Total Pageviews

Monday, November 10, 2014

Glimpses Of 10th Airshow China Expo At Zhuhai-1

 At the expo, the Pakistan Air Force will ink a contract with China’s state-owned Aerospace Long-March International Trade Co Ltd (ALIT) for acquiring a Regiment of the 70km-range LY-80E LR-SAM.
Earlier, ALIT had sold to Iran a customised version of the LY-80E, known as Sayyad-2.
Some More Exhibits...
And Some More...
And Finally...


Arvind said...

Please read this. It is clear that the Nirbhay tested last month was allowed to fly on till its fuel got used up and then the missile fell into the sea. The missile was not aimed at any targets. What was tested was just the turbofan and the navigation system. The missile did not carry any TERCOM equipments or any seeker.
What is there to tom tom about this recent test. Turbofan can be tested even in the lab. Navigation system too can be validated through bench tests or by flying them in a test aircraft. For a country like India, building a turbofan and navigation system is next to nothing. If the missile had successfully flown over land using TERCOM or used a seeker to take out a target, then we can feel proud.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

ARVIND: How can a laboratory be used for simulating the flying conditions at varying altitudes? How can a laboratory be used for testing out the booster stage? Is there any country in the world that has to date flight-tested a fully-developed missile of any kind on its test test-firing? Airborne test of TERCOM or terminal X-band seeker or even the live warhead are initiated from the 4th test-firing onwards. There are no exceptions to this rule.

RD said...

If Pakistan inks 70km-range LY-80E LR-SAM from ALIT, will they be getting LR-SAM before India acquires Barak-2 as LY-80E is already operational in China & Iran.

The Indian Navy is now just down to 1 torpedo recovery vessel with the TRV-A72 accident(1 retired,1 sunk out of original 3). Will India manufacture any kind or ships of this class in future or is there are any others ships capable of doing such duties.

Unknown said...

Norinco's array of bombs ,missiles and other equipment is amazing . Can we expect India's OFB or Bharat Dynamics Limited to grow in to a Norinco type company ?

Gessler said...

Prasun ji, thought I'd save you the trouble of revisiting the older threads -

1) Also Prasun sir, you have said previously that the future IN destroyers would be similar to the DD-21 concept in terms of design. Does this mean we will also adopt a similar VLS farm-type installation with 192-256 VLS cells in total?

If not, then what type of weapon launch system (how many VLS cells) do you think it could have? I mean what does our requirements call for?

2) Also can you state your opinion on what weapons could be fitted onto the future destroyer? Besides BrahMos-II, Nirbhay, Barak-2/2ER?

3) Any plans for ship-based BMD with VLS-launched versions of AD-1/AD-2 interceptors? Do you think we could head down that way in future?

4) It was said by some online friends I know that BrahMos-2 itself could end up having 600-1,000km range. Is this true?

VMT in advance, sir ji!

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To RD: Not quite. LY-80E LR-SAM deliveries will begin within 18 months of contract signature. By then, Barak-2s will be rolling out from BDL for both the IN & IAF. Torpedo-recovery vessels of local designs can be built quite swiftly in a matter of months.

To SOORYA NARAYAN: Not quite, since firms like NORINCO are extremely price-competitive in the global export market, especially in Africa, the Middle East & now Central/South America. This year’s expo, for instance features even MBTs, APCs etc all painted in desert camouflage patterns at the NORINCO Pavilion, meaning this year’s expo will not just be limited to aerospace exhibits. In other words, an extremely aggressive marketing campaign is being unleashed.

To GESSLER: 1) There’s no need for such numbers of VLS cells, since the IN is not required to be a global expeditionary force like its US counterpart. The USN requires such capabilities because the US does not share borders with its existing or potential enemies. 2) Weapons fitmemts will be of the same type as on existing IN DDGs, but LACMs & autonomous ROVs will be incorporated as well. 3) Again, why should BMD-related systems go on board an IN-operated DDG when the countries posing probable BMD threats share land frontiers with India? 4) Not true as of now.

Rahul said...

1.Isnt the LY80E having a 45 km range? Is this some new variant?

2.How many missiles,TEL forms one sam regiment in PAF? How many target engagement radars are they acquiring?

3.Many sites as well as official release said that PV-6 has an all new engine,radar,ew suite, communication facilities. What is this new radar they are talking abt? GE f404 IN20 is already powering the Lsp series and Sp-1. So what is this? And the new radar they are talking abt is it Elta 2032?

4.Shenyang has introduced many new improvements on J-31 . Why doesnt Sukhoi do the same with Pakfa to make them more stealthy?

5.Will u pls post some official literature on Jf-17block2.

6.Does IAF have such glide weapons,standoff Pgm,and Jsow type unpowered delivery vehicle. PLAAF is a lot ahead of us in the field of air to ground weapons specifically standoff weapons.

MPatel said...

The Chinese are really advancing, its impressive. I had thought the LY-80E was a MR-SAM?

Pakistani's have been looking at this system for few years now, if you go via the chatter on the defense forums. Will they be making these at home? Will it be a custom version?

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To RAHUL & MPATEL: LY-80E’s export variants were initially MR-SAMs with 35km-range, with the target engagement radar’s limitations being a deliberate decision, even though the missiles could attain 70km. The range limitation was due to export-control regulations. But this reduced the LY-80E’s competitiveness & therefore late last month the range limitations were removed.

To RAHUL: 1 & 2)) All that info on LY-80E is given in a previous thread of 2012 vintage. 3) Engine is the same. MMR is the EL/M-2032. 4) J-31 is still powered by RD-95s of 1980s vintage. Don’t get carried away by mere external looks. 5) JF-17 Block-2 only has software enhancements for launching PGMs. 6) Not yet. The DRDO is working on them.

rad said...

hi prasun
there seems to be a new vhf radar jy-26 as shown in pic up loaded by you. It is commendable as the chinese have miniaturized the antenna and made it a phased array type. On searching the internet it was found that they could track f-22s operating out of korea. Do the f-22 have a non stealthy mode as well?.
I also found to my surprise that there was an indian version of a vhf phased array radar for weather prediction by the NARL. ie National Atmospheric Research Laboratory. Of course the antenna array is huge . how the Chinese made the radiating element smaller with the tr and rx elec module is the key. High power vhf transistors are available in the open market .WE should pull these 4 people out of the NARL and give an assignment to make a radar like the one in the pic.
This is important as the chinese will try to probe our airspace witht he stealth fighters, so we better start now.
The ly-80 sam will be a force to counter , please comment.

Gessler said...

Prasun ji, your comments on this?

Mohan said...

Hi Prasun,

Heberian said...

Hello Prasun!

Hope you are doing well. Are you in Zhuhai this year too?

When you have time, please tell us what you think this is about:

VP said...

Will the 1st 4 scorpene subs of IN have AIR systems(Mesma system) or only on the last 2 with the DRDO developed one,there is a lot of confusion regarding it.
And what all improvements would we see on the future navy warships such as P-15A, P-17A etc.

