Total Pageviews

Sunday, December 25, 2016

India’s Cruise Missile Programme Updates

Re-inventing the wheel is a futile and time-consuming process for countries like India, especially when there are a select few friendly, highly industrialised countries that are more than willing to share their expertise with India’s military-industrial entities and co-developing re-engineered, customer-specific weapon systems that are required in large numbers by India’s armed forces. Such a business practice thus cuts short the gestation timeframe required for fielding advanced weapons on multiple platforms, since all their R & D challenges have already been overcome before, and all that is required to be done is to customise or re-engineer them for complying with the qualitative requirements of their respective Indian end-users. Three such weapons that are now under co-development comprise the Nirbhay family of land-attack cruise missiles (LACM) and the BrahMos-NG supersonic multi-role cruise missile (MRCM) being co-developed with Russia’s JSC MIC NPO Mashinostroyenia (NPOM), and the smart anti-airfield weapon (SAAW) being co-developed with Israel’s RAFAEL Advanced Defence Systems.
Nirbhay LACM Explained
The Nirbhay is a subsonic LACM designed to fly at subsonic speeds to neutralise targets of interest deep inside the adversary’s territory in the early days of a conflict. This project was conceived back in 2003 as a ground-launched cruise missile (GLCM) and air-launched cruise missile (ALCM) for the Indian Air Force (IAF) and as a warship-launched/submarine-launched cruise missile (SLCM) for the Indian Navy (IN). An inter-governmental agreement inked in mid-2005 between India and Russia saw the formalisation of industrial partnerships between India’s Defence Research & Development Organisation’s (DRDO) Bengaluru-based Aeronautical Development Establishment (ADE) and Russia’s Novator OKB, and between India’s Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL) and Russian engine manufacturer JSC NPO Saturn. Subsequently, Novator OKB transferred the design data package of its 3M-14E LACM to ADE for re-engineering purposes, while JSC NPO Saturn began shipping 12 fully-assembled and ready-to-install 37-01E turbofans for the Nirbhay’s flight-test programme, and this was to be followed by the supply of an additional 600 turbofans in knocked-down condition to HAL for final assembly. Full-scale prototype development work commenced in early 2007, with the ADE being designated as the nodal systems house for R & D along with ASL (Hyderabad), RCI (Hyderabad), HEMRL (Pune), R & DE (E) (Pune), TBRL (Chandigarh), ITR (Balasore) and GTRE (Bengaluru) as sub-systems re-engineering partners. Phase-I of the project focussed on the development of Nirbhay’s ground-launched version.
Any cruise missile mission consists of pre-launch, launch, cruise and terminal phase. The pre-launch mission phase deals with mission planning, waypoint selection, on-board mission computer’s algorithm, complete missile system checkout, and the fire-control system. The launch phase starts with booster fire and shaping the trajectory with the help of thrust vectoring and ends with a configuration suitable for cruise phase. The cruise missile configuration is basically an aircraft-like configuration that flies along the various waypoints using autonomous waypoint navigation. At the end of the cruise phase, the missile performs a terminal manoeuvre to home to a target at the desired attack angle. 
The unique selling point of the LACM includes:
Long-range missions at very low altitudes
Autonomous mission and trajectory control through waypoint navigation
High degree of loitering capability
High degree of range scalability
Deployable from multiple platforms
Designed to carry desired warheads on targets of interest
A cost-effective weapon delivery platform
Ability to attack the target from any desired direction
The Nirbhay is configured to achieve various mission phase requirements. This bank-to-turn missile was designed with a low wing and four all-moving fins for stability and control. The missile, designed with a high degree of modularity, consists of seven sections to house the seeker, warhead, on-board avionics, fuel and air-intake section for the turbofan engine, and the expendable booster section. This configuration is optimised for low-altitude flights though it delivers desired performance for the full flight envelope. The airframe was designed by Novator OKB for modular fabrication and integration, predominantly with light aluminium alloy and composite materials. The airframe was designed considering the ‘g’ loads experienced in the boost and cruise phases. The airframe construction uses glass-fibre and carbon-fibre as reinforcements in fabric form, epoxy resin system as matrix, and acrylic foam (Rohacell) is used as a core material. Fabrication uses wet layup, pre-pregs and matched die-moulding process. The bulkheads and longerons are also made of aluminium alloy. The structural sizing of the airframe was carried out to satisfy strength, stiffness and stability criteria as well as dynamic and aero-elastic requirements as stipulated in applicable aircraft standards and military standards.
