs will have to be prepared & issued. 3) Since the IN has already decided liked all other major navies of the world that the future of undersea warfare lies in nuclear propulsion, the IN as per its projections plans to go for at least 12 SSNs, 3 SSGNs (S-2/Arihant, S-3 & S-4) & three SSBNs (S-5, S-6 & S-7). Consequently, a force-level of 9 Scorpene SSKs (to be retrofitted in future with AIP) will suffice. 4) Lithium-ion AIP system is the best AIP option for the 6 Scorpion SSKs when they undergo their mid-life refit. 5) High speeds translate into low endurance, & vice versa. 6) Not OSS, but a vessel carrying missile telemetry tracking systems & precision pulse-Doppler tracking radars. 7) No such vehicle has been ordered. They have only been offered (read the ‘desi’ journalist’s report again). What will be ordered are diver propulsion vehicles. 8) Not known as yet. 9) Why not? If India can’t even acquire the deep-sea hydrocarbons exploration/extraction technologies reqd for the Bay of Bengal, when why prevent others from extracting natural resources from northern or southern Indian Oceans? 10) What for? Maybe it was not the fault of any switch, but of human hands that were twitching at times & places when/where they were not supposed to! 11) I never said that. All I had stated was that the IA OUGHT TO modify its existing T-72M MBTs into a BMPT-type tank destroyer. 12) Nope.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To RD: Shipborne version of Iron Dome is meant to act as a coastal anti-invasion weapon by targeting MLRS rockets that any amphibious assaulter will fire for coastal bombardment prior to the actual amphibious landing. Countries like South Korea, Taiwan, Vietnam & The Philippines are targeted customers for such weapons.

To PRAV: 1) Of course there’s a lot of competing offers from others. P-28 can’t be compared to modern-day FFGs since new-generation multi-purpose FFGs are powered by gas-turbines, not diesel engines like the P-28 corvettes are. 2) Of course. No doubt about that. Do check out the new data I’ve uploaded above regarding India’s NOPV export orders from Sri Lanka & Vietnam.

To SOUBHAGYA: China has NEVER carried out any construction of any permanent structures close to the LAC. It has ALWAYS maintained a distance of 20km away from its perception of the LAC, based on a promise it had made way back in late 1962. 20km away from the notional LAC, China defines ‘settled areas’ as those that house only Post Offices or CIQ facilities in few select areas--this symbolising China’s administrative control over a particular county/prefecture. I have already uploaded photos of such facilities above. India on the other hand defines a ‘settled area’ as one that hosts no less than 10 people in permanent habitation. Due to such differing definitions of ‘settled areas’, the PLA conducts a greater number of long-range recce patrols throughout the LAC out to a depth of 20km to check out whether the IA or any other Indian agency is building any permanent structure like a bunker or overground hamlet (which can clearly be pinpointed by radar imaging satellites equipped with SAR). On Demchock, for instance, while India states that only permanent irrigation canals are being constructed, the PLA interprets this as construction of trenches for military purposes. China has stated its objection to road-building in Arunachal Pradesh in October 2014 ONLY AFTER India objected in kind way back in 2009 to the construction of hydroelectric power generation projects by China inside POK & Gilgit-Baltistan. Logistically, the IN is incapable of protecting India’s maritime interests in the South China Sea, just as the PLAN is incapable of operating in a sustained manner in the IOR.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Anon@2.28AM: Of course it's a huge mistake on TATA's part, just as this is:

http://airbusdefenceandspace.com/airbus-defence-and-space-and-tata-advanced-systems-bid-for-the-indian-air-forces-avro-replacement-programme/

TATA should have teamed up with Lockheed-Martin. Anywat, what's done is done & TATA I'm sure will live to regret this mistake, just like the mistake it committed when it teamed up with DENEL Land Systems to offer the motorised 155mm/52-cal howitzer.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

Here's Prem Shankar Jha, another 'desi' journalist making an ass of himself in a Pakistan TV talk-show 48 hours ago:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-GBJMvVZuc

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

And here's how the Yuvraj of Sindh province was booed & chased off by the Mirpuri Muslims of POK in London:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V--nHJMykkg

Anonymous said...

prasun-da,
why is it strategically wrong for Tata to co-opt with Airbus - 56+more >$3B, plus local civilian market, plus MMP, plus MRO facilities, spares, etc is a huge opportunity, no? HAL is out...Additionally C27J may be a goner to start with due to the mess with Finnmeccania...where's the competition?...this seems like taking candy from a baby -:

What would LM offer as a light transport? Sorry if this question is elementary?

Ashish

Anonymous said...

Also, all these announcements for the navy, but where are the DSRVs? Arihant is being held hostage for it?

Ashish

sujoymajumdar said...

Prasun Da,

Why doesn't the United Kingdom ban such anti INDIA rally in their territory? After all they come down heavily on anti-US rallies.

Also, unlike the US, hate speech is banned in the UK.

This is not a matter that concerns the UK.

I believe that the only motive that the UK has is to somehow remain relevant in a world where the Sun has long set on their Empire.

Regards,

Sujoy

Anonymous said...

Hi Prasun,

You mentioned that the IA is preparing for taking back GB, in your opinion do you think the Indian political leadership has the courage to make that happen? and do you see it ever happening?

Best Regards
Raj

sangaioinam said...

@Prasun K. Sengupta - Thanks for your response to my post. Question - When you talk of objective history is it not the Chinese version i.e both AC AP belongs to them, that they are attempting to force down our throats? So how can we have a discussion? The political option of AP/AC swap is now off the table with higher stakes. Thanks.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

Interesting products:

http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/the-russian-military-despises-this-strange-wedge-shaped-1648132968

http://defense-update.com/20141029_csword90.html#.VFC9IOOSzbs

http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Security-Industry/2014/10/28/Raytheons-Griffin-C-missile-demos-in-flight-retargeting-capability/7641414514125/

http://phys.org/news/2014-10-w88-warhead-successful.html

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To SANGAIOINAM: Historical events can be analysed & interpreted objectively ONLY when the events are viewed in a chronological manner so as to observe the action-reaction spiral. That’s what I have always done & have never endorsed or supported any country’s official version of past events. And neither India nor China has, post-1962, ever tried to impose any unilateral solution by any means, since both know they wouldn’t work. I may also add that a successful resolution of the LAC issue will result in only a normalisation of bilateral relations, & will not result in the ushering of friendly relations, since the then Govt of India in May 1998 made the cardinal mistake of committing on paper (& sharing it with the other world powers) its assertion about India’s nuclear weapons being China-specific.

rad said...

hi Prasun
1) Why do you prefer the c-27j
over the eads c-295?, apart from the commonality of engines with the c-130.
The specs seems to be equal.

2) why cant we ask the or even co fund the li-ion battery AIP tech with japan,If that is the way for ward,I doubt the Japanese would say no, especially when money comes in.

3) Reports suggest the spike failed to lock on to hot desert targets due to seeker being uncooled. Then what is the guarantee that it will function again as we are going in for large numbers?.You said that there was no TOT but all reports suggest that is included as well
4) Does it make sense to go for the javelin and the spike rather than have common tech base with one manufacturer.?
5) Is the mini sub for the marcos Italian made? please give details. It seems Pak has also got these
US has also ordered some subs with he italians.

Reddy said...

For long time, I thought ISRO is very lucky for not having accidents right at the launch pad.
This also insists that ISRO need to have atleast 2 more launch pads given it may not be always lucky in case of failure as we see yesterday's Antares rocket failure (it uses USSR engines) and destroying launch pad.

On the other hand it is sad that we are not into real research..we are just retrying the concepts west had done some 50 years ago...

NJS said...

1. In spike which range is ordered SR/MR/LR.
2. As per germany's u 214 is not capable to handle brahmos/nirbhay which is land attack, do u thing germany will place U-216 for P75I.
3. for Arjum mbt Lahat is cancelled , which will be selected

Reddy said...

@NJS,

I remembered a joke from my childhood.
After complete discussion about Ramayana, some one asked what Sita is to Rama?

AniOne said...

Prasunda,

Found this article doing the rounds..........

Your expert comments here...

http://in.rbth.com/blogs/2014/10/29/who_needs_to_down_the_fgfa_39375.html

Reddy said...

NASA awarded 1.9 Billion USD contract for 8 launches to Orbital Sciences.

Yesterday failed payload was 2273 kg, a load PSLV had handled before. PSLV can deliver up to 3250 Kg to LEO (ISS is in LEO).

Hope ISRO tries for such contracts provided NASA is ok to award such contracts to 3rd parties.

I was wondering how come how come spacex and orbital sciences were able to come up with this technological prowess in short time, but just came to know that NASA donated technology and infra and site access to these american private companies..

Also ISRO could approach SpaceX or Orbital Inc to provide engines for their rockets (if ISRO finds that it is profitable), I guess they will be more than happy to accept ISRO engines instead of USSR engines..and ISRO can earn money.

What it comes to my mind is why can not ISRO do the same thing like NASA did? It can out source all these commercial activities such as Engines and other structural manufacturings to Indian companies and just involves in R & D, but keeping launches in it's control??

Deb said...

Dear Mr.Prasun,
I like to know about long range supersonic cruise missile which India is developing.This is different from Brahmos. Can you kindly provide more details.

Thanks

Deb

Sarath Kumar said...

Mr. Prasun, will the 4 naval vessels being sold to Vietnam be armed with cruise missiles? The pictures you uploaded show 8 missiles in two tube launchers.

That is pretty awesome firepower for a 1,440-ton ship. What cruise missile could the Vietnam-bound ships use?

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To NJS: 1) What does the topmost photo say? Or are you suffering from a white-out/black-out? 2) No German SSK has stated this as yet. 3) DRDO claims its CLGM will replace LAHAT. Let’s see if this becomes a reality.

To RAD: 1) Did I ever say that I prefer the C-27J over the C-295? I have always stated that there are sound financial reasons for opting for the C-130J. 2) Precisely so. But the DRDO will stand in the way since its in-house AIP project has been underway for more than a decade now without showing any positive results. So, what’s reqd is someone with common-sense in the MoD to firmly tell the DRDO to buzz off in this case. 3) The Spike-SRs are meant for use in highland warfare/mountain warfare, not for desert warfare. Those ‘all reports’ containing convoluted mumbo-jumbo have all originated from clueless ‘desi’ journalists. 4) No, since the Spike-MR had failed to perform during in-country user-evaluations. 5) MARCOS never wanted any mini-sub, only DPVs.

To ASHISH: It is a huge mistake simply because if one opts for the C-27J or C-295, then the only financial beneficiary will be their OEMs, i.e. Alenia Aeronautica & Airbus Defence & Space. Also, the contract value & MRO support costs will be a lot higher, than what would be for procuring the C-130J. Furthermore, licence-assembling 56 aircraft will be just another ‘Make in India’ project of the kind which India has undertaken since the early 1960s. On the other hand, if the C-130J is ordered, then the Indian licenced-assembler will not only be able to offer lifelong MRO support to the IAF, but also to all C-130Js flying in & around the IOR, i.e. undertaking third-party MRO contracts, the bulk of which will be secured from the USAF. This, then, will make the provision of C-130J MRO services a profitable business on a sustained basis, & will also be nett foreign exchange revenue earner. For the C-295, no such third-party MRO service contracts can be expected from abroad, since the only major operator of the C-295 in Asia today is Indonesia, whose Bandung-based PT Dirgantara Indonesia (formerly IPTN) teamed up with Airbus Defence & Space back in 2012 to offer third-party MRO services for all C-295s, CN-235s & C-212s flying in Southeast & East Asia.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To ANIONE: Here are the clarifications:

Claim: There is a buzz in the air about New Delhi’s intentions of shooting down the 2007 agreement with Moscow for the joint development of fifth generation fighter aircraft (FGFA) or at least put it on the hold to generate the funds for financing the Rafale deal with France.
Reality: The only buzz being generated is due to the writer’s hallucinations.

Claim: Dassault Aviation’s Rafale was picked as a stopgap measure to sustain the IAF’s strength in view of its depleting inventory…
Reality: How can the 40-year service lifespan of the Rafale as specified by the IAF be labeled as a stopgap measure?

Claim: However, the spate of negative articles in the Indian media about the defence cooperation with Russia, especially concerning the FGFA project, indicates behind-the-scenes hectic attempts by Rafale lobbyists.
Reality: Is the writer of the article alleging that the entire top hierarchy of the IAF is on Dassault’s payroll???

Claim: Russian Ambassador Alexander Kadakin’s emotional, but just, remarks recently made at the Press Club of India meet about less sophisticated Chinese Su-27 Flankers “swatting Rafale like mosquitoes in August sky,”…
Reality: Since mid-2010, the PLAAF has successively deployed no more than 8 Su-27SKs or J-10s at Lhasa Gonggar Airport every year without any accompanying AEW & CS assets. On the other hand, the IAF can deploy no less than 8 squadrons of Su-30MKIs, Jaguar IS & MiG-27UPGs. So who will swat who & who will be more successful in such a ‘swatting’ operation?

Claim: Russian analysts see the ‘hand of European rivals’ in fanning the negative sentiments about Russia in India.
Reality: The Russians have always made such claims not only WRT India, but also Indonesia & Malaysia in the past. And no sane person has ever taken them seriously.