Prav said...

1.Hearing about the state of Nirdesh is disappointing . Such an institute that acted as an umbrella for all sub surface technologies as well as possessing test facilities and test beds was gravely needed by the country.
2.The project 75I confuses me .How is it in anyway different from the scorpene deal .. Why is the hype of Made in India surrounding it ?

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To RAD: It is a great fallacy to assume that ground-based VHF radars are meant to detect & track stealthy combat aircraft, just as it is a fallacy to assume that combat aircraft are made stealthy to evade ground-based air-defences or early-warning systems. Stealth characteristics of combat aircraft are meant to reduce observability to airborne MMRs & IRSTs, & nowadays IR cloaking is also being introduced to neutralise IRSTs. The best defence against ground-based air-defence networks is to simply avoid them & ensure their destruction through DEAD/SEAD missions undertaken by decoys, LACMs & ARMs. VHF radars are typically used for detecting & tracking supersonic LACMs, ASMs & TBMs.

To GESSLER: That’s absolutely true since October 2005 when several residents of POK wanted to cross over to j & K due to Pakistan’s inability to cater for the victims of the devastating earthquake. Today, Pakistan finds it extremely difficult to even look after the 8 lakh IDPs that have been displaced from North Waziristan & 6 lakh IDPs from South Waziristan. In addition, the Shia Hazaras of Gilgit-Baltistan are totally alienated & have close affinity to the Shias of northern J & K.

To HEBERIAN: Yes, I am indeed. Am the sole Indian industry visitor at the expo here….as always since 1996. The case of Ms Robin Raphael is indeed a curious one. She was the former wife of US Ambassador Arnold Raphael, who perished together with Gen Zia ul-Haq in 1988 in the infamous C-130 crash at Bahawalpur. Since then, she has suffered from neurosis & some related mental disorders, while at the same time she was in the early 1990s quite sympathetic to Pakistan’s POV for reasons best known to her. That her POV is now the exception rather than the norm amongst other US State Dept/Defense Dept officials & journalists neds no elaboration. But in terms of what’s happening with this case, it smells of ‘fixing’, i.e. getting her bogged down in litigation & gradually making her irrelevant.

To VP: Only the last two Scorpenes will from the outset have provisions for accepting AIP plug-ins. The first four Scorpenes will incorporate AIP plug-ins during their mid-life upgrades. P-15A/P-15B DDGs & P-17A FFGs will be far more network-centric, will have high automation-levels, & their offensive armament packages will be much more formidable than anyone else in South, Southeast & East Asia.

To PRAV: 1) That is what Nirdesh is about. Test-facilities & test-beds are already in existence at Vizag with NSTL. 2) P-75I will not be any different from the P-75 project. ALL SSKs under both projects are being & will be built in-country. Only difference is that for P-75I, the private-public partnership will be put into practice. Everything else that one hears about or reads through ‘desi’ broadcast TV channels or newspapers is just pure hogwash & utterly speculative.

rad said...

HI Prasun
1) why wait for the mid life update of the scorpene? we can straight away go for the AIP in the beginning itself, whats holding that up? after all it seems to be proven on pakistani subs and others.
Or God for bif that DRDO is trying its stunts to put its AIP inside ?.
2) Carlo kopp says vhf radars are definitely a problem for stealth ,as the stealth ac made to evade freq in the x band s band etc.

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(+
d GoI) 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

lachit said...

prasunda since ur at Zhuhai u must have seen the CX 1 Mach 3 missile.
what's ur opinion on that missile vers the brahmos ,the pakis and the chinese are claiming that it is much better than brahmos.
externally it looks very similar to BM and it is being said that the Russians have helped the Chinese . do u think developing the brahmos 2 with the Russians is a good idea since whats stopping them from selling the technology to the Chinese.
also I was amazed at number of weapon systems they have developed
wonder what they are going to do with them alas only time will tell.

Heberian said...

Hello Prasun

Well, there is no sensationalist news for our media there or any idea for our industry there, seemingly :)

Please do share any thoughts you develop about the J20/ J31... or the SAMS..

About Robin Raphael, yes I am aware of her history and provenance, but I was thinking more along the lines of whether she was compromised in Pakistan back in the day and unwittingly or knowingly let some secrets slip to the ISI... till counterintelligence caught along.. I mean, her well known "sympathies" for Pakistan at times bordered on fanatically blind or maybe she never had a choice.. Or do you think this is far fetched?

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To RAD: 1) Well…that’s what should have been done in 2005 itself when the contract was signed. But the IN was prevented from choosing the MESMA because (guess what!!!) the DRDO vetoed it by claiming that it could easily develop a fuel-cell-based AIP system. And as usual, the political dickheads in the corridors of power without any technical audit or global benchmarking of the DRDO’s R & D capabilities/capacities willingly fell into the trap! That’s why the IN’s plans for procuring all six Scorpene SSKs powered by MESMA were sabotaged & the IN was left with only a consolation gift & that too questionable, meaning the IN was forced to accept the option of only AIP-powered Scorpene SSKs./ That’s why last December on the eve of Navy Day the then CNS Admiral D K Joshi had clearly stated that if the DRDO can provide the fuel-cell-based AIP system for the last two of 6 Scorpenes, the well & good. If not then the fall-back option would be an imported AIP solution. 2) One can rest assured that if the RWRs on board new-generation stealth aircraft are capable of detecting L-, S- & X-band emissions, then they can also detect VHF radar emissions. It’s that simple.

To LACHIT: LoLZzzz! The CX-1 better than BrahMos-1??? The poster of the CX-1 itself says it has a strap-on IMU (of the type used on inexpensive target drones & satellite launch rockets), meaning no RLG-INS & no GPS guidance & no on-board radar seeker, which in turn means no pinpoint accuracy (hence its claim CEP of 30 metres). And the X in the CX-1 denotes ‘ecperimental’. On top of all this, China in 2011 inked an IPR safeguards agreement with Russia that forbids such theft of IPRs of Soviet/Russian origin. Therefore, there’s no way NPO would have parted with any of the design data pertaining to either the Yakhont or BrahMos-1. It is the Ukrainians that have assisted China in designing the CX-1. NPO is involved with China only for supplying the SAR antennae for China’s Yaogan family of SAR-based radar imaging satellites.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To HEBERIAN: Well, if the country realises only in 2014 that the ITBP needs to learn basic Mandarin for communicating with the PLA’s Border Defence Guards, or as AKA admitted only in 2009 that until 26/11 no one in India could be bothered about coastal security (despite the existence of such a sprawling coastline & thousands of years of recorded maritime trading experience), then what else can one expect from the present-day crop of ‘desi’ journalists that are perpetually reliant on spoon-feeding? AS for China’s new-generation MRCAs, there’s absolutely nothing about the J-20 this time. Total clampdown on all R & D-related news/developments here at the expo. As for the J-31, it is powered by twin Klimov RD-95 turbofans of early 1990s technological vintage, but absolutely no exhibits to showcase its cockpit avionics or mission avionics. The range of SAMs, inclusive of VSHORADS, MANPADS, SHORADS, MR-SAM & LR-SAM, is impressive, but these are all targeted at export customers & hence their differing camouflage colours (most of them in desert camouflage, meaning they’re targeted at GCC member-states, Iran & Iraq). Will upload many many more photos of land-based weapons like 105mm howitzers mounted on 4 x 4 ATVs, 122mm howitzers mounted on 4 x 4 ATVs, wide range of MBRLs & fibre-optic NLOS-BSMs, etc on a separate thread altogether that deals with only weapons for land fotces. The next thread will deal with developments in turbofans & turboshafts. This expo is so huge (because weapons systems for land & naval forces too have been included in a big way for the very first time) that it is impossible to highlight everything in one single thread.