The Mobile Articulated Launcher is configured for transportation, emplacement, erection, activation and the launching of missiles. In addition, the launcher also houses the main and standby power-supply systems, the fire-control and checkout system for up to four missiles, intra-communication system for communications with the combat management system and other associated ground-support systems equipment. The launcher is built with a rail-guide, on which the missile-lugs travel to ensure safe clearance. The current launcher, fabricated by Larsen & Toubro, is a prototype to be used for development flights of the missile. The actual launcher will be developed against specific requirements of the users. The Fire-Control & Checkout System (FCCS) is intended for automatic checkout, preparation before launch and launch of the missiles. The FCCS consists of a launch console, which is the central controller that coordinates the activities of all the sub-systems. Interaction of the launch complex with the articles is facilitated via the missile interface unit. The launch complex can be also be operated from a remote console. Mission planning is an essential activity and it deals with the collection of relevant information on target, terrain, obstacles, threats, the missile’s capability, and the ground-support capability to achieve maximum kill probability.
The wing is folded and kept inside the fuselage, held by the initial locking mechanism. The wing shutter opens during the boost phase upon command and after the wing is deployed the door closing mechanism is initiated to close the cut-out provided in the fuselage, resulting in reduced missile drag during the cruise phase. The wing deployment systems is attached to the centre bracket of the wing and an attachment bracket has been welded with the fuel tank with a provision to fix a strut, which in turn receives the wing centre bracket. The basic mechanism is of single slider crank-type. The active force generated by a pair of pyro-cartridges is converted into torque for rotating the wing through 90 degrees. Damper is provided in the mechanism for energy absorption during deployment phase. The mechanism is provided with two types of locking mechanism and stopper to keep the wing in position after deployment. The submerged air-intake section consists of the air-intake duct, which starts as a hole in the belly of the missile and guides the air into the inlet section of the engine. The length, ramp angle and lip-radius of the submerged air intake is designed to meet the constraints on distortion levels and pressure recovery.
The requirements of long-range precision navigation are achieved using redundant satellite-aided navigation system using the IRNSS constellation. The primary navigation system is based on three sets of ring laser gyro and accelerometers (supplied by Israel Aerospace Industries’ TAMAM Division), which produces unaided and aided navigation information at regular intervals through a MIL-STD-1553B digital avionics databus. The secondary navigation system is based on three sets of MEMS gyroscopes and accelerometers that produce similar information as that of the primary navigation system. In case of failure of on-board inertial sensors, the primary navigation system uses equivalent information from the standby system till the second failure. Upon second failure, the on-board control system uses the secondary navigation system’s information for its control loop closure. The redundant navigation systems ensure the desired nautical mile per hour accuracy at the start of the missile’s terminal cruise phase. The primary launch phase requirement of any cruise missile is to launch vertically through the mobile articulated launcher and to align at any desired direction, meeting the altitude and Mach number constraints at various instants of time. In this phase, the missile transcends four configurations, starting with missile then to a bomb (with fins only) and to a glider with wings deployed and finally an aircraft configuration powered by the turbofan. 
Accelerating the missile from zero speed to the desired speed is achieved by using an expendable solid propulsion booster, housed as a part of the booster section. This section is connected to the main missile using four pyro-bolts, which are initiated for stage separation after booster burn-out during launch. This section houses all the onboard systems essential for thrust vectoring and also a separation mechanism to ensure positive separation of the missile. The booster’s thrust axis is deflected as desired by the thrust-vector control system to generate necessary control forces to achieve the desired launch phase trajectory from vertical to horizontal. The thrust-vector control systems consist of a pair of actuators mounted on a flex-nozzle system to orient the thrust axis in both pitch and yaw planes. The on-board control system compares the state information as measured by the on-board inertial navigation system with desired trajectory, and generates steering commands to the thrust-vector control actuator.