Claim: During my recent Moscow visit I had an opportunity to talk to Dr Konstantin Makiyenko of the independent CAST think tank involved in the analyses of strategies and defence technologies about the IAF’s MMRCA acquisition project.
Reality: So the end-result of such an all-expenses-paid trip can only be ‘paid news’.

Claim: The joint FGFA project will give a technological boost to India’s capabilities in aircraft designing, developing and production.
Reality: Total hogwash. India had learnt a lot, lot more by investing her financial & skilled human resources in the Tejas MRCA & Dhruv ALH projects.

cont'd below...

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

Claim: Let’s talk about the two squadrons of the latest Su-35 Super Flanker that Russia has cleared for sale to China. This new iteration is a huge advancement over the already potent Su-27. If the aircraft's stupendous performance at the 2014 Paris Air Show is any indication then the Rafale is likely to fare even worse against the Su-35.
Reality: Really? Then how come the Su-35 was NEVER offered for competitive flight evaluations to South Korea, Singapore & Switzerland? And why is Russia investing in the T-50 PAK-FA project if it believes the Su-35 is more than enough to do the job?

Claim: The IAF’s requirement of 126 aircraft can be quickly met–at a fraction of the cost of the Rafale–by inducting more numbers of the technologically superior Su-30s, which the IAF described as its “air dominance fighter.
Reality: Su-30MKIs are multi-role, but are still technologically inferior to the Rafale in terms of inflight avionics & on-board systems reliability/service lifespan, especially the AL-31FP turbofans. Also, Su-30MKI cannot engage in terrain-hugging flights.

Claim: With manufacturing declining in the US and Europe and thousands of defence sector jobs facing the axe, western engineers would be more than happy to work in India.
Reality: If that’s the case, then exactly how many such engineers have so far been employed for jobs in India?

Claim: India can then produce scores of LCAs costing around $40 million.
Reality: That figure is only the per-unit acquisition cost that’s payable by the IAF to HAL. Additional costs to be incurred by the IAF for procuring weapons, ground support hardware, MRO support & aircrew/ground crew training will raise the per-unit life-cycle cost of a Tejas Mk2 MRCA to well over US$60 million.

Claim: Sending LCAs swarming into Pakistani air space would completely overwhelm that country’s defences. In effect, the Tejas fleet would kick the door in, allowing the Sukhois to pulverise targets with supersonic BrahMos cruise missiles.
Reality: It’s the other way around, with Jaguar IS & Rafales armed with Griffin-3 LGBs flying terrain-hugging profiles against the PAF’s RABTA ADGES network & its 18 airspace surveillance radar sites, with Su-30MKIs providing offensive air superiority. Tejas Mk2 MRCAs will be employed for battlefield air interdiction & close air-support.

Claim: Around 2020 Sukhoi’s stealth fighter, the PAK-FA, will be ready to join the IAF.
Reality: Not PAK-FA, but FGFA. And not by 2020, but starting 2025. Tejas Mk2 will be available by 2020.

Mr. RA 9 said...

Spike-SR is not only for a single shot use. Rather it is the Spike-'Mini' which is a use and throw object after a single shot.

Prav said...

Thank you for your answers .
I was curious as to our industries ability to offer a light frigate design for export . Which for a large part equipped with locally designed equipment . Specifically a locally designed marine turbine which has been in the news for the last 6 years.
2.But this ties in with the larger problem that so much of the small yet critical systems are imported (a prime example being actuators or ejection seats for the tejas).Do you see any moves to really increase the indigenous content of our fighting platforms . With the all branches of the military modernising surely there is a large incentive for industry (public or private) of producing or even developing such systems locally.
3. I was under the impression that the cost of manufacturing the tejas is $26 million . Has the cost escalated to $40 million?

lachit said...

prasun da off topic but it seems that the indian army is not adequate in snipers. armies all over the world have dedicated snipers in thousands but all that india seems to have is designated marksmen. snipers operate in pairs (spotter and the sniper).I remember during 26/11 one of the terrorist was within the crosshairs but the shot was not taken.if that sniper had been operating with a spotter that terrorist would have been dead.
a sniper team can hold back entire squads back war history is full of examples e.g. the Finnish sniper thousands of soviet soldiers were bogged down just because of that one sniper.
shouldn't the army start investing in snipers in a big way. Even Pakistan is way ahead in this area. I feel dedicated snipers would be effective in ap ladakh etc.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To SUJOY MAJUMDAR & PINTU: Why should anyone in/from India get rattled everytime such an event takes place? Why always go on the defensive? Instead, one ought to adopt a pro-active stance & see opportunities in all these. For instance, I’m sure when Smt Sushma Swaraj visited London on October 18, she was briefed by the UK’s Home Office & MI-5 about the issue-on-hand & was assured of a favourable outcome. And that’s exactly what happened, when the Mirpuri Kashmiri diaspora resident in the UK made utter fools of themselves by firstly, failing to congregate in large enough numbers & secondly, clashing with the Pakistanis who had gone to the UK for stage-managing this event. While the UK’s Mirpuri Kashmiris desired Haq-e-Khudradiath (right to self-determination) & were shouting slogans to that effect, the visiting Pakistanis totally misread the sentiments & shouted slogans about winning back Kashmir, i.e. incorporating Kashmir into Pakistan by any means. This is what inflamed the UK’s Mirpuri Kashmiri community & they turned hostile against Bilawal B Zardari & co. All this has not gone down well with the UK’s decision-makers, since these Mirpuri Kashmiris (who are now British subjects) have now amply demonstrated the fact that their loyalty lies first with Kashmir & next, with the UK.

In addition, on that very day, Syed Salahuddin’s United Jehad Council turned out in full force in the streets of Muzzafarabad & marched through the streets carrying their firearms & RPGs, just like Hezbollah does in Beirut. This further embarrassed the Pakistanis because they will now have to explain to the whole world from where exactly such weapons originate & how they end up in POK.

Lastly, the UK & the US both agree with India that Haq-e-Khudradiath (right to self-determination) is not the same as plebiscite or referendum. In none of the 18 UNSC resolutions where J & K finds mention, are the words plebiscite or referendum mentioned. In addition, since the Instrument of Accession was the brainchild of the late Lord Louis Mountbatten, the UK will never allow Pakistan to challenge the authenticity of this Instrument (which calls for undivided J & K’s full accession to the India), no matter how shrill Pakistan becomes.

What then should India do? Rather than get defensive, India should choreograph its own script that calls for all interested parties (like the British House of Commons & the EU Parliament) to get in nauseating detail India’s POV on-the-record, inclusive of documented & verifiable cases of extreme human rights violations that have taken place throughout Gilgit-Baltistan on an industrial scale since the early 1980s, & how till this day the residents of Gilgit-Baltistan remain disenfranchised. Such presentations should be similar to the on-the-record testimonies that were invited by US Congressional hearings in 2002 & which were given by the likes of the late B Raman, ex-Additional Director of R & AW. Several such testimonies have already been prepared by NGOs in the past. Here’s one of them:

http://tlhrc.house.gov/docs/transcripts/2011_07_26_Indigenous_Peoples_in_Asia/26july11_hearing_Senge_Sering_Testimony.pdf

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To RAJ: Yes, the political will now exists, due in large part to the changing regional dynamics. For instance, Indian economic interests will pay off only when India is connected directly to Afghanistan by either land or sea. Since Afghanistan is land-locked, the sea corridor has to transit through Iran, which is fine for the short-term since Iran’s relations with Pakistan have hit rock-bottom. Similarly, emergence of a strong Afghanistan works out in India’s favour because the former will never recognise the Durand Line’s sanctity & will insist on the creation of a united Pakhtunistan. China too has declined to make any further meaningful investments of any kind in Pakistan & that’s the reason why President Xi Jinping decided against going to Pakistan last September, despite China being Pakistan’s so-called all-weather friend. From 2015, when the US stops paying Pakistan for land transit rights after the termination of ISAF’s mandate in Afghanistan, Pakistan’s economic isolation will become even more pronounced & it will become a classic basket case. On top of all this, there will be widespread socio-economic disenchantment from 18-hour daily power-cuts/load-shedding, due to which unemployment will go sky-high. Consequently, new faultlines will emerge, such as the Sindhis & Baluchis becoming more strident & vocal in their calls for separatism, while the MQM will lock horns with the PPP & demand the partition of Sindh & especially Karachi, since the MQM wants a state of its own for the Mohajirs. The ordinary West Punjabis led by PTI & ATP have already risen in revolt against the PPP & PML-N & are determined to destroy the prevailing feudal oligarchy under which a mere 90 top families call all the political shots. If the underdogs win against the oligarchs, then they’re unlikely to become born-again secularists & will instead gravitate ever more toward further religious orthodoxy, i.e. die-hard Sunnis . This will further inflame the sectarian divide & cause further internal mayhem & also attract militants from around the world into compartmentalised safe havens operating out of West Punjab, FATA & POK. All of this will obviously be intolerable to the likes of the US, the UK & other EU member-states, Scandinavian countries, , China, India, Afghanistan & Iran because the overseas Pakistani diaspora too will be sucked into this gargantuan mess. Thus, there will emerge a coalition of the willing based on shared concerns & perceptions & a grand consensus will emerge on the further decapitation of the Pakistani state & the need to permanently fence-in the most trouble-prone areas of West Punjab, FATA & Khyber Pakhtunkhwa & de-nuclearise these provinces. Since India will be playing a critical role in ensuring a favourable end-state in such a grand scheme, it is only logical that India should expect some rewards & returns on her investments & that’s when India ought to demand the return of, & get back POK, Baltistan & portions of Gilgit. All this has to be a multinational cooperative effort, since no one involved country all by itself will be able to achieve all its desired objectives in this region.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To PRAV: 1) Even with imported sub-systems on-board, vessels like OPVs, NOPVs & FAC-Ms can be exported by India’s MoD-owned shipyards & private-sector shipyards. 2) Even then the market-size is quite small & one therefore has no other choice but to be part of a global supply-chain since this alone will ensure economies of scale. In addition, attention must be paid toward developing dual-use products since the civilian market-size is always much bigger than its military counterpart. That’s why I had given the example of radars above. If, for instance, there’s a plan by the IN to procure US-2I amphibians from Japan’s ShinMaywa, then indtead of planning for just 12 US-Is which the IN wants, an integrated plan must be drawn up under which the ICGS & NDRF too must be encouraged to order the US-2Is. In addition, the potential for using such amphibians for transportation of tourists to riverine areas too has to be examined. Lastly, such amphibians should also be marked to neighbouring countries like Bangladesh, Myanmar, The Maldives & Mauritius by the India-based branch office of ShinMaywa, with an India-based privately-owned company handling both marketing as well as provision of MRO-related product support & aircrew/ground crew training packages. Only then will the size of the pie become bigger & it will be economically viable to licence-assemble & customise the US-2Is in India for Indian & export customers/operators. But has all this been done? Not yet. 3) Cost of manufacturing for the OEM is not the same as the end-user’s/operator’s acquisition cost. They’re totally different. US$26 million was the figure of 2011 vintage.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To LACHIT: Not true. Enough investments have been made in such areas & lots of related new hardware have been procured & are still being procured.

sathead3 said...

I have perhaps a stupid question but when I read about ATGMs or even torpedoes, for that matter, that are wire guided, a question comes to mind. If the ATGMs range is say 4 km. Does that mean a 4 km long fiber optic cable is going to trail with the missile? Or in wire guided torpedoes, a long wire spools out along with the torpedo? That sounds pretty crazy so how does wire guided ammunition work?

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To SATHEAD3: It works exactly as you've described. Nothing crazy about it.

Anonymous said...

Prasun-da,

Many thanks. I thought about the C-130J, but I did not realize this was in competition as it is significantly larger and 3 times more expensive. Additionally, the civilian air services in India could expand greatly and address MRO contracts and service business.

Any way, I hope LM and Rel/L&T/Mahindra or a consortium of some sorts at least presents that option so all the trade offs are considered before making an informed decision.

Ashish

Ravi Reddy said...

Hi Prasun,

I intend to publish a market analysis report about the Indian Aerospace sector( similar to reports published by Frost, Markets & Markets etc.)

In your opinion will such a report find buyers in India?

Many Thanks,

Vikram Guha said...

Prasun Da,

In the elaborate answer that you have provided above to a fellow poster you said that the Su-30MKI is technologically inferior to the Rafale in terms of inflight avionics & on-board systems reliability/service lifespan.

Now correct me if I am wrong but most of the inflight avionics & on-board systems on the Su-30 MKI are of Israeli origin.

(1) Does this mean that the French produces better avionics, on-board systems than the Israelis?

(2) If that is the case, is it possible to introduce Rafale's avionics/systems on the Su-30MKI?