On Robin Raphael, this isn’t entirely far-fetched, bit she is unlikely to have had access to the kind of classified data that the ISI would be interested in. Most probably, she has been accused of breaching some technicalities—this approach being strongly indicative of a deliberate kind of entrapment that will turn her into a paraiah in the international diplomatic community & force her to just fade away.

Anonymous said...


SS said...


It seems the Indian contemporary defense analysts had an Ostrich effect regarding zuhai Airshow... :) Thank you for your detailed coverage of the Air show.

Also the Chinese media is highlighting their new phased array radar capable of detecting Low Observable aircraft. As far as the articles pertaining to class of radars that can detect Low Observable aircraft is Bi-Static. So the above statement from the Chinese article could be a hoax or is it an exception? VMT.

AniOne said...


Thought this might interest you, your expert comments are needed.........

VMT for last detailed reply



(1) Do you think that in the international market Indian defense companies can sell their products?

Generally, the rich countries in the Gulf, Japan, South Korea, EU will go for US made hardware because they can afford it.
Countries whose purchasing power is less will opt for Chinese military hardware.

So basically for Indian defense companies their sole client is the Govt of India.

There seems to be very few takers for military hardware manufactured in India.

(2) Is India still interested in purchasing the Arrow SAM from Israel?

Prav said...

I have a rudimentary knowledge of how intercepts by surface to air missiles happen .That it is not wholly dependent on the speed of the missile . But how can anyone claim that the Barak8/LRSAM is able to intercept a missile (brahmos..yakhont) that is faster than it .. Where as it's competitors like Aster and the american RIM missiles are faster ?

rad said...

HI Prasun
I congratulate you for attending all shows and gathering information .
You mentioned that the Ukranians had sold the tech for the onyx missile.
The chinese have got all modern systems from air to air missiles,tank tech, cruise missiles and many other things. They are the OE for R-73 missiles as well.They seem to have developed an IIR version of the R_73 missile as well.
I think it would be prudent on our part to rope them in and start making IIR missiles of our own to gain experience in short range IIR Missles as well. will the rusians object?.

Prav said...

Also could you highlight the difference(if any) between the Barak 8 which is already in service with the Israeli navy and the LRSAM that was just tested ?
Are there no plans of reviving and expanding Nirdesh ?.. I read that it will only fully staffed/operational by 2016/
Thank you for your answers.

SRI said...

Due to cancel of Black Shark heavyweight torpedoes for Scorpene, it is said to be german torpedoes will be selected , can you tells us which model and its best against black shark.

Signing for Rafael will be in dec 14 or in march 2015

MPatel said...

Hi Prasun,

Thank you for the pictures. They are excellent. Did you by any chance get to have a look at the Red Arrow 12, it is supposed to be equivalent to Javelin?

WRT CX-1, from my understanding most of these missiles were designed in the 80's/90's and thus their designs fully available to China, via Ukraine and ex-USSR scientists that China employees(d).

Once they see a system like Bramos working, they can make it too, has they already have a 'design' of it. Also with their mass production of so many different types of systems, they can leverage those skills too.

Anonymous said...

rad said:
I think it would be prudent on our part to rope them in and start making IIR missiles of our own to gain experience in short range IIR Missles as well. will the rusians object?.

you are simply hilarious..
India roping in china for missile are an epic..

Anonymous said...

i hope you are referring to Ukraine, not china..

Heberian said...

Hello Prasun

Thank you for the detailed reply; one watches the J20 and J31 with fascination and hopefully there will be more news out there soon.

What are your impressions about the Y-20?

It was weird that they had a battle tank at an airshow.

OK, understood your take on Ms Raphael. I have been fascinated by her views for years now, considering how totally opposite it is to that of folks like Christine Fair or Bruce Reidel etc. The only similar person I can think of is the Australian gentleman who loves Pakistan too. I forget his name, Brian somebody.

Please keep us posted about your observations there.

Have a good day!

Anonymous said...

This is an interesting article:

Bruce Riediel hates pakis, I read in one of the articles, that in one of the meetings he had with ISI, he actually got punched by an ISI guy. Read some of his early articles, he was la la about them but then he realized that they played as dirty as CIA.

Anonymous said...


Could you write up your perspective on LCH and LUH and how you think the decisions / timelines will fall in the long run?

Do you think HALs success will translate in to HAL now taking up NMRH and ASW copter development as well? I know Sikorsky is in line for the current requirements, but what after that say from 2025 on-wards we would not have to import them for our expanding Navy?


Unknown said...

Prasun ji ,

What are the specific improvements made in LCH TD-3 which the army/air force had demanded from HAL ?

rad said...

to Anonymous @7.57

I was referring to Ukraine not china! , i should have added that they got the tech from them.

Anonymous said...

The article by @Anon at 3.32, say 18 jf-17 from PAF, have been exercising with PLAAF in western china, recently. These guys are seriously getting experience of facing the SU aircrafts. This does not bode wll.

SOURAV said...

Prasun sir,

in the very recent past IAF tested a short range aam. could you confirm which aam is it.

2A said...
Looks like Islam is hell bent to destroy its own history!Good for them.......

Anonymous said...


1. Under this "Buy Indian" category does buying from a foreign company that has set up an Indian subsidiary fulfill the criteria? For example if Lockheed Martin sets up a company called Lockheed Martin India, can they bid for tenders in the "Buy Indian" category?

2. In some cases the MoD wants foreign companies to tie up with a local company. So if that local company happens to be a foreign firm who has set up an Indian chapter like the example of Lockheed Martin that I provided above,can such a firm be described as Local?



Gessler said...

Sir ji, have you considered a makeover for TRISHUL? Not that the current colors/look of the site is bad, but it's getting pretty dated from my POV.

sathead3 said...

@sujoymajumdar, but that's the problem with the Indian rules. You see Lockheed cannot set up Lockheed India unless it cedes 51% control to a local partner. It cannot be a wholly owned subsidiary of Lockheed USA. Therefore no foreign arms company sets up shop in India because they do not want to hand over board and administrative control of their IPR to an Indian company holding 51% stake in their Indian venture. All foreign vendors need to find a local partner and cede 51% control to that local partner. That's the rub. Why would any company in their right mind choose to do that? At least that is how I understand it.