When the missile reaches the desired speed and orientation, the solid propulsion booster is jettisoned using pyro-bolts and retro-motors. The pyro-bolts ensure physical separation of the booster section from the missile and the retro-motors ensure positive separation from the missile. In this phase, the missile is entering the no-thrust zone and it continues till the engine develops full thrust. After sufficient time separation, the wing is unlocked, deployed and locked into its final desired position that turns the missile to a glider configuration. In this phase, the missile is still in the no-thrust zone. After sufficient time separation, the turbofan is started in-flight, which turns the missile into powered aircraft configuration. 
When the turbofan develops the full thrust, the missile exits the no-thrust zone and enters into an unmanned vehicle configuration. The missile is designed to execute the mission autonomously without any external intervention and it also has the ability to reconfigure the flight-control system’s commands in response to different on-board events and failures. The FCSS uses body rates, liner accelerations, attitudes and positions obtained from the RLG-INS for all control loops. Baro-altitude obtained from an air data sensor is used by the navigation system for vertical channel damping and a radar altimeter is used exclusively for low-altitude flights. The four linear fin-actuators are located around the turbofan in a narrow annular space. The desired stability and control of the missile in the cruise phase is achieved using four fin actuators and are individually commanded by the flight-control computer (FCC). 
The FCC is the prime computational hardware that performs the main functions of flight and mission control such as sensor data acquisition, sensor computation, longitudinal, lateral and directional control law execution, and provides the drive signals for on-board discrete events and actuators through 1553B and RS422 databuses. All the flight-control laws, mission control laws and safety logics are coded in strict adherence to DoD-STD-2167A and implemented in the FCC. The cruise phase capabilities of the missile are achieved through autonomous waypoint navigation. In this mode, the missile exhibits its capability to control the trajectory in vertical and horizontal planes while maintaining the desired track. Also, this system is designed with no restriction on the heading change between the waypoints.
The maiden launch of Nirbhay LACM’s ground-launched version was conducted on March 12, 2013 during which it flew for 20 minutes and thereafter deviated from its flight path due to a failure of the on-board MEMS gyroscopes and accelerometers, and consequently its on-board self-destruct mechanism was activated. The second launch was conducted on October 17, 2014 at ITR, Chandipur, and was a big success, with the LACM travelling 1,010km instead of the targetted 800km.These two launches demonstrated several new indigenously-built technologies like automated pre-launch checks, booster-assisted launch phase trajectory control, stage separation in near-horizontal attitude, in-flight wing deployment, submerged air intake for engine and in-flight engine start. The repeatability of these achievements has demonstrated the systematic approach and robustness of the design. 
The second launch also demonstrated complete autonomous mission mode, comprising of cruise phase based on waypoint navigation and the terminal phase. The third test-flight on October 16, 2015 was again a failure. After 70 seconds of its flight, the missile lost control and fell within the safety zone. The fourth flight-test on December 21, 2016 was an utter failure, caused by a wing-deployment problem. After liftoff, the missile started veering dangerously towards one side in less than two minutes. The missile started flying beyond the safety corridor and threatened to fall on the land. So the “destruct” mechanism in its first stage was activated and the LACM was destroyed. It was undoubtedly a hardware failure due to a reliability issue with a component.
BrahMos-NG Explained