As always, VMT

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

These are interesting:

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Pak-businessmen-to-join-Modis-reception-in-Australia/articleshow/44977807.cms

Various AIP options from DCNS explained:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RqSMs9xTNyQ

SMX Ocean:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ug6RakSBuzQ&list=UUy16prOZED9ZMZ6ouFfC35g

Scorpene 2000 SSK:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERANrORf0Bo&list=UUy16prOZED9ZMZ6ouFfC35g

SUBTICS CMS:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xlow8WOWoZM&list=UUy16prOZED9ZMZ6ouFfC35g

F-21 heavyweight torpedo:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eU66YGNCPwQ&list=UUy16prOZED9ZMZ6ouFfC35g

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To VIKRAM GUHA: Not just Israeli, but also French. But items like AESA-MMR & SPECTRA are absent on the Su-30MKI. The Super Su-30MKI project is therefore an attempt to overcome some of the limitations. But despite all this, the Super Su-30MKI will still not be able to undertake terrain-hugging flights, which the Rafale & F-15E/K/SG for instance, are able to fly. If items like holographic HUD & LANTIRN are avaulable for the Su-30MKI or Super Su-30MKU, then terrain-hugging flight profiles will become a possibility.

AniOne said...

Prasunda,

Thank you for the detailed response. The picture is clear now...........

Prav said...

1. OPVs, NOPVs & FAC-Ms but not FFGs ?
2. http://idrw.org/?p=46007
Apparently Indias Afghanistan policy has taken a hi .. Can you shed some more light on this matter ?
3. You had stated earlier that the Brahmos mini was not considered as a torpedo tube launched missile . Has this changed ?
http://idrw.org/?p=45989

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To PRAV: No, not FFGs & DDGs as yet. Overseas competition is far too strong for any Indian shipyard to compete. BrahMos-Mini will be mounted on inclined launchers for installation on the IN’s five 477-tonne Project 1241RE FAC-Ms that are presently armed with P-20 Termit ASCMs. These FAC-Ms designed by St Petersburg-based ALMAZ Central Design Bureau for Marine Engineering and built by Rbyinsk Shipyard JSC. Regarding this story (http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/brahmos-mini-planned-for-navy-air-force/article6546373.ece), do note that the reporter does not quote anyone when writing about BrahMos-Mini’s launch from the torpedo-tube, i.e. he has assumed that it will be launched from a torpedo-tube. Also to be noted is that BrahMos Aerospace has itself shown scale-models of the Amur 1650 SSK with VLS cells since 2004 at various expos.

RD said...

Prasunda,
An interesting read about of 2 'all weather friends' neighbouring India-
http://www.indiandefencereview.com/news/the-case-of-the-all-weather-friends/

After watching the video I think SMX Ocean will be the ideal candidate for P75i. It will possess commonality with p75 scorpene alongwith S80 or enlarged scorpene. Will France field SMX ocean for P75i instead of enlarged scorpene.

Anonymous said...

Prasunda,

I was a bit surprised by NaMo's today austerity measure. What was the sudden need for such thing. Except the PR effect it did not work in UPA-II. now the economy seems much better shape, with under 7% retail inflation, a better CAD and to top it oil is hovering around $80 and assured for till January. I agree that the PR effect and curb on wasteful expenditure would be a pro. But additional to that the non-plan expenditure is also cut (which also would mean no new R&D programs). sure on the negative side the sentiments would be affected. It is most likely a compromise for lower growth rate while curbing the CAD. So is there anything seriously going wrong. You have in the past predicted most of the economic turmoils at least whole 1 year in advance (and hence the question).

Sreenivas R

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To PRAV: That analysis on Afghanistan is totally erroneous. Just last week the new Afghan Interior Minister was in Delhi to discuss such matters & a whole lot more. In addition, the so-called A2A18 howitzer is not 105mm, but in reality is the 2A18 (D-30) 122mm towed howitzer that India does not use anymore. In fact, India is not in any position to supply heavy weaponry to Afghanistan because what Afghanistan now uses is all from the Soviet era & of Soviet origin. Not even Russia uses such weapons. Only two countries—Iran & Bulgaria—can supply such weapons to Afghanistan (see: http://www.diomil.ir/pdf/Section4.pdf). As for MRO support for Mi-17s & An-32Bs, these too can be provided only by Russia & Ukraine, not India. Therefore, all talk about India dragging her feet on such issues, or Afghanistan trying to appease Pakistan is pure speculation & total hogwash.

To RD: An equally interesting read:

http://opus.kobv.de/ubp/volltexte/2014/6992/pdf/WT94_Thema_DSouza.pdf

As for SMX Ocean & F-21 heavyweight wire-guided torpedo, if you observe what the ‘hostile’ targets are, you will see that the animations are of the PLA Navy’s Type 054A FFG & Type 056 corvette. As for P-75I, the SMX Ocean will still be a far too expensive proposition. Far better therefore to mimmick Brazil’s SNBR project & use the Scorpene’s hull as the baseline design.

MPatel said...

Hi,

What do you think is the timeline when as you are suggesting India will get PoK/GB from Pakistan?

Being a student of history, Pakistan's doom has been predicted countless times, even before it came into being, yet it stands, stronger than ever.

Prav said...

1.So you say that the possibility of India providing a separate.. lets call it class of weapons to Afghanistan is still on the cards (105 field guns light helicopters etc)?
2. So what is the cost of manufacturing a single tejas for HAL (the OEM). Is assumed that that was where the $26 million figure came from
3. I thought that the Veer corvette was built locally or was part of the order directly imported trantuls ?
Why not replace all light missiles (Klubs, moskits) with the brahmos m when it is developed ?
4.Going back to the issue of the export ability of India . European OEMs survive just because export orders , for as you said they need the economy of scale to be viable .
I have seen heads of state ambassadors and senior politicans of many developed countries hawk their defence equipment like PR representatives of the firm . Would it not be fruitful for the diplomat corps to push for arm sales Indian made weapons so that India gets a larger piece of the global supply chain .
Thank you for your quick replies .

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To PRAV: 1) Of course there is. That’s precisely what the Afghan Interior Minister discussed during his recent trip to Delhi & he detailed all this is an interview given to NDTV as well. 2) It will be close to the US$40 million figure. 3) Five 477-tonne Project 1241RE FAC-Ms came from Russia, five 560-tonne Project 1241E.1 FAC-Ms were built by GSL and three by MDL. 4) Yes, PROVIDED the Govt of India comes up with a freely available Positives List & Negatives List that specifies what can be exported/not exported & to whom. So far, no such list has been issued for industrial consumption & the sole copy of such lists lie within the four walls of the MEA as a closely guarded secret—which is both hilarious & bizarre.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To MPATEL: The window of opportunity has already started opening & will be fully ajar from 2016 onwards till 2018. Pakistan over the years has not become stronger, but hollower & is totally wobbly just like jelly & it will continue to be in this state. As each day goes by, more internal faultlines are emerging, the latest being the parting of ways between the PPP & MQM & the MQM demanding a separate state for the Mohajirs. Baluchistan too is now beyond redemption (by the Dawood Ibrahim is now within the safe confines of a mansion in Quetta—this being done in order to shield the PA’s COAS Gen Raheel Sharif from any form of verbal demarches that the US could well issue during his now-underway official trip to the US after being summoned by US CENTCOM), while Pathan nationalism is on the rise, thanks to Imran Khan. The Pashtuns in both Khyber Pakhtunkhwa & FATA have been totally pissed off with the PA ever since the PA sided with the US after 9/11 & tens of thousands of Pakistani Pashtuns have been killed by both the PA & US Predator/Reaper UCAVs. Inside Afghanistan now, only India’s ITBP & China’s People’s Armed Police (PAP) have the required amount of manpower to spare for providing area security in provinces where Afghanistan wants to undertake the commercial exploitation of its mineral resources. And sooner rater than later, the new Afghan govt will start questioning the validity of the defunct Durand Line in order to prove its nationalistic credentials. This is what will heat up the Afghan-Pakistan borders & that’s why the Afghan National Army (ANA) is now in desperate need of additional 2A18 (D-30) 122mm towed howitzers (one doesn’t need such weapons for targetting guerrilla combatants like the Taliban who have never & will never resort to positional warfare tactics & will therefore never present themselves as dug-in static targets for ANA’s field artillery). No wonder almost all of the senior ex-PA officers on various talk-shows in almost all Pakistani TV channels have recently been expressing grave concern about the possibility of India opening up a second front against Pakistan from the west. If the new Afghan govt was indeed serious about appeasing Pakistan, then it would have by now sealed the borders of its Kunar province opposite FATA while the PA conducts its Zarb-e-Azb counter-terror operations on North Waziristan & Khyber Agency, so that no member of the TTP or any of its supporters/affiliates is able to cross over & find sanctuary inside Kunar province. Well, that hasn’t happened & the most wanted TTP cadres led by Mullah Fazlullah (aka Mullah FM) are now in safe havens inside Kunar. Now what does that tell you?

Prav said...

I strongly believe that a visual medium is far more effective form of explaining a situation .
On the state of Pakistan
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xgIl1vmIchA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FinRqCocwGE
The creepy thing is that some of the people in this documentary are already dead ..

Biswajit said...

Hi Prasun,
Is India developing any MMW-FCR (Millimeter Wave-Fire Control Radar) for HAL LCH Or HAL RUDRA like that of Apache.
If Yes r they comparabale to the following systems:-
1) American AN/APG-78 AH-64D
Apache Longbow
2) Russian Arabelet / FH-101 MMW FCR used on
Kamov Ka-50 N
3) Ukrainian Khinzhal MMW FCR
used on Mil Mi-28 N
4) Chinese YH MMW FCR used on CAIC Z-10
Thnks in Advance

SN said...

Prasun da check this out ,

BUlgarian black market selling Nukes to terrorists

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0c4f4NJSB_4

Nitin said...

What is Ferry range & Combat radius of Tejas Mark 1 ?

MPatel said...

Hi,

What you have said is not wrong however let me summarise:

pre: 1940-47:India's(congress party) narrative was, There will be no Pakistan, no support in what is Pakistan today. The elections in Punjab/NWFP province changed all that overnight.

1947-60s:India's narrative was, Pakistan will breakup by itself. The wars created a huge rise in nationalism (what is Pakistan now) and they began to believe in themselves.

19-60s -90s: India's narrative was, India will crush Pakistan and break it up. Bangladesh came into being but west Pakistan survived. Afghan war gave them chance to re-equip. India did nothing.

1990's - Now: India's narrative is, The world will help India to de-nuke Pakistan. After what the ISI did to ISAF/NATO combine in Afghanistan, and whats happening in Iraq/Syria, I doubt very much that the west wants to do India's bidding, even if it had the capacity and political will.

NOW if India had offered 100 thousand soldiers to ISAF/NATO to help them in Afghanistan, then things might have been different. It would have been time to collect the favor.

What does the west gain from breaking Pakistan? When have the west ever come to India or anyone else's aid (Israel is the exception), without payments?

Furthermore, Pakistanis have been very clever by making their weapons India specific (down to even the range of their missiles). The west also does not have 100 of Billions to spend.

MPatel said...

Regarding unity: As you go down, you see increased rise in single identity, from language to political parties, to TV, newspapers, security forces.

pre-1947: There was no national identity, except Islam (sufism)and Muslim League Party.

1947-70s: Some nationalism but no real Islamism (all leaders were secular or pretended, like in the arab work). IM settled in Sindh/Punjab mainly. In Sindh, they changed demographics to such an extent that it created resentment. Rise of PPP killed off Sindh separatism, realistically speaking. Rise of Baloch Nationalism. Army dominated by Punjabi's and Pathan's.

1970s-1990: Rise of Islamism especially hanfi/wahabi sects. Mass mixing of people in Pakistan. Mass migration of people from Afghanistan/NWFP to Sindh (karachi/ other cities). Mass recruitment of Sindh's into Rangers and Army. Large number of people from NWFP settled in Balochistan. PPP/PML national parties.

1990-Now: Rise of Islamic nationalism combined with Pakistan Nationalism is viral. Rise of the cities, and continued migration of people across provinces. Baloch nationalism effectively destroyed by divide and rule policies and by the killing of Bugti. Today the space for separatism in Pakistan is almost non-existent, except to pockets/tribes of Boluchistan. Mass recruitment of Baloch into FC and army. Rise of PTI as a national party.

The current issues in the press on their tv, blogs etc, in Pakistan are all about creating separate provinces, demanded by different groups, within the existing structures. All groups are demanding their rights but this is something really new for them. I think it is simply that democracy is taking root. Even the taliban's aim is to take over the whole country not just a piece.

and finally something I saw on one of their channels: The co-incidences of history (looking at maps) are such that what is current map of Pakistan, match's up pretty much with what was the muslim conquests from the 7th Century to 18th century (arab to afghan/persian time).

My own view is that they are more united today then they ever were. They are simply now going through the pangs of democracy and seem to be learning fast wrt VIP culture and people power. Look what happened when PM Modi made comments, it united them.

Anonymous said...

Hai Prasun, any comment on Dr Bhadrakumar's article below, which plays opposite to your opinion on India Afghan relation.
http://blogs.rediff.com/mkbhadrakumar/2014/10/31/why-kabul-kicked-the-indian-butt/

Though, I wish in the end every thing goes as you have suggested.

Vyshnav Prakash said...

Sir,is it 100% sure that IA will directly go for the Javelin to replace its old aging ATGMs or will IA look for another options along with it,then India can continue its plan for development for 4th gen Javelin since this deal will be bigger than the Spike deal and US will be happy to comply so too.
And do u think the Germans will offer us the more advanced type 216 class of submarines rather than type214 which failed once with us.
And one more question,I have read of the deal in which the IA signed for more than 1600 active protection systems from Saab for installment in the t-90s, is the system active and working on the t-90s..?or anything else.

vishakh said...