Rahul said...


CASC - UAV & Missile Systems Combat Simulation [1…:

1. Does the IA and IAF have adequate AD systems,both Mrsam,Lrsam,shorads now or are planning to have that can intercept and neutralise the amount of firepower shown here being unleased through massed fire assualts? Do we have systems that can intercept their M20 Tbm? It has been specifically designed to avoid being intercepted.will our Aad be successful in intercepting ballistic missiles with such complex trajectories ? And any Mrsam to intercept A100 Mbrl,C-ram systems to neutralise Ws-22,43 mbrl?
And lastly the FT series of glide pgm -FT-9,10 which has a 60-80 km range?

Does the garrisons,ammo depots,equipment storage complexes,airbases close to the border in the Western and Nw front having suitable Ad systems as part of a layered network which will be able to neutralise such attacks?

2. I dont think IAF has systems to be able to intercept any type of cruise missiles,Agm and the glide bombs shown in this video. Our bases and assets are extremely vulnerable to these.

As long as we arent attacked we just cant premptively strike these artillery assets,TELS on their side even when we have sufficient intel on their positions and buildup since in that case we would become the potential aggressors. Only after they have struck can we retaliate . So we need good C-ram and Ad systems to be able to abosrb such attacks.

3. What will provide Air defense screen to our IBG and those elements which wil break in to their territory. Without some potent Mrsam and C-ram combo they would bevulnerable to the Mbrl,Tbm and Ft series of bombs. Its unjustifiable to use a Barak-8 to intercept a 100-200 km ranged heavy rocket from a A-100 or a 60 km ranged rocket from a ws . And i dont think the Tunguska is good enough to be able to shoot down incoming rockets and projectiles. We need some type of a Iron Dome systems for our bases close to the borders and Skyranger cram with ahead ammo for our Ibg . It has been proved against rocket rounds.

4. Is superhardening of bases a viable answer to this problem? In the immediate future will IAF and IA acquire such C-Ram systemsable to intercept glide bombs,Mbrl,lacm?

5. How many regiments of Barak-2 has the IA ordered? Will they be road mobile or for static defense?

6. Are there any Maws covering the rear hemisphere of Rudra gunship? There are just 2 such structures over the cockpit facing forwards? Are there any plans of having exhaust suppressors and IR jammers ,Dircm for Hal Rudra and Lch?

Champagne Supernova said...

Hi sir!

1) When will the ITBP be getting their LAMVs?

2) Are the IA or other CAPFs planning on getting the LAMV?

3) Why are there no blast deflectors on the INS Vikramditya?Is this not inherently unsafe for the crew and equipment?

4) i have seen over the past few days Mr Modi is using IAF Mi-17 helicopters, is this a sign by him the AW-101 fiasco is well and truly behind us? He is happy to use the Mi-17s for his travel even if they are a tiny bit less safe. Only issue is I have read these Mi-17s of the VVIP communication SQD will be retired very very soon, I guess he can use the HAL ALH? or just use some Mi-17 V5s from the current IAF orders?

VMT for your time sir, all the best!

Vinesh said...

Prasun ji,

Do you really, honestly, believe the IA/indian military are planning to take Azad Kashmir or at least part of it? This sounds too far fetched to me and I don't think I'll see it in my life time (and I am 21 years old).

neither is our military equipped to do such a task nor is there the poltical/strategic will to do so.

Saddened said...


What is the current status of F-INSAS? Another dead project? Our soldiers are still going around looking like they are storming the Normandy beaches, they look about 60 years outdated.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

Have uploaded additional visuals above. The expo is HUUUUUGE since it is a combined aerospace/defence event for the very first time. And here’s the book I was referring to last month about the PWR reactor for SSBNs:

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To GESSLER: Couldn’t be bothered about ‘looks’. Am always focussed only on the content.

Gessler said...

Ha ha Prasun ji, the folks at IDRW have copied your original idea -

Gessler said...

Also, your opinion on the displacement of IN's future DD-21-type destroyers?

Are we going for 10,000+ ton vessels like the navies of US, China & Japan are is it gonna be a 7,000-8,000 ton design like present ones?

Not that displacement in itself means anything...can you also project how many VLS cells such a design would need? As you said previously, it will be carrying BrahMos-II, Nirbhay and Bara-2/2ER . I would personally estimate atleast 16 cells for BrahMos-II, a similar number for Nirbhay and atleast 64 Barak-2 cells. That would give a total of 96 cells.

VMT in advance.

joydeep ghosh said...


i had asked these vary same Qs about DDG long back as our nxtgen ffgs @6300 tons will be close to Delhi class ddgs @6800 tons. @Prasun da had responded that our nxtgen ddgs after Kolkata class will be over 8000 tons will pack enough punch to meet requirement across Northern Indian ocean, arabian sea & bay of bengal

@Prasun da

1. last time asked about India going through GB to reach Wakhan corridor? you said the chance will open ajar by 2016, if so IA wil have to go through Skardu, Gilgit. If that happens Siachen, Kargil will become peaceful forver, but question is will china allow that as it will lose access to Arabian sea?

2. regarding the present expo you are covering the plane in last 3 pics look similar to our MTA effort and is that an MBRL on a APC?

3. how come the China made a weapon that looks uncannyly similar to Tuarus KEPD350, was it copied?


Joydeep Ghosh

Pintu said...

Prasun Da, thanks for your reply, regarding CX - 1 , so can it be concluded that PRC is coming up with some thing comparable to PAAMS system to protect their shore based facilities from any future type of attack, or if any laser based system depending upon their R & D efforts, and possibility of their future deployment in Tibet ?

2) Does DRDO employ 3D Print Technology ? as well as 3) is there any GoI Funded project going on or planned by the new Government for R&D in this field (3D Print) for its applications including Space & Defence ?

4) So, what's the problem with 'Dhanush' ?

Thanks in Advance.

Pintu said...

in Addition , Prasun da many thanks for such a detailed update on Zuhai Expo, no defence blogs here come up with such important events, enjoying the images.

Anonymous said...

@ sathead3 - Many thanx


Microsoft is making the .NET platform opensource. It can be downloaded from their GIT site

Just wanted to share this news in case any of you are involved in enterprise application.

vishakh said...


Is IA is looking for Sosna-R SAM from Russia and How many usits ??



It seems the new Defense Minister is doing some serious reading of your BLOG. He is saying the same thing about blacklisting today, what you did almost 2 years ago

joydeep ghosh said...

@Prasun da

some major flaws on detected on china's J31/C31 as per CNN 'The FC-31's flight routine shows that it "bleeds" too much energy -- so when it enters into a turn it begins to lose altitude. Even during straight and level flight the pilot has to engage the engine's afterburners in order to keep the aircraft from sinking to a lower altitude. These are defects in the aircraft's aerodynamic design that a Russian design team would not have made.'

could you give a better explaination


Joydeep Ghosh

El Phocho said...