BrahMos Aerospace Ltd was established in India through an inter-governmental agreement signed on February 12, 1998 between Russia and India. The DRDO from India and JSC MIC NPO Mashinostroyenia (NPOM) from Russia are the joint venture partners of BrahMos Aerospace, which was started with a capital of US$250 million with 50.5% from the Indian side and 49.5% from the Russian side. JSC MIC Mashinostroyenia comprises eight strategic companies: NPO Mashinostroyenia (Reutov, Moscow), JSC Production Association Strela (Orenburg), JSC Permsky Zavod Mashinostroitel (Perm), JSC Scientific and Production Association of Electro-Mechanic and JSC Makeyev State Rocket Center SKB-385 (Miass, Chelyabinsk), FSUE Avangard (Safonovo, Smolensk), FSUE Ural Research Institute of Composite Materials, or UNIIKM (Perm), NII Electromechaniki (Istra, Moscow) and Concern Granit-Electron (St Petersburg).
Unlike the ground-launched/ship-launched BrahMos-1 and its air-launched BrahMos-A version that can be carried only by the Su-30MKI H-MRCA, the BrahMos-NG (known earlier as BrahMos-Mini) will be lighter and narrower, enabling it to be launched by M-MRCAs like the Rafale, MiG-29UPG and carrier-based MiG-29Ks, and it will also be capable of being launched from a submarine’s 533mm torpedo-tubes.
The entire on-board avionics suite of the BrahMos-NG—which will have a high degree of communality with that on-board the Nirbhay family of LACMs—will be of Indian origin and it is now under development via the cluster of public-sector and private-sector industrial entities that are also involved with the Nirbhay’s developmental effort.
The SAAW Explained
The SAAW is a joint India-Israel project to co-develop an air-launched, standoff EMP-emitting missile, which, for all intents and purposes, will be India’s first operational precision-guided directed-energy weapon (DEW). It may be recalled that in the night of September 6, 2007 in the desert at Al Kibar, 130km (81 miles) from the Iraqi border and 30km from the northern Syrian provincial city Deir el-Zor, a fleet of ten IDF-AF F-15Is conducted OP Orchard, which involved the destruction of a heavy-water reactor then under construction with North Korean expertise and Iranian funding. In that raid, the IDF-AF had used a RAFAEL-developed precision-guided, standoff DEW to shut down Syria’s ground-based air-defence sensors—a move that would go on to be the optimum model for future surgical air-strikes. 
Israel offered to co-develop a variant of this DEW with India on July 7, 2008 during an official meeting in Pune with the DRDO. This was followed by two additional meetings held in Delhi with senior DRDO and IAF officials in August and September 2007. The joint R & D project officially began in mid-2010 and series-production of this DEW will commence later this year, with Indian industrial entities like Bharat Dynamics Ltd, ECIL and the Kalyani Group being involved in this undertaking.   This air-launched, fire-and-forget, expendable DEW, whose main role is to render electronic targets useless, makes use of the airframe of RAFAEL’s Spice 250 rocket-powered PGM, and will have a range of 120km. It is a non-kinetic alternative to traditional explosive weapons that use the energy of motion to defeat their targets. During a mission, this missile will navigate a pre-programmed flight plan (using fibre-optic gyros) and at pre-set coordinates an internal active phased-array microwave emitter will emit bursts of selective high-frequency radio wave strikes against up to six different targets during a single mission. The EMP-like field that will be generated will shut down all hostile electronics. Thus, the whole idea behind such a weapon is to be able to destroy an enemy’s command, control, communication and computing, surveillance and intelligence (C4SI) capabilities without doing any damage to the people or traditional infrastructure in and around it. In other words, it can eliminate a hierarchical air-defence network’s effectiveness by destroying the electronics within it alone, via a microwave pulse, without kinetically attacking the network itself.
For the IAF, this air-launched DEW will be a ‘first day of war’ standoff weapon that can be launched outside an enemy’s area-denial/anti-access capabilities, and fly a route over known C4SI facilities, zapping them along its way, before destroying itself at the end of its mission. Because of its stealthy design, long-range and expendability, it will fly where no other manned airborne assets could and because it does not blow anything up, its use does not necessarily give away the fact that the enemy is under direct attack in the first place. In that sense, it is also a psychological weapon, capable of at least partially blinding an enemy before it even knows that a larger-scale air-attack is coming. The IAF plans to arm its upgraded Mirage 2000Hs, Jaguar IS/DARIN-3 interdictors and the yet-to-be-delivered Rafale M-MRCAs with this DEW and also with RAFAEL’s Spice-1000 PGMs. Unguided test-launches of the SAAW from a Jaguar IS were first conducted at Pokhran in May 2015 to validate the weapons release/pylon ejection mechanisms, while the first powered test-flight was conducted on December 23, 2016. Both the IAF and IN have a stated requirement for 500 SAAWs.


Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To RAD: All your questions are answered above. I would have believed the DRDO's claims of Nirbhay & SAAW being indigenously developed products had I come across any image showing either CFD analysis of such airframes, or photos showing scale-models of such missiles being subjected to wind-tunnel tests in any Indian lab like that of NAL or CSIR. Since NO such photo/image has been published either by the DRDO or CSIR or any other govt-owned R & D institution, it stands to reason that no such analysis/tests were carried out in India by any Indian entity. Which in turn leads us to infer that 'someone else' had already conducted all such R & D-related work & the final refined end-product was offered to India for re-engineering (like using Indian industry-fabricated clones of avionics & airframes based on foreign specifications/designs & using high-reliability & lightweight RLG-INS from entities like IAI/TAMAM). In ahort, if the DRDO wants to make convincing claims about indigenous product developments, then it must produce the corroborative evidence as well. The mere fact that it has failed to do so thus far in its various in-house publications proves my point. Furthermore, what gave the DRDO such a high level of confidence for painting all the Nirbhay LACM's flight-test prototypes in low-visibility grey especially when the Nirbhays were all meant to be test-flown over water along the eastern coastline of India? And that too when everyone else in the world indulging in such activities always paints such cruise missiles in bright orange colour. Can anyone from DRDO explain that?

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To VIKRAM GUHA: 1) Those are NBC detection kits to be installed on BMP-2K ICVs. 2) They will mostly come from Israel’s IWI & Spain’s Instalaza. 3) It refers to SATCOM systems & the supporting information gathering recce assets like mini0/micro-UAVs & briefcase-contained terminals capable of receiving overhead recce satellite imagery for superior domain awareness. And the 55 radars ordered will be a mixture of BEL-built Bharani & Aslesha LLTRs.

To SIDDHARTH: A certain minimum order for such C-17As is necessary if the production line is to be re-opened. An order for 3 or six won’t do. Minimum of 15 is necessary from more than one customer.

To SANJAY SHARMA/UNKNOWN: 1) No. Only the SLBM of 7,000km-range is now awaited. 2) Yes. 3) Not true. 4) None.

To SENTHIL KUMAR: Watch this new documentary on the origins of Nigeria’s Boko Haram:

To RON: Watch this programme on a Vimana found in Afghanistan:

To VARUNN: Why are you so surprised? Did you watch the event in Mumbai yesterday? Here are the photos:

Can anyone explain why the PM is not wearing a life jacket? Is he not subject to the SOPs followed by everyone else on such vessels? The PM should understand that a true leader is one who believes in “do as I do”, & not “do as I say.” Such commonsensical awareness still continues to elude India.

Sanjay Sharma said...

Dear Prasun,

1) Is there any defense we possess right now against the DF 21 Ballistic missile from TAR?

2) Any update on our BMD?

3) Is the IAF IACCS fully operational?

4) Does India possess any over the horizon Radars?

5) How many Agni 3/4/5 are currently operational with the SFC?