Hi

1) Turning rate of Tejas 1 is expected to reach 28 degree as per FOC is this enough to make to capable on taking Fighters??

2) What is Turning rate of Tejas MK2 proposed??

3) How is 28 degree Turning rate of Tejas compared to like Mirage 2000 or Mig 29 ??

4) Can the Turning rate be increased in Tejas mk2 beyond 28 degree as there is proposed changes in Intake of aircraft.

SOUBHAGYA said...

Dear Prasun,
I don't understand why a section of Kashmiris still want to be separated from India??? India has invested lavishly to lay railway tracks, created thousands of jobs, and also supported tourism heavily; but still why such stupid attitude and gratitude towards mother land???

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To BISWAJIT: No such sensor is being developed for incorporation on to either the Rudra or the LCH.

To NITIN: No figures about these have been released as yet by the ADA. Those figures will be available ONLY AFTER the Sp-series Tejas Mk1s are handed over to TACDE & the process of platform-specific air combat tactics evolution then gets underway.

To Anon@9.33PM: The best answer comes straight from the horse’s mouth. Here’s what the present-day Afghan Defence Minister has to say:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0l2XrBEY7I&list=UUZFMm1mMw0F81Z37aaEzTUA

After listening to him, anyone with common-sense can infer who is right, M K Bhadrakumar, or your’s truly.

To VISHAKH: 1) I don’t think those figures are accurate. Instantaneous/sustained turn rates are of no significance today in air combat in an era when within-visual-range AAMs cued by helmet-mounted display systems can easily acquire, track & engage targets that are off-boresight by as much as 90 degrees.

To SOUBHAGYA: In any fruit-basket, there will always be some rotten apples. Similarly, there are always some minority vested interests that like to fish in trouble waters for their own selfish objectives. Nothing alarming at all.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To MPATEL: Here’s a counter-narrative:

1940-1947: The idea of Pakistan came into being & was converted into reality due to the critical support from East Bengal (later East Pakistan), which demographically far outnumbered the population of West Pakistan.

1947-mid-1960s: India’s narrative was (& still is) that the two-nation theory was untenable because far more Muslims chose to reside inside India after partition, while Pakistan in its quest for a national identity created an ideology based on Islam--a theocratic philosophy that in reality was/is/will be only a message of universal brotherhood. Thus was born an idea which dictated that if one wants to love Pakistan, then automatically one must hate India at all costs. One therefore cannot love both Pakistan & India. This becomes the genesis of Pakistan’s enduring compulsive hostility against secular India.

1960-1971: Disenchantment in East Pakistan & Baluchistan against a Pakistan politically, administratively & militarily dominated by West Punjabis grew to a boiling point, which culminated in East Pakistan being born-again as Bangladesh & ethnic intolerance took firm roots in a dismembered Pakistan.

1979-1990s: The proxy wars between Sunni GCC-member-states led by Saudi Arabia & a resurgent Shia Islamic Republic of Iran led by the Shia clergy spread their tentacles inside Pakistan, resulting in the birth of bloody sectarian strife. The Afghan civil war & emergence of independent Central Asia states resulted in the emergence of indigenous Pakistani theocratic demagogues who were overly-influenced by ultra-conservative Wahabi elements hailing from Saudi Arabia & Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood.

Late 1990s till 2014: The West became intolerant of Pakistan’s constant nuclear sabre-rattling & post-9/11, efforts aimed at de-nuclearising Pakistan began to take firm shape & continue to this day (as related by former Afghan President Hamid Karzai to Pakistan’s PM Mian Mohd Nawaz Sharif in Kabul in 2013, when Karzai explained to Sharif why the US wanted to maintain a sizeable military presence inside Afghanistan even after ISAF’s withdrawal).

Present-Day: Islamic fervor NEVER gives rise to either nationalism or even regionalism. That’s why Pakistan’s various ethnic communities are increasingly resorting to identity-based politics & also why Pakistanis can never figure out why should the Afghans—fellow Muslims—be so fiercely opposed to Pakistan. Today, faced with a steadily deteriorating economic situation, the average Pakistani wants an urgent & drastic change to the form of governance (nizam), especially its feudal oligarchy. It has nothing to do with democracy, rather, it is all about a desperation for economic survival. Hence the MQM wants its own state, while Baluchistan wants outright secession, and the tribal badlands FATA & Khyber Pakhtunkhwa wants to do away with existing feudal practices & are demanding re-distribution of land-rights, which the ruling elite & even the PA are resisting tooth-and-nail.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To VYSHNAV PRAKASH: Of course it’s 100% sure & this matter was discussed in great detail by Dr Avinash Chander during his visit to the US in 2013 as well as by NaMo during his recent trip to the US. You may recall that back in the early 1980s when India began acquiring AGMs, two types of manportable systems were acquired: Milan-2 & its launcher with MIRA IR sight from Euromissile (now MBDA) & 9M113 Konkurs & the 9P135M launcher from Tula Machinery Design Bureau (Tula KBP). While the Milan-2s were for the India Army’s mechanised infantry & mountain warfare infantry battalions, the Konkurs were for the motorised infantry battalions (similar to the Red Arrow-8/Baktar Shikan manportable ATGMs of the PA) as well as for mounting on BMP-2 ICVs. It was then realised that the 9P135M launcher with its night-sight was cheaper than the one supplied for the Milan-2 & therefore the IA was in favour of using a universal manportable launcher a far greater numbers which would be able to fire both the Milan-2 & Konkurs. It was then that an innovative lady engineer from BEL devised the FLAME adaptation kit & passed on its manufacturing know-how to BDL (see newly uploaded photos above). The very same 9P135M launcher is now also used by the Milan-2 firing simulators developed by ZEN Technologies. Since then, the Milan-2 ATGM rounds have been superceded by Milan-2Ts while Konkurs has been superceded by Konkurs-M. In future, the Spider-SRs will be new accretions for the SF (Para) & mountain warfare infantry battalions, while the new-generation Javelins (with same range as existing Javelin ATGM, but with bunker-bursting thermobaric warhead options as well) will be for mechanised infantry battalions. The only two other types of ATGMs reqd for selection in future will be 4km-/7km-range ones to replace the Konkurs-M & for the Rudra/LCH helicopters. It is therefore not impossible to envisage the co-development of a new-generation manportable Javelin with 4km-range (which will have to be lighter than the Nag ATGM & will replace the Konkurs-M). For helicopter-launched ATGMs, if the HELINA is not available on time, then the PARS-3LR will have to be ordered from MBDA.

As for SSKs for P-75I, I reckon the IN & the MoD have learnt enough valuable lessons on the cost-prohibitive practice (introduced in the 1980s) of operating two different types/designs of SSKs acquired from different foreign OEMs & will this time not repeat such mistakes. The APS deal for the T-90S MBTs has not yet been inked since the IA has been unable to finalise the mid-life upgrade package of its T-90S medium tanks.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To SREENIVAS R: You may find these interesting:

The hunt for India's 'black money:' http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEDgxmeg-ig

&

Swaminathan Gurumurthy on Black Money: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=28LaIAyo_TI

joydeep ghosh said...

Dear

Prasun da

whats on The "Waiting List-2"

with Sweden recognizing Palestine do we expect to see a change in international political relations with other countries following suit and may later recognize Tibet as well.

The recent terror angle found in Bengal seems to have been brewing since a longtime, the prospect of growing radicalization in West Bengal is rattling. Also the suspected growth in radicalism in Chattisgarh is a concern, if left unchecked it may blow up a huge hole in the social fabric of the state that already faces naxal threat. If anything happen in the most important cities of Raipur, and twin city of Durg-Bhilai, the state will face a complete shut down.

thanks

Joydeep Ghosh

Vikram Guha said...

PrasunDa,

1. Another of your prediction is about to come true

http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2014-10-29/news/55558658_1_caparo-india-caparo-group-toilets?utm_content=buffer08959&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

2. This Business Today article states that India will spend $250 billion over the next 10 years on Defense procurements.

http://businesstoday.intoday.in/story/airbus-tata-sons-to-bid-for-indian-aircraft-deal/1/211725.html?utm_content=buffered1cb&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

This translates into $25 billion every year for the next 10 years. In your opinion is this figure of $250 billion inflated?

Regards,

VIKRAM

Pawan said...

Dear Prasunji,

USA is building its new embassy in Islamabad on 56 acres. I think it is a hint in direction as you were mentioning to keep tab on movement of nuclear weapons in Pakistan as well as building capabilities to take over Pak nuclear assets in case of failure of state.

Regards

RD said...

Prasunda,
The reports are coming that alenia will not field c27j for avro replacement (probably due to US reservations or vvip chopper episode)-
http://www.janes.com/article/45224/alenia-decides-not-to-contest-indian-mta-requirement

Then situation may take turn as predicted-
http://ajaishukla.blogspot.in/2014/10/fresh-tender-likely-after-tata-airbus.html

Also any news about follow on orders for boeing c17 whose production line is closing next year. Or another deal is getting cancelled due to production line closing just like m777.

Anonymous said...

Prasun da

I agree about replacing Research with Re-engineering in DRDO. Does the PM office knowing what is happening in DRDO? Who gives direction on what to research & develop, is it the scientific community within DRDO responsible or from IA's scientific officers? speaking about creativity, does DRDO possesses this skill?

Anonymous said...

Reply to MPatel,

The only solution to dissolve Pakistan is to tactically or politically reunite Pakistan with Indian Union. If one can come up with Two Nation Theory & made it practical, one can even come up with Unified India or Akhand Bharat as theory n make it possible. As far as the Indian Dream goes back with Akhand Bharat. This is a vision held up by BJP & and also was to be executed if Sardar Patel was PM instead of Nehru. Check it out

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To JOYDEEP GHOSH: Here’s something to lighten you up:

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/mocktale/How-Mamatas-Make-in-Bengal-invitation-bombed/articleshow/44992004.cms

To VIKRAM GUHA: VMT, but it was more a wish than a prediction. Am mighty glad that at least some corporate entity saw the writing on the wall & decided to capitalize on it. By the way, I’ve uploaded above images of the ITBP’s presence at Chumar, which were gleamed from here:

http://online.wsj.com/articles/india-china-border-standoff-high-in-the-mountains-thousands-of-troops-go-toe-to-toe-1414704602?ru=yahoo?mod=yahoo_itp

It is indeed very sad to see that unlike this ‘videshi’ Caucasian doing such on-site reporting, NONE of the ‘desi’ journalists/TV channels have so far even bothered to set foot in such areas to report on the actual ground situation.

Regarding the figure of US$250 billion, the figure is only an estimated ballpark figure that does not reflect the reality.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To RD: That in fact reinforces all that I had stated before. If the idea is to usher in the private-sector onto the aircraft manufacturing business, then all the more reason why the C-130J Hercules ought to be selected, since it will deliver the maximum returns on investment, especially from third-party MRO contracts emanating not only frpm the deployed US forces within the IOR, but also from the Middle East. Opting for the C-295 or An-132 won’t bring about such financial windfalls.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

For once, an Indian panelist gives it back in full measure in a Pakistani TV talk-show on the J & K issue:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OGsvUbZOx7A&spfreload=10&hd=1

Also, watch how Pakistan regards Afghanistan with utter disdain & how much Afghanistan hates Pakistan:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J9E3eBK-j10&spfreload=10&hd=1

Ved said...

Hi Prasun,
1. Have discussed in many forums but could not get concrete information on full reheat thrust of GE414INS6 for Tejas MK2..
2. Which torpedo has been selected for P75 submarines?
3. Will Tejas MK2 use both Derby and Python5 as its A2A missiles. Will its use R73E too?

Anonymous said...

Can all those guys who visit defencepk site regularly can honestly say something? After visiting that site for 6 months:
1. do u feel, u started arguing irrationally?
2. do u have high emotions when pakis and chinese started trolling?
3. do u started to go to the same level of those guys to win an argument?
4. do u feel the time spent there serves no purpose?

Thanks to all those who honestly answers.. pls feel free to use anonymous.. I request prasun to my comment for some few hours if it's not hurting you..Thanks again..

vishakh said...

Hi

1) In many instances you have mentioned that india should look for similar solution as Brazil with scorpene for Nuclear propelled sub , but BARC already had difficult time to miniaturize Nuclear reactor in 10M beam . How is india going to find help in reduces even further for Scorpene . I am 100% sure Russia wont help

Pintu said...

I can't figure out why my previous post has been deleted, though I was on the middle of posting my query

Suicide Blast at Pakistani Side of Wagah Border, 45 Dead

http://www.dawn.com/news/1142006/at-least-45-killed-in-suicide-blast-near-wagah-border

My prayer for the victims, the innocent civilians lost their precious lives and near and dear ones in the attack as also with the injured,

Now it appears that toll has risen to 55, and Jundullah

http://www.dawn.com/news/1142006/jundullah-claims-suicide-attack-near-wagah-border-55-dead

the very same group responsible for attacking Minorities as well as Shias, now is this in the response of Zarb-i-Azb ? So, it appears that Pakistani Security forces as well as ISI were totally clueless about the terror attack, and the administration failed miserably to protect the citizens despite Hoopla about Zarb-i-Azab, Prasun Da, so what may be implications, if the attack targets the Security Checkpoints, so close to our Border, then our border posts may also under threat of this type of attack in Future ? So what might be the strategy in the light of inner security of the State of Pakistan seems crumbling ?