Sir, I may be asking some very stupid questions, but here they are:
1. Is it possible to use the Astra BVRM, with few modifications, as a credible long range SAM? If yes, then is DRDO working on it?
2. Is there any other long range SAM (similar to s-300/400) in the works? If yes, then when is the probable date of testing the first prototype.
Thanking you,
Sandip Das

vishakh said...


Could you please comment on this article :

How much info is correct ??


Dear Prasun,
What will be the use of LCA Tejas Mk - 1 if there is a high intensity war between India and China in the eastern border??? Again how could it be utilized in Kargil war had it been inducted into IAF before 1999? Is it possible for Mk 1 to handle F - 16 and J 10A and J 10B???

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

CPMIEC’s Wind Storm concept of integrated rocket artillery fire-assaults:

vrp said...

Regarding the meeting between Afghan President and Pakistan PM, has the policy of afghan govt. changed with respect to India?, what will be the effect on Indian strategic interest in Afghan?

vishakh said...


As per latest news has Ban on Israel IMI lifted, IS this correct ??

How many other companies is ban lifted like ST of Singapore and Rheinmetall of Germany ??

Unknown said...

So GTRE has officially accepted with regard to the Kaveri GTX-35VS Engine Programme what had been public knowledge for some time! The Kaveri engine is to be laid to rest and the LCA LIFT/Mk-1/Mk-2 shall fly on the GE engines even after mid-life refits. Review and Audits should be faster so that reality is faced and corrective measures and wastage of resources is avoided.

I hope that atleast the lessons learnt are documented and used. The Lessons learnt have been very expensive and such mistakes are sure to be repeated again .

Atleast the LCA programme is secure and we may yet see it going on to be a success story in its various versions specially as LIFT and Combat versions with even the token exports thrown in.

rad said...

HI Prasun
China has effectively integrated the NLOS missiles into its offensive strategy, whats stopping india from refusing to accept the prahaar missile?

Arup said...

Hi Prasun, What is the answer to CPMIEC's Integrated fire assualt system? How do we plan to counter such massed fire assaults?
Will Barak-8 for army and airforce be sufficient to intercept M20,A300,A200,Ws series salvoes.Is the Army planning on some other sam system to counter the 601-50 km ranged Mlrs threats?
In the face of Windstorm and such TBM and GMLRS army field formations will have a very tough time unless proper interlayered sam cover with hit to kill systems are present? Anyways are there any plans of sanitising the battlefied upto300 km from the point of our advancing formation so that these tels are destroyed through airstrikes even before they get a chance to assemble and launch?

WS and A300 series pack 8 280 km ranged TBM in a 8X8 tel whereas we have 6 Prahhar 150 km ranged TBM in a much larger cumbersome TEL.Are they using the latest ICBM grade solid prop in these Mlrs rockets and Tbm?i hope Army replaces Prthvi asap and also there is a great need for having cluster warhead equipped rocket projectiles.

Gessler said...

Prasun ji, is this true?

"Oh, and this isn't just about 16 helicopters. The MRH is to be followed by the N-MRH competition for 123 helicopters. Config and requirements could be identical or largely the same. The Lockheed-Martin MH-60R will be looking to compete. And it shares an airframe with the S-70B. With the loud 'Make in India' campaign only set to get louder, the Romeo is likely to compete against Airbus Heli's EC725 Caracal."

Pawan said...

Dear Prasunji,

Thanks for covering and posting zhuhai airshow. It seems Chinese cyber army has defeated Western firewalls decisively to steal all data regarding weapon tech, most of weapons are exact copy of their their western counterparts. Why India failed to do so.

I also have question about exact range of K-5 Missile tested las year. Please answer to my queries.


abs said...

A few relevant questions in light of the China Expo at Zhuhai

1)The Chinese have invested and created a multitude of GPS guidance kits for dumb bombs. They have also developed glide bombs that can fly out to 50-120 KM. Anything similar being done by the DRDO to develop guided Artillery PGMs and glide PGMs for the IA-IAF combine?

2)Any DRDO investments into developing dual guidance PGMs?

3)The Chinese have developed LGBs for 1000KG bombs. Isn't it a waste of resources due to the precision it provides?

4)The Chinese have been able to develop Anti-Runway Cratering PGMs. What is the progress of the similar CALCM being developed for the IAF?

5)Will the above CALCM be multi-role or only uni-role for catering to the anti-runway role? I believe you had earlier informed us of the same CALCM being able to neutralise command posts and infrastructural nodes.

6)Could the same CALCM be able to dispense Sensor Fized Munitions? Or is the IAF-IA combine relegating such roles to only NLOS-BSMs?

7)Any possible development of Fibre 0ptic-BSMs for the IA?

8)Anything similar to the Chinese GB-6 that the IAF is planning on procuring? What about dual mode guided bombs?

9)Will the Barak-8 MRSAM that the army will possess be tasked with Battle Space Air Defence Cover to mobilising formations along with AD cover to fixed installations?

Pawan said...

Dear Prasunji,

Designer of CX-1 said that Brahmos is not suitable for actual war situations as it is designed for altittude upto 500Mtrs.


Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To SS: VMT. Not phased-array radars capable of bistatic operations, but VHF radars that are deployed along with passive surveillance systems & decoy-launchers—all of which are meant to detect the first wave of attacks emanating from LACMs. Stealthy aircraft won’t launch the first wave of any attacks & will instead be used only on Day 3 or day 4 of an offensive campaign after the PLA’s ADIZs & layered/in-depth ground-based air-defence networks have been significantly degraded. And that’s the reason why the PLA is now beginning to field laser-based directed-energy weapons that are road-mobile & compact enough to be truck-mounted.

To ANIONE: It is not China’s maritime threat or the existence of China-managed container trans-shipment terminals in Colombo, but India’s own outdated ports infrastructure & disgraceful ways of functioning that is to be blamed. I had already explained a few months ago how come India’s container terminal-hosting ports are the world’s most expensive & cumbersome in terms of operating procedures.