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To VED: 1) Thrust ratings of GE414INS6 are the same as those of GE’s F414 that power the Super Hornet. 2) Black Shark. 3) That has not yet been finalised by the IAF. Only the IN has decided that both the LCA (Navy) Mk1 & LCA (Navy) Mk2 will use Derby & Python-5 since the IN already possesses sizeable quantities of these missiles. The IAF will probably opt for the R-73E & Astra Mk1 for Tejas Mk1 & the R-73E/Astra Mk2 combination fore Tejas Mk2 MRCA.

To VISHAKH: BARC DID NOT face any difficulty at all for miniaturing the KLT-40C PWR (developed by Afrikantov OKBM and designed to deliver 23.5 propeller mW from the 82.5mW reactor), since the design for both the PWR & SSBN’s hull came from Russia. Hence, in terms of both reactor physics & reactor engineering, all the homework was done by Russia & the results & solutions were supplied by Russia. India’s R & D institutions & heavy-engineering industries were involved in only the production stage. All this is now a matter of record, based on data coming out from the seminar held last month to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the IN’s Directorate of Naval Design & now books are being written about all this by various Indian engineers & naval architects involved in such projects (I had in fact detailed all this way back in 2009). This is how the BARC understood & mastered all the know-hows & know-whys of PWR-related closed-cycle reactor physics & reactor engineering & now the risks & costs associated with further miniaturising the KLT-40C PWR are minimal.

To PINTU: Nothing to do with OP Zarb-e-Azb. The Jundullah emerged in West Punjab’s central & southern areas in the early 1980s as a consequence of the proxy wars between Iran & Saudi Arabia that were being fought inside Pakistan at that time. Over the years, the Jundullah has grown & spread its tentacles in Baluchistan & has been responsible for staging several terrorist attacks inside Iran’s Sistan-Baluchistan province. Te latest suicide-attack at Wagah is a response to the recent detaining by Pakistan’s internal security forces of Jundullah’s leaders following the terrorist incidents staged by this group inside Iran last month & Iran’s subsequent warning of imposing dire consequences on Pakistan if such cross-border attacks continued. Indian border checkpoints are under no such threat.

VP said...

Sir about the AMCA project,is there a possibility that we can partner with Israle for the project,by the time AMCA becomes operational they will be looking to replace their F-15s and f-16s and a medium, low cost fighter will help them to replace their fleet easily too rather than using the costly and ever doubtful f-35,.Israel has gr8 tech in their hand which we can use and also their expertise which can help us in our project very largely helping us to complete the project faster ,and if possible also getting
small countries such as Vietnam to invest with us will also help us to get orders for production .

Mr. RA 9 said...

Unfortunately Pakistan is going into the vortex of a great turmoil. Actually they have stopped differentiating between the Muslamic, ISIS, Jihad, AQ, Islam, terrorism, Chhariat, Jhundallah, ISI, Taliban, Army, Maulavi, Government, politicians etc. It all has become a mess and the people are in soup.

Anonymous said...

Why are we Indians and the Pakistanis so obsessed with nuclear bombs ?

Does the nuclear weapon have any constructive use beyond deterrence ?

To what degree will the world react towards the first nuclear bomb user ?

Given that we have two troublesome neighbors and several disputed territory , in case a nuke warhead lands in Indian soil do we have a foolproof mechanism to determine who the culprit was ?


--Muttu

lachit said...

@Muttu
"To what degree will the world react towards the first nuclear bomb user ?"

let me ask u a counter question - that if some body firebombs your
house will u be waiting for the degree of public opinion?
and basically what purpose will the degree of worlds reaction serve, with millions dead/dying?
will those dead come alive ?

"Does the nuclear weapon have any constructive use beyond deterrence ? "
sure to stop asteroids hell-bent on destroying earth
or to destroy attacking alien spacecraft in deep space. I personally believe it would not be wise to nuke the aliens on earth because then both aliens and humans would be history.
or humanity decides that it is in deep shit (it already is)and decides to nuke itself into oblivion.
also I remember if the sun runs out of fuel we could try to nuke it so we could get the sun running normally again.
and also some times I(many)get so pissed off I believe I(anybody) could nuke my(their) girl friend.
lolzzzzzzz

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

Interesting RFIs:

http://indianarmy.nic.in/writereaddata/RFI/407/Avn290914.pdf

http://indianarmy.nic.in/writereaddata/RFI/409/dgmf211014.pdf

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To VP: For me, it’s a thorough waste of time even discussing a project like the AMCA. Let the Teajs Mk2 MRCA first take to the skies & only then one can build upon that success & discuss the next step forward. In the far more immediate future, the topmost priority should be to make the Tejas Mk1 operational with a LIFT squadron at Sulur (and fully equip the air-base with an engine test-cell, flight simulators, cockpit procedures trainers, maintenance training simulators, & part-task trainers for learning to launch & guided PGMs) & only after that should the MoD invite delegations from friendly countries to visit this air base & see for themselves the operational serviceability & reliability of the Tejas Mk1 LIFT & all its support systems on the ground. That’s the best & surest way of ensuring marketing success. Anything else, like doing aerobatics during air-shows, amounts to only part-time entertainment minus any real gain.

To Mr.RA 9: Actually, it far more worse. Because, by now questioning the Instrument of Accession & its signature by the late Maharaja Hari Singh of J & K on October 25, 1947 & its signed endorsement of it by Lord Mountbatten, Pakistan has invited the wrath of not only India, but also the UK’s (because the Brits will never allow anyone to cast unfounded aspertions on the honourable intentions of its royalty). What the loonies from Islamabad do not realise is that the Instrument of Accession was the creation of colonial UK (not India’s) under the India Independence Act of 1946, which clearly stated that while the provinces of a to-be-partitioned India could choose their political masters through elections, the princely states (562 of them) had to choose between accession to India or Pakistan ONLY THROUGH the executive decisions made by the then rulers of the princely states. Now, if Pakistan is questioning the validity of the Instrument of Accession, the by consequence, it is also questioning the validity of the India Independence Act of 1946, which in turn means that the creation of Pakistan as a sovereign country on August 14, 1947 itself stands invalidated & becomes null & void (LoLz!!!). No wonder, therefore, the Brits understand all this all too well & therefore ensured that the so-called Million-Man March of Kashmiris on October 26 ended up as being a global farce—because on one hand the Yuvaraj of Sindh/PPP was shouting about Pakistan taking back Kashmir by all means & on the other the UK’s Mirpuri British-Kashmiris vehemently denounced such rants, since their objective remains ‘Azaadi’ (via exercising the right to self-determination) & under no condition do they want to be a part of Pakistan.

To MUTTU: What ever gave you the idea that India is obsessed with nuclear WMDs? Has India ever engaged in any kind of nuclear sabre-rattling of the type displayed by Pakistan? And contrary to the often propagated belied by Pakistan that nuclear WMDs are the panacea for all forms of conventional war-waging shortcomings, it must be remembered & noted that it was another Pakistrani—Gen Pervez Musharraf—who discredited this very belief by staging OP Badr in 1999 & inviting massive Indian conventional retaliation through OP Vijay, OP Safed Sagar & OP Trishul. In other words, it was Pakistan which proved that even under a nuclear overhang, it is very much possible to wage & win limited high-intensity conventional wars.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

Interesting disclosures by an ex-Lockheed Martin Skunk Works scientist/engineer about reverse-engineering of flying discs:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dPfuZUEbhfc

Mr. RA 9 said...

Thanx for the information which I knew apart in pieces but never together in such a consolidated manner.

sangaioinam said...

@Prasun K. Sengupta

In your assessment or knowledge does the PLA at the LAC/Tibet in peacetime act autonomously of central command or even go against it? Ex. Intrusion during Xinping's visit and earlier examples. And what about declaring war? Thanks again.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

TO SANGAIOINAM: The PLA NEVER acts autonomously anywhere & at all times—in peacetime & wartime—functions as per the directives of the Central Military Commission, whose Chairman is President Xi Jinping.

DefenseandAerospace said...

Hi Prasun,

A few questions about the BMP upgrade related RFI that you have posted:

1.The BMP upgrade RFI that you have posted is a retrogressive step in my mind. Instead MoD should have kick started the FICV project.Please share your thoughts

2. There is a section for ATGM. Now why does the IA need another ATGM when the existing ATGMs can be fitted in the BMP?

3. Section 7 asks for Details of Registration. Is it necessary for foreign or Indian companies to get registered with the below mentioned 4 agencies?

VMT


George said...

Interesting insight....
idrw.org/?p=46188

sujoymajumdar said...

Prasun Da,

You made this interesting observation about why the Javelin was selected over the Spike ER.

However, if Spike ER can rectify the problem with the on-board un cooled long-wave infra-red (LWIR) sensors do you think the IA should go in for the Spike ER instead of the Javelin : (a) because it is a lot cheaper than the Javelin; (b) the Javelin has not been tested extensively in India and (c) Raytheon won’t transfer the full technology so why pay so much for the Javelin. Rafael won’t transfer the full technology either but at least they have priced the Spike a lot less than the Javelin.

Very eager to get your views on this.

Best,

Sujoy

Rahul said...

Hi Prasun,


http://m.economictimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/indigenous-nuclear-armed-submarine-ins-arihants-sea-trials-by-year-end/articleshow/45012740.cms

1.What took so long for INS Arihant to complete the HAT and for the reactor to reach 100 percent power?

2. What exactly comprises HAT? What are the different exercises and trials they carry out in HAT. Arihant has been in the dockyard since '09.

3. Will they test launch the K15 slbm in this very first sea trial without testing Arihant's buoyancy and validating her underwater performance?There is still a long time to fo before any ballistic missile is launched by the sub.

4. Has the contruction of the next line of ballistic missile subs started?

5. Does Drdo plan to test the hit to kill capabilities of its Pdv any time soon? The test results of the first launch was very sketch. Some said the KV failed to hit its target while others said the KV wasnt tested at all.

6. There hasnt been any test firing of the AAD for quite some time now? Is the Drdo modifying it with a new seeker and a booster assembly so that it is able to takebon solid fuelled TBM and missiles in the 1000-1500 km class .OR is its developement complete and it is awaiting deployment?

Vikram Guha said...

PrasunDa,

In the Rs.80,000 crores contracts that GOI recently passed they have allocated around $250 million for purchasing URAN missiles from Russia.

(1) Is there any need for the URAN when Brahmos is already there?

(2) There was a RFP for coastal missile batteries released last year. Will this RFP be cancelled, now in favor of either Brahmos or Uran?

Thanks,

VIKRAM

rad said...


HI prasun
We could go in for the an-
132 rather than the western MTA as it is proven and it would be a lot cheaper.We can get he avionics from Israel.
What is this phosphoric acid AIP ? Seems new .why have the drdo gone in for this?. Is it the others have not thought of this?. Please explain the method of deriving power from this phosphoric acid AIP.
why cant the p-8 maritime aircraft follow the chinese subs once in international waters and get an idea of the enoise parameters by passive sono bouys. They will do the same to us if our subs go there. Why dont we send our subs thatside.
Is the report that an indian sub was hunted down by the chinese navy ships and forced to surface some time back in the arabian sea? please elaborate.

Anonymous said...

@Prasunda,

if strictly speaking actually operation polo was also counter active against the independence act. Because the Nizam bargained for sovereignty with that of joining Pakistan. I believe Junagadh was also having a similar problem. So i think what Pakistan is asking is tit for tat response in Kashmir (ofcourse too outdated now). How India could be right and Pakistan be wrong in that case. Both any way proceeded irrespective of the wishes of the princely states and some time to wishes of people.

Sreenivas R.

Anonymous said...

Mr.Prasun

Do u think India military has prepared to face eventual Chinese invasion apart of incursions made in past and as on 1962? Personally looking at gaping difference between Indo-Chinese military comparison, i got no hope. Secondly, it has been 52 years after Chinese invasion, Indian military no where near bridging the gap of military diferrence & incursion is keep on happening again & again. Does our military is incapable of securing our borders? Thirdly, why India is not recovering its lost territories from China, Northeast of Kashmir & northern Arunachal? I believe army's duty is 1. Secure the borders 2.Thwart foreign incursion or invasion 3. Restore the order & state of a nation. Why i dont see these 3 basic qualities from our forces? Pls enlighten me. Tq

Anonymous said...

Mr. Prasun

Another question, i hope these would open the eyes of our people. Is that Han Chinese belongs to East China Sea coast. what rights do they have claim in our Indic area or historical Indian influential sphere such as Tibet, Arunachal, East Turkestan or even Kashmir? We are celebrating our Independence day, but yet we fail to realize we n our people are still being colonize by the unrightful foreign rulers such as China who belongs to Oriental Pacific not Himalayas. When we going to stand up and get which is rightful to us? Pls enlighten if i said anything wrong. Tq

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Anon ^^: Kindly re-post your queries by logging in with a decent handle of your choice (instead of Anonymous) & the replies will then be forthcoming.

Prav said...

You have mentioned this several times that the kargil war proved that a conventional war can happen when nuclear weapons are present . But do we know that for sure ? Was Pakistan not prepared to use nuclear weapons if India escalated the conflict .By opening another theater carrying out air raids or blocading Karachi ? Could you shed some light on the development of sonar .. It appears to be superior to other projects in the realm of electronics and sensors. Will the DRDO AIP be ready for its February testing phase You have expressed doubts over the project in the past ....

Reddy said...

Indians in 22 countries (British colonies)

http://tinyurl.com/kbo3hgv

Deepak Gowda said...

Mr. Prasun
Well im the one posted under anon 3/11. Kindly enlighten us. Tq

vishakh said...

Hi
Japanese company has been given rights to develope roads along China Border except Arunachal . Is this info correct and is this in right direction ??

How stratergic are these roads .

Is India planning Railway in Arunachal aswell and other border areas with own or some help from other countries??

Deb said...

Mr. Prasun,

Yet to receive response from you regarding long range cruise missile program. which happens to be tested in 2018-19.

joydeep ghosh said...


Dear

Prasun da

1. You forgot perhaps to tell whats on The "Waiting List-2"

btw just learned

2. The MCMV deal has been cancelled

3. The DRDO-Embrarer AEWC project has been red flagged by IAF as it wants only 360 degree AWACS and no more than 3 AEWC planes. DRDO/Embrarer have reportedly signed deal to market these to South American & African nations, what happens to the 3 platforms already we have

4. Also heard the DRDO plans to install its own AIP on the Scorpenes during mid life upgrade only, that will give them ample time to develop whichever type of AIP they want

5. The Avro replacement deal will be tendered again, as aliena aeirmachi has withdwran & Tata/Airbus are sole vendors but will it prompt a rethink by MoD & go for C130Js

thanks

Joydeep Ghosh

Ved said...

Thanks Prasun.

1. In your opinion, Is the thrust provided by GE 414INS6 at 98 KN sufficient for Tejas MK2 to perform its job or will it be a little under powered?

2. PN navy has Atlas Elektronik sea hake mod4 torpedoes for its Agosta 90B subs. Is black shark a better option? How?

3. Which torpedo will be carried by INS Arihant and its sister subs? What happened to Varunastra?

4. Is INS Chakra venturing far away from India shore to train its sailors in various aspects of navigation, communication and prolonged submerged operations?

Gessler said...

Prasun ji, is it true IAF wants 250 Tejas Mk-2? So far I think only 83 Mk-2 aircraft have been signed up for -

http://www.defensenews.com/article/20141004/DEFREG03/310040022/India-Offers-Spend-12B-Break-Monopoly

How many Tejas (Mk-1/Mk-2/Navy versions) do you think IAF/IN could ultimately order?

SS said...

What is your assessment on below finely articulated article prasunji.

http://idrw.org/?p=46239

With pakistan navy concentrating its strategies based on submarine and Chinese navy's nuclear sub forays into Indian ocean, Indian Navy needs to fight two ends to counter subsurface threats alas with depleting submarine arm (Even if P-75 project is fully exercised 6 + 4 more immediately, many of our existing older subs may start retiring).

Isn't it prudent to have a grand strategy specially for submarine arm and in totality the subsurface warfare to effectively counter both ends (PLAN and PN) by developing credible subsurface (submarines) assets and deploying them in adequate numbers.

Also thoughts on platforms like large flattops with helicopters for sweeping subsurface threats could also be considered. More likely what Japan had done with its recent Izumo-class helicopter destroyer. your thoughts VMT.

Ved said...

Hi Prasun,

Further as per your confirmation, Black Shark Torpedo has been selected by IN. But WASS is a finmeccanica company. Do you see any possibility of reversal of this decision to go ahead with Black Shark?

Anonymous said...

had this incident (http://bit.ly/1yUeWQv) happened in India, west, local x teams, agencies(RED x, UN, etc bullshit), pope would have cried and hell broke loose over India.. but as this happened in land of pure everyone shove it in their backs and kept silent

sakshi said...

India should order more chakras from russians. No Tot No bullshit.. only way we have now..for faster subs.. payable over 20-30 years for 10 chakras..

Pintu said...

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-29893809

And, all hell let loose, people killing other minority community and again killing each other from their own community, human right has been enslaved there

http://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/wagah-blast-3-outfits-claim-responsibility-death-toll-mounts-to-61/article1-1282025.aspx

Now Jamaat-ul-Ahrar, claims responsibility , even naming the bomber, Prasun Da, what is your view about the theory put up in this article regarding "shifting of theater of terror from western border of Pakistan to Eastern One" also isn't it the time to halt wagah Ceremony ?

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To DEFENSE & AEROSPACE: 1) The FICV project had no serious takers except the TATA-Rheinmetall offer & therefore there were no competitive offers. Consequently, the FICV process was stillborn from the start. Still, even if a sole-source product development path was chosen then, the FICV would have reached the production stage (assuming it was approved in 2011) only by 2016. The VMP-2 ICV upgrade, on the other hand, is focused on fulfilling the near-term needs aimed at ensuring war preparedness between now & 2025 & therefore in no way does the BMP-2 upgrade programme clash with the FICV project. 2) That’s because the reqmt has shifted from a pure ATGM to an NLOS anti-armour missile

3) That’s mandatory & follows universal practice. Also note that in areas of the propulsion package, the Russian offer for new diesel engines & transmission will likely be selected since the Russians are the BMP-2’s OEMs & are therefore best qualified to supply suitable solutions. As for DFCS & related sensors, ELBIT Systems is the frontrunner, while RAFAEL will most likely prevail with its Spike-NLOS anti-armour missiles. Also note that the IA has specified STANAG has the certification compliance standard, meaning Russian DFCS & related sensors won’t be able to qualify. Regarding ATGM reqmts, the terrain over which the BMP-2 has been & will be employed itself dictates the kind of missile to be selected. On India’s western front, where line-of-sight visibility over both deserts & plains (agrarian land) does not extend beyond 2km (in 1965 & 1971, in fact, all armoured engagements took place within only 700 metres visibility ranges), acquiring 4km-range ATGMs doesn’t make sense. The Konkurs ATGMs for infantry forces & BMP-2s were therefore acquired only for use in those areas where clear visibility prevailed over a distance of 4km, i.e. in the highlands of eastern/southern Ladakh & North Sikkim. 4km was the acceptable norm for range envelope due to the limitations of target detection/tracking capabilities of thermal imaging cameras of the 1990s & the previous decade. Today, with mast-mounted LORROS coupled with Stentor battlefield surveillance radars, plus MALE-UAVs capable of relaying real-time imagery through the battlefield surveillance system (BSS) & then on to mechanised/motorised infantry formations via the battlefield management system (BMS), a much greater swath of area bot laterally & in depth can be covered in terms of target acquisition/tracking. Consequently, ICVs ae now emerging with fibre-optic wire-guided NLOS anti-armour missiles capable of going out to 25km or 15km to engage hostile mobile armoured targets or even dug-in hardened emplacements. An excellent example in India’s neighbourhood of this is NORINCO’s AFT-10 NLOS-ATGM on ZBD-08 tracked carrier, whose photos I’ve uploaded above. This is what the future calls for, & therefore, the Nag ATGM/NAMICA combination now has no takers. Only the 7km-range HELINA’s R & D project now remains active. ONLY IF the DRDO succeeds in re-engineering the Nag into a fibre-optic wire-guided NLOS anti-armour missile with a range of 10/15km can the Nag/NAMICA project be resurrected as a viable option for plains-/desert-/highland-/mountain-based warfare. Whether or not the DRDO reads this writing on the wall, only time will tell.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To GEORGE: What great many Indians do not realise is that thanks to Article 370, even Supreme Court judgments/verdicts do not automatically apply to J & K. What this means is that if the Supreme Court delivers a verdict on a particular case, the verdict is not automatically applicable to the whole country UNLESS & UNTIL the State Legislature of J & K passes a resolution approving the verdict. This in turn means that the defendant can file for a stay order in the J & K High Court & start arguing his/her case all over again & if the verdict delivered is different, then this verdict takes precedence over that already delivered by India’s Supreme Court. To date, a great many number of cases in India have fallen victim to such a dysfunctional practice, especially those involving corporate business houses. Therefore, unless & until Article 370 is done away with, India will always remain an uneven playing field, legally speaking. You’re of course welcome to seek expert opinions from your friends/acquaintances with legal backgrounds in order to establish beyond reasonable doubt whether or not what I’ve explained above is the prevailing state of affairs.

To SUJOY MAJUMDAR: If RAFAEL incorporates such improvements on to the Spike ATFM family as you’ve suggested, then the price too will increase because RAFAEL will want to recover its product re-engineering costs from the customer. The end-result will be a product that’s as expensive as the Javelin. The Javelin has been test-fired as much as the Spike in both deserts & high-altitude terrain. And why should there be any ToT concerning manufacturing technology for either the Spike or Javelin, when such ToT was not obtained even in the 1980s for the Milan-2 & Konkurs? In what way will it benefit India if such re-usable ATGM launchers are licence-built in India? It will only serve to increase the total acquisition costs by creating the need for separate manufacturing facilities just for the sake of reinventing the wheel.

To RAHUL: 1 & 2) HAT is a series of mandatory shakedown trials to test out each & every component’s resilience & reliability before the vessel heads for the deep seas. For every first-of-type vessel, during such HATs, several manufacturing QA/QC deficiencies are usually detected & are rectified. This is a time-consuming process, especially in S-2/Arihant’s case because all faulty/defective items/components had to be taken back to Russia for testing & fault isolation, since such intricate test-benches are not yet available in India. That’s why the HAT process took so long. It is not just about the PWR achieving full criticality. 100% criticality takes only 2 weeks to achieve. It’s what happens next & what are the subsequently observed shortcomings/deficiencies that take a long time to rectify. 3) No one takes such a risk. The first test during sea-trials will involve a series of dives & re-surfacing, including several simulated on-board emergencies. Unless & until the resilience & reliability of the SSBN is first established, no weapons-firing trials can be conducted. 4) Of course not. How can one begin running when even the art of brisk walking has yet to be mastered? 5) That will take at least another 5 years to accomplish. 6) The IIR seeker for the AAD s still under development.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To VIKRAM GUHA: The new orders for 3M-25E ASCMs are meant as one-for-one replacements for those missiles that are on board the IN’s existing FAC-Ms, corvettes, frigates & destroyers. BrahMos-1 in its existing form cannot go on board these vessels, while the BrahMos-Mini is still under development & is at least another 3 years away. Coastal ASCM Batteries are no longer reqd in this day & age when the IN’s principal naval bases all have accompanying helicopter bases that can easily house NMRHs armed with ASCMs & such platforms can quickly cover far greater swathes of sea surface. On top of that, the sea surveillance system now being installed & commissioned in phases does away with the need for a chain of military-specific coastal surveillance radars.

To RAD: How can the An-132 be considered a worthwhile option when Ukraine is facing financial bankruptsy? DRDO’s claims about AIP-related R & D won’t go far at all since its only existing pilot-scale AIP plant is shore-based & it has no access to any existing diesel-electric submarine to serve as a platform. Only option is to CUT the INS Sindhukirti’s hull (which the IN does not want to induct into operational service) into two pieces & then try out the DRDO’s AIP plug-in solution—something that will take another 6 years to accomplish. But then, of the first 6 Scorpene SSKs on order, only the last two will have structural provisions for accommodating an AIP plug-in. And since time is running out, the writing on the wall is that by the time Scorpene SSK Nos 5 & 6 are ready for final assembly by 2017, a proven AIP solution will by then have to be chosen—no later. This, then leaves only the options available from DCNS to be selected. It’s that simple & that’s the only writing on the wall, irregardless of who claims what.

As for tailing PLAN’s SSNs, if they travel totally submerged from southern Java all the way up to Colombo, how can any LRMR/ASW platform detect them? SSKs or SSNs are detectable by LRMR/ASW platforms only when the submarines surface or are at periscope depth. When they remain submerged below 100 metres of water, they can’t be detected by any airborne surveillance platform. If the IN wants to send any submarines on such long-distance patrols anywhere, then the only way of doing so is to acquire its own fleet of SSNs. Diesel-electric SSKs are totally unsuitable, since a submerged SSN can do 30 Knots per hour while a submerged diesel-electric SSK can at best attain only 22 Knots. Hence my personal persistence on the IN’s dire need for acquiring a home-grow fleet of SSNs, & not the heavier SSGNs like INS Chakra.