To VIKRAM GUHA: 1) Yes, but not major products like air-defence systems or MBTs or combat aircraft. And that’s because India lacks the marketing expertise reqd for packaging & offering such solutions. For instance, why should the DRDO be marketing such military hardware in expos like the one held in Seoul last year? Does DARPA or the UK’s DERA do so? How can a R & D scientist or engineer answer questions about a hardware’s operational performance? Such questions can only be answered by either the OEM, or the end-user, not the developer. In the Middle East, the economies of all the OPEC member-states were planned on the basis of US$102 being the cost of a barrel of crude oil. Now that such price-levels are depreciating, the Middle Eastern countries cannot afford solutions from Europe, Scandinavia or North America & therefore companies like NORINCO were this time promoting their solutions exclusively for Middle Eastern & North African clients like Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iran, Iraq, Algeria, Oman, Jordan, Sudan, South Sudan, etc. In fact, this was the first such expo in Zhuhai which was transformed into a combine aerospace/defence expo. This was never attempted before since the expo began in 1996. As for potential sales of India-specific hardware/solutions, Bangladesh has for years been requesting India to design, develop, install & operate a combined coastal/riverine surveillance systems & vessel traffic monitoring system of the type now being installed throughout India’s coastline. All that India has to do is create an industrial partnership between BEL & Sweden’s SaabTech & use the very same Scanter radars from Denmark’s TERMA, & obtain the necessary hydrographic data packages from Bangladesh & one can relatively easily design & develop a customised solution for Bangladesh. Next, the MEA can easily extend a line of credit to Dhaka for financing the project. How difficult is that? Insteasd of talking big about supplying satellites for SAARC etc, small & targeted projects like the one I’ve suggested above will produce immediate gains & results. 2) Not any more.

To PRAV: When the intercept involves a head-on interception it is very much possible. In warships, SAMs never undertake tail-chase intercepts, only head-on. Barak-8 & LR-SAM are one & the same.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To RAD: VMT. For starters, the CX-1 bears only an external resemblance to the Yakhont/BrahMos-1. It ends there. In reality, the CX-1 is not powered by any ramjet, but by an air-breathing turbojet & that was precisely why it lost the competition to the YJ-12 air-launched supersonic ASCM. Secondly, for the past 2 decades, per annum China accounted for more than 40% of Ukraine’s annual exports of military-related hardware & IPRs. Furthermore, after the USSR’s breakup, more than 73,000 scientists & engineers left Russia & other CIS member-states for good & most of them were gainfully employed in China, fllowed by Israel. Between the Prahar & Prthvi-3, I will definitely prefer the latter as NLOS-BSM.

To SRI: The Black Shark will arm the IN’s six Scorpene SSKs.

To MPATEL: Red Arrow-12 is good for cooler operating environments in the plains & deserts of the Middle East. About CX-1, I’ve already explained above what it really is.

To HEBERIAN: The J-31 or FC-31 MRCA is presently flying with only a rudimentary fixed-gain flight-control logic & therefore its flight demonstrations are of a very limited nature. The J-20 is having its flight-control logic’s envelope extended on a gradual basis & hence it could not be shown at Zhuhai. But take a closer look & you’ll see that the FC-31 sports an IRST sensor similar to the OEPS system found on members of the Su-27 & Su-30 families. Similarly, the HMDS is just a re-engineered SURA-1 from Ukraine. Furthermore, the powerplant is a FWS-10A turbofan. The J-20 therefore has a very long way to go. The Australian guy is Brian Cloughley. He wasd a former Australian Defence Adviser posed at the Australian High Commission in Islamabad. The Y-20 looks impressive & has a glass cockpit similar to the one found on the Y-9 & ZDK-03, but its weakness is the powerplant of Russian origin.

To ASHISH: Any home-grown NMRH will take at least another 10 years to emerge. Don’t think either the IN or IA or IAF can wait that long.

To SOORYA NARAYAN: Looks like the TD-3 is devoid of any self-defence sensors like countermeasures dispenser, RWR, LWS & MAWS. I would have expected them to be installed & integrated, since the TD-3 is supposed to be the definitive production-standard version of the LCH. In fact, it should not have been designed as the TD-3, but the PV-1. Ideally, the MAWS should be fitted on the outer edges of the stub-wings, similar to what’s there on the Z-10 attack helicopter. I just hope the RWR/LWS/MAWS does end up as an ugly-looking contraption like that on the Rudra’s cockpit roof.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Anon@7.25PM: Not even the USAF deploys 18 combat aircraft in one go for any overseas exercise! At most, eight were sent by the PAF, with only six taking part in the actual exercises & two being retained as standbys.

To SOURAV: In all probability the Vympel R-73E.

To SUJOY MAJUMDAR: 1) Nope. Buy India means the product’s IPR should be of Indian origin. 2) Local firm means it should have 100% Indian citizens as its company directors.

To RAHUL: 1) That depends on what your definition of ‘adequate’ is. 2) MBRLs can always be targetted by offensive airpower comprising both combat aircraft & ALCMs/LACMs. M-20-type BSMs can easily be intercepted by LR-SAMs like barak-8. 2) That video is for marketing purposes only & shows only one of the two warring partner in operation. It does not show anything about the warring capabilities of the enemy, meaning the video wargamer’s idea of the ‘enemy’ was probably someone like Laos or Cambodia! 3 & 4) Not necessary. Investments in ISTAR capacities & procurement of tactical air-launched LACMs will be enough to counter such threats. 5) IA has not ordered any Barak-2/8. Area air-defence of the hinterland is the IAF’s responsibility. 6) The rear section of Rudra has MAWS installation.

To CHAMPAGNE SUPERNOVA: 1) By the first quarter of 2015. 2) Of course. 3) What it means is that MiG-29 launches/recoveries will be made in a pre-planned manner for the most part. No emergency scrambles. 4) If it was to be well & truly behind us, then by now the Govt of India would have announced that it was not taking the international arbitration route & AgustaWestland would have announced that the remaining 7 AW-101s are for sale on an as is where is basis. Have these announcements been made? PM is using Mi-17s only for short-distance 5-minute rides. Members of the National Command Authority (NCA) will in times of emergencies need to fly on helicopters for at least 50 minutes non-stop.

To VINESH: It doesn’t matter at all what I believe. What matters is what the law of the land states in the all-party parliamentary resolution passed in February 1994. And every Indian citizen & institution is duty-bound to obey it. India’s armed forces as they presently exist can carry out this assignment with ease with their existing ORBATs, rest assured. In fact, it is the Govt of India that made the great mistake of forgetting all about Gilgit & Baltistan after 1971 & it was only in 2003 that India officially re-established contact with the politicians & intellectuals of these areas, following which these persons were persecuted & harassed when they returned back home. India is legally & morally bound to stand up for & protect the fundamental rights of the inhabitants of Gilgit & Baltistan since these inhabitants are now desperately seeking India’s help/assistance & have even asked for scholarships/reservations in Indian educational institutions.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To GESSLER: Well, I don’t mind if someone else starts propagating my ideas since I never applied for any IPR for the idea/proposal. I just hope it gets viral within the MoD & IAF HQ. Displacement of IN’s future DDGs won’t grow. AS for VLS cells for ASCMs & LACMs, 12 for ASCMs will be just fine, with another 24 for LACMs. 64 LR-SAMs on-board will be more than enough.

To JOYDEEP GHOSH: 1) Even now China has access to the Arabian Sea. Who in their right mind will put all eggs in the basket by opting for an earthquake-prone land-route from the Arabian Sea? Certainly not China. 2) It’s the Y-30 turboprop-powered airlifter. MBRL on APC is used for firng wire-guided NLOS-anti-armour missiles. 3) All MSOWs look similar. 4) Nothing wrong with the FC-31 at all. Its digital flight-control computer hasn’t as yet been uploaded with the complete flight-control logic software & hence the FC-31’s conservative aerial displays.

To PINTU: 1) Nope. The CX-1 was rejected by the PLA in favour of the YJ-12. 2) Not yet. 4) Problem is not with Dhanush per se. The IA wants 155mm/52-cal howitzers while the Dhanush is a 155mm/45-cal system. Even then, an order for up to 550 Dhanush howitzers ought to be placed ASAP. In return, the upgunning of the 130mm M-46 should be scrapped & the OFB—and not the DRDO—should explore ways of developing a 155mm/53-cal barrel with Kalyani Group’s help. The DRDO on the other hand should think of ways of developing motorised & naval variants of the 155mm/52-cal howitzer—that is if anyone is really serious about Make-in-India product innovations. Ad by all means rope in players like TATA, Mahindra & BEL in such ventures.

To VISHAKH: The missiles of the Strella-10M require replacing. That’s all that’s required for importing. The fire-control system co-developed by ELTA & BEL for the upgraded ZSU-23-4 Schilka can easily be adopted for the Strella-10M as well. No need for SOSNA-R. AS for the article, there are some inaccuracies. For instance, only 1 S-band 3-D CAR (Rohini) is required for 3 Batteries of Akash-1, & not one 3-D CAR per Battery. Furthermore, both IA & IAF want to do away with radar-guided SHORADS since the Barak-2 LR-SAM can easily fill the void. The IA & IAF & IN therefore require only IIR-guided SHORADS like SpyDer-SR as SL-QRMs/QR-SAMs. Lastly, the IA’s Akash-1 version will be T-72M-mounted (this was decided way back in 2004 & the first prototype TELs were ready by 2006), & not vehicle-mounted. The only-vehicle-mounted launcher of Akash-1 is at the ITR & that too only for test-firings. And the vehicle-mounted version of the IAF’s Akash-1 is not capable of traversing all types of terrain. IF the ban on IMI is not lifted, there will be no more TCS add-ons for Pinaka-1/2 MBRL rockets, it’s that simple. So, the sooner the ban is lifted, the better.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To EL PHOCHO/SANDIP DAS: 1) Not a credible option, since worldwide, only VSHORADS & LR-SAMs are being developed & produced since highly manoeuvrable & quick-reaction LR-SAMs can today do the job of a radar-guided SHORADS, MR-SAM & LR-SAM i.e. a 3-in-1 solution. 2) The Ruskies haven’t produced anything beyond the S-400 Triumph, while the US is working on the SM-6.

To SOUBHAGYA: In its present configuration, single-seat Tejas Mk1 can easily be employed as an all-weather close air-support aircraft when armed with Litening LDP & Griffin-3 LGBs or even smaller MLGBs.

To VRP: Nothing has changed. Pakistanis themselves are now saying that while Afghanistan & Pakistan remain as married partners, Afghanistan will always be India’s lover. That’s the ground reality which can NEVER wished away.

To KAUSTAV BHATTACHARYA: The lessons are many. For starters, development of engine-related technologies & complete airworthy engines are not one & the same. While DRDO labs can handle the former, the latter should be undertaken by HAL. Secondly, instead of developing just one turbofan, a family of turbofans using a common engine core & related accessories like FADEC should be thought of. Thirdly, cutting-edge R & D centres specialising only on developing super-critical alloys using rare-earth minerals need to be set up. Fourthly, R & D roadmaps for both turbofans & turboshafts need to be prepared concurrently. Fifthly, turbofans on board long-range LACMs should also be considered for use on-board tactical air-launched LACMs & standoff anti-runway munition dispensers.

To ARUP: The ‘Wind Storm’ concept is just a marketing gimmick. Any video games developer can come up with something similar showing the Pinaka-1/2, Prithvi-3 & Nirbhay. For integrated fire-assault systems to be effective, state-of-the-art battlespace ISATR assets are reqd—which the PLA presently lacks. For instance, it has nothing similar to the EL/M-2060P. The most effective counter to the China-developed MBRLs & NLOS-BSMs will be MSOW-/KEPD-350 type standoff tactical cruise missiles that can be launched from both trucks & combat aircraft.

To PAWAN: On paper, the K-4 SLBM has a 3,500km-rage. But no such missile on its maiden test-firing is ever fired out to its maximum range. BrahMos-1’s cruising altitude is 16km, not 500 metres.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To ABS: 1) The DRDO is indeed developing a family of GPS guidance kits for both existing dumb bombs as well as new-generation small-diameter bombs using CL-20 explosive materials. In addition, rocket-powered LGBs are being developed since they are the only air-launched PGMs that can be effective in mountain warfare. 2) Only dual-guided PGM under development is the PAD interceptor. 3) Such PGMs are useful only against static targets in the plains & that too when launched from higher altitudes. 4) The DRDO is developing the so-called anti-airfield weapon—something similar to the KEPD-350 air-launched cruise missile. 5) Any such MSOW can be fitted with different types of warheads depending upon the targetting priority. They can even be launched from the VLS cells of warships & submarines, if need be. 6) SFMs can indeed be dispensed by such MSOWs/CALCMs. But the DRDO is not working on such variants. 7) Nothing’s been done so far. But I guess after seeing this thread, Dr Avinash Chander & Co will draw up the necessary inspiration for launching a ‘technology demonstration’ project. If he does, then he will be well-advised to make use of the existing Nag ATGM as the baseline design & work towards enhancing its range envelope & re-engineering it as a FOGM. 8) Dual-mode bombs are not exactly practical options. A far better option is to develop a single missile body with different, detachable guidance front-ends, something like the AASM family from SAGEM of France. 9) IA has not yet made up its mind for ordering the Barak-2.

To GESSLER: Do you really want me to qualify reports made by a buffoon that draws a line between MRH & NMRH, even though both are meant to be shipborne??? Or who can’t see the difference between 5.5-tonne, 10-tonne & 12-tonne NMRHs? Or someone who can’t tell the difference between a direct commercial sale (DCS) offer for S-70B & that for the MH-60R being offered under a FMS package? It should be noted that the IN prefers the DCS route whenever it can mix-and-match various types of sub-systems within the principal platform. That’s because under the FMS route, no such tinkering is allowed. The product as developed for the USN is exported under FMS without even a nut-and-bolt being changed. Consequently, if the IN wants a MH-60R, then it will be forced to go for the FLASH dunking sonar, nothing else. On the other hand, if the S-70B is selected, then the IN can specify any type of dunking sonar—local or foreign—for integration. Therefore, once the initial 16 10-tonne S-70B Seahawks are ordered, another 28 will be ordered in follow-on tranches under separate supplementary contracts, & not brand-new contracts. The 10-tonne S-70Bs will operate out from FFGs only, while the 12-tonne NMRHs will operate from DDGs & LPHs. The 5.5-tonne NMRHs will operate from ASW corvettes & SW-ASW vessels. Together, the 5.5-tonne, 10-tonne & 12-tonne NMRHs will number 123. Over & above this are the 4.5-tonne N-LUHs for replacing the SA.316B Alouette-III/Chetaks.