To SREENIVAS R: From a legal standpoint, military intervention in Hyderabad was questionable, while in Junagadh, the ruling royalty developed fatigue & escaped to Karachi BEFORE Indian military intervention took place. In Hyderabad’s case, what forced the Govt of India’s hand at that time was the worsening law-and-order situation that could have had larger communal fallouts throughout India. Therefore, when looked at through the prism of supreme national interests, India’s military intervention in Hyderabad was a necessity.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To DEEPAK GOWDA: Firstly, VMT for obtaining the handle. Secondly, there’s no ‘eventual’ invasion scenario at all. The PLA of 1962 was one full of revolutionary fervour & was also battle-hardened due to its direct involvement during the 1950-1963 Korean war. In addition, back in 1962, there was TOTAL intelligence penetration by China starting from Kolkata to Kalimpong, Darjeeling & the tea estates of Assam. Consequently, each & every military movement of the IA & IAF was obtainable by the PLA in near real-time. In fact, so good was the PLA’s penetration that just prior to commencement of hostilities, PLA’s propaganda broadcasts over loudspeaker from atop the Thag La Ridge were broadcasting in Hindi, Garhwali & Rajsathani languages, warning the IA not to come close to that ridge! As for gaping differences, you will be surprised to note that in reality, the IA & IAF enjoy a huge qualitative & quantitative superiority over their PLA counterparts in terms of ISTAR technologies & capacities, as well as in terms of deployed manpower-levels that are fully acclimatised to high altitudes. Any keen observer of the PLA’s & PLAAF’s successive exercises over TAR since mid-2010 will note that they have only been researching manoeuvres aimed at achieving defence-in-depth. No offensive tactical wargames have been conducted to date. Furthermore, it is almost impossible today for the PLA to stage the kind of ground offensives it did in 1962 in Arunachal Pradesh or Ladakh simply because the values & training-levels of the PLA of today are quite different. It is impossible for the PLA to recruit manpower from plains & highlands elsewhere in China & deploy them in Tibet because they will never be as acclimatised & as adept as the indigenous Tibetans, & such indigenous natives are not in favour of joining the PLA. In India, there’s still a discredited tendency to paint the PLA as standing 9 feet-tall BECAUSE India has still not released any factual data on what really happened in the fall of 1986 & early 1987 during the Sumdurong Chu incident, when the PLA suffered severe fatal casualties not due to any exchange of firepower, but due to the vagaries of weather & outbreak of malaria, dysentery & diarrhea among all the PLA infantry forces that were at that time arriving from Chengdu & Sichuan for deployment opposite Arunachal Pradesh. Eyewitness accounts by several Scandinavian tourists at that time who were flying out of Lhasa spoke of truckloads of such PLA casualties being evacuated. I myself was witness to all these goings-on & had at that even seen with my own eyes how the PLA was then struggling with its rear-area logistics with only 24 Sikorsky S-70C-4 Black Hawks that were then being used for CASEVAC. If I live long enough to write my memoirs, then someday I will record all this in far greater detail & with lots of photos taken at that time.

Cont’d below…

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

As for the incursions, what must be noted is that they are two-way affairs. Don’t you for a moment assume that all such incursions take place only against India. The IA too routinely deploys its long-range recce patrols into areas claimed by China & then too there are face-offs. Only difference is that when such incursions are undertaken by the PLA, they’re reported & become public knowledge, whereas when the IA undertakes such incursions, they’re not reported about by China’s state-controlled media. And such incursions by both sides along the LAC are always, without fail, undertaken by lightly-armed infantry personnel & their tracker digs, & are never accompanied by any heavy-calibre weaponry—meaning these ARE NOT aggressive patrolling of the type conducted along the LoC. Aggressive patrolling means when two sides come into contact, there’s exchange of fire. In the LAC’s case, the last tme this happened was in 1970 & since then neither side has been fired upon.

And as for any talk of collusive threats or facing a two-front scenario, I find that TOTALLY LAUGHABLE, because if you were to follow the timelines from 1986 to 1987, all three armed services of India were fully involved in, first EX BRASS TACKS in the western front, then EX CHECKER BOARD in the northern front, followed by OP FALCON & OP TRIDENT in Arunachal Pradesh & Sikkim, & finally, OP PAWAN on the southern front in Sri Lanka. In other words, India’s armed forces undertook synchronised, joint operations on 3 fronts—leave alone 2 fronts—within a 12-month period WAY BACK in 1986-1987. Therefore, all those who claim that India is not prepared for fighting two-front limited high-intensity wars or are intimidated by the so-called collusive threat from a China-Pakistan axis are—in my view—suffering from terminal stupidity & hence need to seek urgent psychiatric assistance.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To PRAV: Of course they’ve all been disclosed/revealed & are matters of public record. Just read the memoir of Gen (Ret’d) Pervez Musharraf & the book written by his relative Brig Feroze Khan (who was once heading the arms control & disarmament cell of the SPD), titled ‘Eating Grass’. It is all there in black-and-white.

To VISHAKH: That’s entirely correct. It involves Japanese heavy-engineering & construction companies that are experts in tunnel-boring & road-building using pre-fabricated concrete sub-structures. The South Koreans & later Chinese too learnt the art of making all-weather eight-lane highways & bridges over mountainous terrain from such Japanese companies. India’s north-eastern railway network needs to be spread far & wide beyond Assam’s Brahmaputra valleys & eventually should link-up with Bangladesh, Myanmar & Thailand. They are all long overdue.

To DEB: The only on-going LRCM project of the DRDO involves the Nirbhay multi-role subsonic cruise missile.

To JOYDEEP GHOSH: 1) This is an on-going series, & there will be more like -3, -4 etc. 2) Very good news. Now, the MoD should instruct GSL to formalise its industrial partnership with Italy’s Intermarine & after this, the MCMV contract should be awarded to GSL. At the same time, RFPs should be issued for procuring ROVs capable of detecting & neutralising moored/seabed mines. 3) Those 3 EMB-145I platforms will enter service with the IAF AFTER the IAF certifies them as being in compliance with the IAF’s ASQRs. 4) Utter baloney, pure mumbo-jumbo & total waste of money & time. 5) I hope it does. To me, the C-130J is THE ONLY viable option not only for transporting CAPF detachments throughout the country, but for also supporting the NDRF during humanitarian emergencies, & also for supporting India’s UN peacekeeping operations in the African continent. The IAF needs to procure no more than 40 C-130Js in semi-knocked-down condition & have them assembled by a private-sector consortium led by TATA & this final assembly facility will next serve as a depot-level MRO facility for supporting not only those C-130Js flying with the IAF, bit all other C-130s of the USAF & US Navy & the GCC member-states that are flying within the IOR & also in the Middle East. Right now, not a single such facility exists between Bahrain & Malaysia. The MoD should therefore include a clause into the C-130J purchase contact that mandates the setting up of such a MRO facility & should, most importantly, ink the Logistics Support Agreement with the US, which will authorise US military C-130s to come to India for MRO support. This will then become both a money-spinner & a generator of value-added jobs. Game, Set & Match will thus go in India’s favour, take it from me!

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To VED: 1) It will be more than enough, since new-generation laser-guided/GPS-guided PGMs are getting lighter by the day. 2) Both are in the same league in terms of technology. But for the IN’s upgraded Class 209/Type 1500 SSKs, the Sea Hake Mod 4 torpedoes will be ordered for sure. 3) Russian TEST-65/TEST-71 torpedoes. Varunastra is still in the technology development stage. Furthermore, the DRDO does not as yet have an underwater test range equipped with moored or dunking sonar arrays that’s required for developing such heavyweight torpedoes. 4) Of course. Throughout the IOR.

To GESSLER: Not 250, but 150. However, to date, no firm contracts have been placed by either the IN or IAF. The figure of 83 is also an estimated figure for the first tranche. IAF will order no more than 150, while the IN will order about 60.

To SS: This is nothing new. I had first flagged this off way back in 2009 itself & had called for, firstly, developing a SOSUS-type seabed-based network straddling the Indian coastline (just like what China has been doing since 2012 in the South China Sea along its EEZ there), & secondly investing in a fleet of 12 SSNs by using the Scorpene SSK’s hull design & undertaking a detailed study on Brazil’s SNBR programme to see whether it can be replicated in India using India’s home-grown naval heavy engineering/shipbuilding resources & seeking strategic industrial partnerships with the likes of DCNS for obtaining integrated full-electric propulsion (IFEP) system solutions for such Scorpene-derived SSN vessels. Based on my recent interactions with senior Directorate of Naval Design officials & also wit DCNS representatives, it appears that there is still a window of opportunity available for such industrial partnerships, since at the political-level, France will welcome such a business venture as a flagship project of India-France High-Technology Cooperation, just like how Russia touts the BrahMos Aerospace & ATV projects in a similar fashion.

SAKSHI: India never ordered any SSGNs from Russia. The Russian offer was only for dry-leasing one SSGN, the K-152 Nerpa, which is now the INS Chakra. No one will sell SSNs, SSBNs or SSGNs off-the-shelf to anyone.

To PINTU: This Gilgit-Baltistan-based group (originating from the Lashkar-e-Jhangvi & Jundullah elements) was the same one that claimed responsibility for the murder of nine (6 Ukrainians & 3 Chinese) tourist-climbers and a Pakistani guide in the Fairy Meadows Base Camp for the K-2 peak last year. 15 attackers were involved in this nighttime ‘revenge-attack’ incident. There’s no shifting of the terror frontage from the west to the east. Had that been the case, the PA would not have sought authorisation from Pakistan’s Interior Minister 48 hours ago for deploying 52 Companies of PA infantry personnel for internal security patrolling in & along Islamabad.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Kolkata-on-high-alert-after-intelligence-agencies-warn-of-possible-terror-attack/articleshow/45036036.cms

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ilTlBh07yWo&list=UUZFMm1mMw0F81Z37aaEzTUA

I can only hope that this isn’t true, since the IN possesses all the material & human resources reqd for securing its warships against such threats. Withdrawing its warships due to such threat alerts can only mean that the IN is incapable of protecting its assets even inside India.

Listen to the bleeding-heart female ‘desi’ journalist who thrives on living a utopian existence, versus the cold-hearted, level-headed & logical reasoning of Ajay Sahni:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00PUPdzMSZg

Excellent documentary on tracing the terror-trail inside WB:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bSqcXeKikFk&list=UUZdjh94PIFy6fDekDtWRRJQ

Interestingly, the view is that arms trafficking into Bangladesh originates from India & involves the smuggling of China-made small arms.

Excellent documentary on how national interests are calculated based on realpolitik:

The Day Israel Attacked America http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8JRgXie2teo

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

Documentary aired yesterday on the PAF’s Flying Training Academy at Risalpur & Peshawar air base:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NyktcDGU4Lc

RD said...

Prasunda,
Finally one of the most important deals is on the verge of getting fulfilled-
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Finmeccanica-out-USs-Sikorsky-joins-Navy-copter-acquisition-race/articleshow/45041507.cms

With the cancellation of MCMV deal with kangnam is almost certain, will Intermarine be automatically qualified as second lowest bidder or another time consuming new tender will be issued.

Anonymous said...

@prasunda,

it is really interesting to note that wire guidance can go beyond 5KM even up to 20 Km. Does AFT-10 come as wire guided. Since GPS/IRNSS along with IIR for terminal homing would be available, why to have a wireguidance mechanism (i believe it must be complicated unlike torpedoes), if the enemy has things like artillery/rocket detection radars the missile would be identified much earlier itself which defeat the purpose of wire guidance. That brings a question will mobile david sling/iron dome be able to defeat such NLOS ATGMs.

Sreenivas R.

Anil said...

Hi Prasun Da,
1)I want to know that can the Prahaar/Pragati missile can be configured for Anti-Ship/Land Attack missile from naval vessels ? I know these are ballistic missile but still can it be used for above mentioned role.
2)Also i want to know that is India developing any upto 300km range ASCMs(Conventional) for its own use/export in the near future for use from Naval Vessels?
3)Why doesn't DRDO/OFB/DPSU developing any Fighter Aircraft/Gunship mounted Guns(Indian Indigenous) like the Gsh Series Types.
Thanks.

Technology, Photograpy and Travel said...

Prasun Da,


One small thought, Can our retired Mig21's and Mig 23's and Mig 27's (incase) be converted to Un manned missile carries, which can fire air to air missile ( suppose say that each of them would carry just 3 missiles which have booster's to enhance their reach beyond 250 KM for BVR shot ) also (some of them rigged to carry Air to Surface missiles suppose bhramos missile (Mini) and each aircraft carries only 1 missile in this senario) and they all fire far from the enemy Surface to Air and BVR reach, is it possible since we would soon have the Embarer based radar platforms and we would have il76 AWCS whcih can feed them cordinates post firing in the case of Air to Air and in the case on Bhramos MINI (not sure how u feed them the Coordinates) ... this way we would allow the newer manned platform survie the battle and due to sheer number of missiles in the air and being long range and fired from the older planes we end up having enemy overwhelmed and improve our win ratio.

rad said...

hi prasun
1) why is the airforce asking for 32000 rifles to be made in india when it will be surely uneconomical?\\
2 ) what would be the best strategy to counter chinese subs right now with our low levels of submarines?
3) Can you explain in detail the report some time back that chinese warships forced a indian sub to surface after tracking it, while the indian sub was unable to ward of the ships .
4) There seems to be no interest in the pragati missle though it seems successful , what is the problem?.
5) i just watched the PAF trainig school video , a pilot who fought the 71 war rated them as equal to us as he said after all we are the same blood. But now after the induction of good basic trainers and hawks what is the situation, I have seen blogs where the pakis have noted that the edge in their trianing has eroded due to superior flying platforms in india right now, whats the situation now.

Biswajit said...