Cont’d below…

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

The real questions that no ‘desi’ or ‘phoren’ journalist worth his/her salt is asking are these:

1) Why did China for the very first time combine its land forces & aerospace expos into one at Zhuhai?

2) Why did China’s AVIC for the very first time become so gutsy by displaying a scale-model of its J-15 carrier-borne MRCA (a clone of the Su-33) at its pavilion? Previously it had only shown scale-models labelled as Su-27SK & Su-27UBK.

3) What was the Russian reaction to such an exhibit? Did Russia protest or did it maintain silence?

4) What’s the cockpit design configuration of the J-10B, J-11B, J-11BS, J-15 & J-16? Is it the same as that of the Su-27SK/Su-30MK, or is it similar to that of the JF-17 Thunder MRCA?

5) What are the avionics upgrades being undertaken by the PLAAF & PLAN for their J-11A/S as part of their mid-life upgrades?

6) Why has AVIC or CETC or CEIEC NEVER shown at any exhibition full-scale models of their so-called home-grown multi-mode fire-control radars for the J-8II, JH-7A, FC-1/JF-17, J-10, J-15 & J-16 combat aircraft?

7) Why were the AC-313 heavylift helicopter, Z-10 attack helicopter, Z-19 armed aeroscout helicopter, L-15 & FTC-2000 LIFTs absent from this year’s expo at Zhuhai?

8) Why did AVIC show off a FC-31 MRCA’s scale-model with a chin-mounted IRST mounting, while the FC-31’s generic cockpit featured an IRST sensor just in front of the cockpit?

9) Why was the ‘Soar Dragon’ HALE-UAV not displayed at the expo?

10) Why only the homegrown FWS-10 turbofan was exhibited by AVIC? Why not the FWS-13? And why are an additional 100 RD-93s being ordered for the JF-17s if the FWS-13 is already reportedly fully developed?

Pawan said...

Dear Prasunji,

Thanks for answering my queries.


joydeep ghosh said...

@Prasun da

i know its a tall ask


Jumbo Majumdar Medals including Distinguished Flying Cross are up on sale, can you please through your connections ensure that it doesnot end up with a private collector and make sure that you or your friends hand it over to Indian Air Force as a goodwill gesture


Joydeep Ghosh

Dinesh said...

Hi Prasun,
What's the big deal regarding the new Russia-Pakistan Military Cooperation Pact which the Pakistanis r claming as revolutinary?
Could u plz elaborate on this topic.
Thanks in Advance.

rad said...

hi Prasun
akash missile seems to be hitting barrel targets dropped from ac rather than low flying high speed targets. What is the speed of the banshee target, is it as same as an ac?. what on earth is the drdo doing and making us mad by saying the akash was successful in destroyed barrel targets.
Are`nt we better off by asking help from israel to make the MSOW , gps guided bombs,than allow the drdo bums to sit and fart arounf=d and then give excuses for non performance?.
I doubt if the baluchis and other people will be ever let out of pakistan to study in india. It like letting kashmiris go to pakistan and study!!

rad said...

HI Prasun
Is the drdo trying to make a short range interception missile against cruise missiles and battle field nlos missiles?.Is it a version of the astra?. are they up to something as usual. Israel is ready to give us iron dome tweaked up so that it can be a cheap low cost alternative .How good will that be . At least it is ready and battle proven and cheap.Now there are reports that aerostats are going to be developed in india for cruise missile defence?. Bombastic claims?
you are saying the cx-1 missile is a turbofan version of the brahmos?
There are talks of some co operation of the glonass syetem with india when putin comes , what could be it?

Gessler said...

VMT for the answers Prasun ji. So what is the final breakdown of the naval helicopter tenders? Ultimately there will be 44 S-70B2 Sea Hawk (10-tonne) choppers...and I believe there will be 12 of the 12-tonne choppers (i.e. CH-148 Cyclone), but how many 5.5-tonne choppers? 67 ?

What are the competitors for the 5.5-tonne requirement? More Dhruvs? But their lack of automatic rotor-folding mechanisms and other deficiencies will prevent them from performing roles such as ASW.

The 4.5-tonne requirment for 56 choppers (if I remember correctly) will either be re-tendered with choppers like Bell 429 unless HAL can deliver a modified version of it's LUH.

Millard Keyes said...

Assuming those questions were asked, (well, after you asked for them)what are the answers please Prasun? Can't wait to hear them!

vishakh said...


Pakisthan is buying MBT 3000 , Is India looking to Buy T90AM ( latest ) tanks from Russia??

2) Is india looking to Upgrade T-90 Tanks at its own using technology of Arjun tank as features like Remote turrent , automatic tracking etc are already developed.

Pawan said...

Dear Prasunji,

Please answers the questions that you raised yesterday as I am curious to know the answers.

one more thing which is bothering me is how India can tackle China if It decide to go ahead & annexe POK by military operation.
please answer this query also and oblige.


Aniluv said...

Dear Praunda
I Have an addict of your blog . Now you have cut down on your blogging and i have read all ur past blogs as well. Actually repeatedly a few times. Now i need a fovour . Can you recommend some websites/blogs that one. Should read which are similar to yours.

Prav said...

So if the barak 8 and LR sam are exactly the same why did DRDO spend money and effort in the duplication of effort for developing another rocket motor and the so called back end of the system when Israel is offering a working product ?

rad said...

HI Prasun
Now pak is getting the mbt 3000 from its master with active protection system. Now what ever happened to the active protection system short listed for our tanks ? m what are the fools dong in the DRDO or who ever is in charge . I really dont understand the logic of making a fine tank like the arjun and make it vulnerable to anti tank systems ., when the world over it is the norm .The system proved its worth in the recent Israeli Palestinian conflict .How do oyu rate the mbt 3000 ,it seems to have a net centric BMS as well?

Technology, Photograpy and Travel said...

Prasun Da,

Do u think that the acquisitions are moving in right track on Howitzers, and also is it now possible to order more Arjun's for Army .

How difficult would be to have superguns based on special rail guns which can be deployed based on railway lines ... suppose say some super gun which fires a projectile using railgun theory and that projectile would have a propulsion which would get deployed after it looses speed which it gains from the rail gun ?

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

Will answer all outstanding queries above later tonight in the latest thread.

MBT-3000 does not sport any APS. Nor is Pakistan Army interested in acquiring this medium battle tank. Anything else to the contrary is just a figment of trolls in cyberspace. As of now the MBT-3000 is being marketed only for prospective Middle East customers & sports a 1,300hp water-cooled diesel engine, whereas the Al Khalid MBT Mk2 will have a 1,400hp air-cooled diesel engine of Ukrainian origin.

Anonymous said...

nice site