Hi Prasun,
1)Is India conducting any R&D with regards to Weather Modification?
2) Also any work going on with regards to Dream Manipulation in India?
Also i want 2 say something with regards to mining sector future. According to me the nation who r able to mine the resources in deep ocean + in the space will survive & flourish in d coming future.Thats' my take on this subject.What u say Prasun Da?
Thanks.

Jones said...

Do you think DRDO and HAL will be on the list?
http://www.hindustantimes.com/business-news/govt-open-to-privatisation-of-loss-making-firms-jaitley/article1-1282698.aspx

Ved said...

Thanks Prasun.
Even 150 Tejas mk2 for IAF is good numbers.

But what role could Tejas mk2 play for navy? Can they match Mig 29k in range and strike role?

What is IN plans after project75I? Can we expect an indigenous production of submarines thereafter?

Lastly what is the best defence against subs? Can P8I hunt chinese nuclear
subs ?

Kittu said...

Hi Prasun,
HAL is making fighters through ToT from mid 50s and 60s through 2014 and probably through 2034 if it gets Rafale and FGFA?
What HAL is truly getting for the price we are paying for ToT?

Vikram Guha said...

PrasunDa,

China is unveiling a Laser system, designed to shoot down drones/aircraft

http://securityaffairs.co/wordpress/29858/hacking/china-laser-vs-small-drones.html

Prav said...

1.By wire controlled atgms, is it like controlling the missile via a camera in the nose of the missile manually ? Is that what on of the photos show .. where the PLA soldiers guide the missile via a joystick watching a screen . It appears as thought they are sitting in a simulator ?
2.Is the Nirdesh institute for submarine systems the equivalent of what the DND is for surface warships ? Is the lack of such an institute the reason for the lack of local submarine designs despite there being a large number of surface warship designs . Do you have any information on the full scope of this institute ?

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To RD: That’s very good news indeed. It’s high time the IN opted for the 10-tonne S-70B Seahawk & 12-tonne CH-148 Cyclone—both from Sikorsky. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with inking sole-source contracts. If sole-source contracts can be inked with Russia, then why not with the rest of the world? Especially now that the Congress party that was responsible for totaling messing up the military hardware procurement process from 1986, starting with the Bofors & HDW scams is no more in power?

As for the MCMV contract, Intermarine being the L-2 bidder is actually the rightful winner, since even if Kangnam had won the contract, it would still have had to import all the 4-inch thick GRP hull;-[slabs from Intermarine. So why not GSL import them directly from Intermarine instead of going through Kangnam? After all, Kangnam’s MCMV design itself is not of South Korean origin, but is a copy of Intermarine’s Lerichi GRP-hulled MCMV.

To SREENIVAS R: Only 20km you say? They can go up to 70km! Check out the Polyphem multi-role cruise missile that was conceived & developed since the early 1990s by MBDA, & whose development was terminated in 2003. Then there’s EDePro of Serbia’s 25km-range Advanced Light Attack System (ALAS), which is a 55kg, turbojet-powered missile & the 70km-range LOng RAnge Non-Line-of-Sight Attack system (LORANA) from the same company, then the Raytheon MGM-157 EFOGM (Enhanced Fibre-Optic Guided Missile) and the Type 96 Multi-Purpose Missile System developed by Kawasaki Heavy Industries—all guided by fibre-optic cables. Wire-guidance allows man-in-the-loop guidance options that are invulnerable to jamming of any form. Weapons Locating Radars will have great difficulty in locating & tracking such missiles while they’re cruising, & detection will take place only in the terminal stage when the missile does a pop-up manoeuvre for top-attack, b which time it will be too late for the target/s to even attempt any evasive manoeuvres. Kinematic point-defence weapons like Davd’s Sling are useless against such NLOS-FOGMs. Only ground-based laser air-defence systems like GBADS can counter such missiles.

To ANIL: 1) For long-range standoff land-attack, PGMs like Nirbhay LACM & BrahMos-1 Block-3 offer the best value for money, & not NLOS-BSMs (they’re NOT ballistic missiles) like Prahar/Pragati or Prithvi-3. And just prior to amphibiously assaulting the beaches, fibre-optic wire-guided missiles (FOGM) today offer the best options for striking dug-in defences along a coastline. 2) The BrahMos-Mini & Nirbhay cruise missile can easily be configured for use as ASCMs. 3) Only God knows why. And considering the sheer number of aircraft crashes & successful pilot ejections by IAF aircrew over the past 3 decades, it is equally interesting to ask why no one in India has been able to develop state-of-the-art 0-0 ejection seats, considering that the IAF & IN together perhaps have the best databases available for the hundreds of documented & researched aircraft ejection cases.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To TECHNOLOGY, PHOTOGRAPHY & TRAVEL: Not unmanned missile carriers, but perhaps unmanned drones for realistically simulating airborne threats for air-defence gunnery practice purposes. It is not economical to maintain UCAVs of the type that you’ve proposed, since the aircraft that have retired from IAF service were decommissioned at the end of their service lives due to unavailability of spares & therefore very very few of them can be kept airworthy—through cannibalizing for spares—for a very limited period of time.

To RAD: 1) By now you should know that this ‘Made in India’ tag only means final assembly from kits supplied in either semi-knocked-down condition or completely knocked-down condition. This has been the practice since the 1960s & between then & now, ‘Make in India’ has never called for 100% in-country production through 100% locally-sourced/produced raw materials. 2) That’s why the INS Chakra/K-152 Nerpa was acquired in the very first place. Its only job is to tail such SSNs of the PLAN. In addition, the US Navy & IN have protocols in place for exchanging information & intelligence on such SSN movements & that’s why the USN’s P-8As operating out of Malaysia’s Labuan Island routinely monitor SIGINT traffic emanating from the PLAN’s Yulin naval base in Hainan Island & upon acquiring confirmed navigational bearings of the PLAN’s outbound SSNs, begin shadowing them with their own SSNs. Advance warning is the passed on to the IN so that the INS Chakra is on standby for tailing the PLAN’s SSN. This was the only reason why INS Chakra was acquired on lease from Russia. 3) No such incident took place & it was a totally erroneous news-item. Any submarine is forced to surface only after it suffers any kind of serious structural damage after being attacked with depth-charges, which in turn means that there’s been an exchange of fire, further meaning that a state of war exists. In peacetime, when no one fires such weapons, the question of any submarine surfacing merely because it has been pinged by a sonar does not even arise. 4) Only problem is that it’s not required. 5) PAF aircrews are professional but they’re devoid of force-multiplier training aids like rangeless ACMI systems. Same applies to the PLAAF. Without such aids, honing one’s skills for engaging in dissimilar air combat becomes very difficult.

To BISWAJIT: 1) Nope. 2) Nope. 3) I fully agree.

JONES: Why should it be? The list only talks about loss-making PSUs. Is HAL loss-making?

To VED: Range & versatility will not be a problem with LCA (Navy) Mk2, provided it shapes up properly, i.e. accommodates force-multipliers like on-board IRST sensor & AESA-MMR. Indigenous production is taking place right now even with the S-2/Arihant, S-3 & S-4 SSBNs plus the six Scorpene SSKs. If you’re referring to in-country production of an indigenous design, that’s a totally different matter. In my view, an indigenous design is not required. What’s required is an industrial partnership between Indian OEMs & their French counterparts so that the existing Scorpene SSK’s hull design can be re-engineered to become suitable as a SSN, with India then being the legal owner of all design-/engineering-based IPRs of this SSN. Best defence against any submarine is an in-depth, multi-tiered network comprising a SOSUS-type seabed-based sonar network, LRMR/ASW platforms, SSNs & lastly autonomous ROVs equipped with dunking low-frequency sonars that could navigate as a swarm around the to-be-protected naval task force/battle group.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To KITTU: What has HAL got so far from ToTs since the 1960s? A lot, I would say in terms of both design & engineering expertise, but such expertise could not be applied to home-grown product development solutions. For instance, the only time HAL received all IPRs related to an airframe design was for the UK’s Folland Gnat & its Rolls-Royce Orpheus engines in the 1960s. Therefore, by the mid-1970s itself, both the IAF & HAL were jointly proposing that the single-engined Gnat’s airframe design be modified to transform it into a bigger twin-engined MRCA & power it by either a more powerful version of the Orpheus (to be developed by the GTRE), or by a single turbofan imported from France’s SNECMA Moteurs. But since GTRE at that time neither had the skilled human resources nor the funding levels reqd for undertaking R & D on a powerful derivative of the Orpheus, it was decided subsequently to import the turbofan. Had HAL been authorised by the MoD to design & engineer the airframe, the Gnat would have evolved into something like Dassault’s Mirage F-1. THIS WAS THE IAF’s ORIGINAL PROPOSAL FOR THE LCA. When BAE Systems received news about such plans, it immediately decided to pitch in with support for such a venture by proposing to co-develop with HAL a fly-by-wire flight-control system (FBW-FCS) that could be applicable to both such an LCA, as well as to the Jaguar IS/IM which the IAF had wanted to procure since the mid-1970s. THIS WAS THE IAF’s DREAM OF A WN-WIN SOLUTION. It’s all now recorded in the memoir of former IAF CAS, ACM (Ret’d) O P Mehra (titled: memories Sweet & Sour).

Regretfully, as is often the case, such well-conceived roadmaps were NEVER embraced & from 1984 the DRDO then led by Dr V S Arunasalam succeeded in brainwashing both Indira Gandhi & Rajiv Gandhi to duplicate efforts, resources & capacities by creating ADA & stuffing them with a bunch of rookies who had no other option but to seek Dassault’s help in designing the airframe, & Lockheed Martin’s help for developing the FBW-FCS. And I those days, when India for the only time since independence became self-sufficient in crude-oil production between 1984 & 1986, money availability was no problem, ADA & several other DRDO labs were created with much fanfare & at avoidable cost, while on the other hand the IAF was forced to procure role-specific combat aircraft like MiG-23MF, MiG-23BN, MiG-27M & MiG-29B-12. That’s how precious funding was squandered away & how HAL’s hard-won aircraft R & D expertise courtesy of the Gnat production programme was condemned to the dust-bin. Had the govts of the day heeded the IAF’s & HAL’s advice & recommendations, the IAF would have had its LCA by the early 1990s itself.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To VIKRAM GUHA: Yup, I had written about it sometime in 2011. A shipborne version of it will be the first one to become operational & it will be more powerful & will be capable of neutralising ASCMs. Wonder whether the DRDO has conceived a roadmap for investing in R & D on directed-energy weapons!

To PRAV: 1) Yup, that’s exactly how it works. 2) As for Nirdesh, I’ve got news for you: it’s bankrupt & devoid of funds for its day-to-day administration & is likely to face closure. Another one of AKA’s dream pet-projects now faces the axe, thanks to his lack of vision.

Haryvanam Kiran said...

Prasunda,

At last some good efforts to document the sacrifices of our soldiers in the wars fought so far and the future generations must know and respect it.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Jaitley-asks-MoD-to-bring-out-war-history-of-armed-forces/articleshow/45053295.cms?

Regards,
Hary

Technology, Photograpy and Travel said...

Why nit have some like button here Prasun ur LCA and gnats story is perhaps best shows how we lacked the forsight and had they followed the actual path of HAL and IAF's thought we would have ended up having Jaguwar / LCA / SU30 MKI (not sure about M2000) versions of planes and LIFT support provided by LCA 2 seat trainer and we would have ended up being one of the finest airforce which has best in Tech and as well quantity ...

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To HARY: Looks like the ‘desi’ journalists are now picking up nuggets of information from this blog to draft their news-reports:

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Indias-quest-for-advanced-stealth-fighter-yet-to-emerge-from-doldrums/articleshow/45053056.cms

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To TECHNOLOGY, PHOTOGRAPHY & TRAVEL: Shit happens! And in such cases, repeatedly. Had India correctly utilised all the design-data IPRs that it paid for to HDW, IKL & Ferrostaal as part of the deal to acquire Class 209/Type 1500 SSKs in the mid-1980s, by now Project 75 & Project 75I would well have morphed into genuinely India-designed & India-made product solutions.

Ved said...

Thanks Prasun.

1.Can we see the over all design of INS Arihant?

2. Which Russian class does it closely resemble or is it a totally indigenous design?

3. When Nirbhay will be ready for submarine launch will we have our own SSN ready?

rad said...

HI Prasun
1)As the chinese ssn have started to wander around our area , having sosus would be very helpful. we can have them near the andaman islands , lakshadeep islands to track them at various places.Is it possible to manufacture them in india as the tech is quite old.I believe that a cable connection from them to the shore is necessary for data processing and power. It should be do able with our sonar success.. More over the yanks would be too happy to give sosus to us to monitor the chinese sub .Please comment

2) There seems to be a spurt on the news about the indigenous AIP for the scorpene subs, i hope they dont shame themselves again.

Biswajit said...

Hi Prasun,
Thanks for d replies.
1)What's the progress with GATET(Gas Turbine Enabling Technologies) program? Any update about it.
2)Any substantial progress being made on ADITYA Project?
3)What's with d Indian Scientific Society(+ dGoI) not using d Rig Vedas for their research? Thats' just BS....Those r some d best Scientific papers that d world have.
4)Any chance in d future that today's Active Protection System's will be replaced by minturazied Iron Beam type directed weapon system?
Thanks.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 254   Newer› Newest»