6) It seems russia is moving ever closer to pak. Will our oldest ally switch sides and ditch us? Is it possible? We have so many common projects with them. What will come of those?

7) Speaking of which, is the Brahmos 2 based on the zircon? Do you have any data on it?


Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To SANJAY SHARMA: 1) Why does one need any defence against such MRBMs? Why not jusy deter their usage by fielding similar MRBMs targetting China? 2) Nothing new from the 'desi' standpoint. 3) IACCS is the overall architecture. Within that are networks of various types using OTH HPRs & MPRs. These networks are in need of additional radars, especially aerostat-mounted. 4) All ground-based radars can look over the horizon. 5) About 12 each of A-1, A-2 & A-4. 6) That's totally untrue. Russia's prime interest is in monitoring the inflow of Chechans from the North Caucasus into Pakistan & Syria. 7) Yes it is.

Rishi said...

Isn't the DEW non-effective if the enemy powers down their electronics right before a DEW strike? Also even after a successful DEW strike, isn't there a chance that the electronics can be powered down, grounded, and then powered on working functionally?

Also reason for Nirbhay failure has to do with reservation system. Smart people obviously don't want to work DPSU jobs, so the DRDO ideally wants average quality people. There are plenty of average quality people who can work for the DRDO, but quotas means DRDO has to hire many below-average people and they get placed on projects like Nirbhay, resulting in screw ups like defective wings and QA/reliability problems. Those people simply lack the work ethic to get the job done quickly and responsibly.

Also CPEC is proof that the EAST INDIA COMPANY is well and alive in 2016. However, this time the owners of the joint-stock company come from the East and not West. Slowly, the company will turn to colonizing the place by setting up defensive forces and re-populating the land with Han Chinese after the natives fail to meet their ROI targets... Hope our Balochi and Pathan friends will put up a good fight (Or will we recapture PoK soon before the Chinese make porkistan a puppet state?).

Rishi said...

Which sniper rifle will our marksmen get? And why can't OFB design a sniper rifle? If they can make an assault rifle then a sniper rifle would be a logical continuation. Like say using Vidhwansak with 1/5 the weight and lower calibre.

My Christmas wish to all is an end to license raj and demise of non-performing public monopolies.

rad said...

hi prasun
great scoop on all the 3 missile systems . My blood boils to hear, in spite of all the hand holding by russia these drdo buggers fucked up for more than 13 years! what a waste of public money and shame they have brought on our country!!.Only when the fear of getting kicked out of their jobs will these guys work.
Neither do i understand why these drdo fools shamelessly state that the spice clone was locally made . I personaly feel that the only way out is to have a brahmos type of agreement for all weapon systems with the original oem involved. what is you r suggestion to get out of this mess??

Vijay said...

Dear Sir

The only question that remains to be answered by you is

" When will NIRBHAY missile be ready for operational purposes "

lachit said...

hi prasun long time i posted anything

i just have a query

will the nirbhay project be shut down as being reported by the presstitudes, whats ur info on this ?

and will india ever get to manufacture the ramjet engines used in brahmos on its own ?


rad said...

hi prasun
spice 250 is a glider bomb weapon, can you confirm if this a being rocket powered ? . It would be great if we put a bigger emp warhead on an a operational nirbhay with better power out put and longer range?.

bhoutik said...

*why the higher weight of KLUB compared to Nirbhay

*why develop the small gas turbine engine if JSC NPO Saturn is supplying the 37-01E turbofans

Vikram Guha said...

Hat tip to Prasun Da for such a great write up on how the Nirbhay cruise missile works.
I have a few questions about some of the points that you made Prasun Da.

You mentioned :

1 The requirements of long-range precision navigation are achieved using redundant satellite-aided navigation system

When you say “redundant” are you saying that sat aided nav system has become redundant & needs to be replaced ?

2 In case of failure of on-board inertial sensors, the primary navigation system uses equivalent information from the standby system till the second failure

Which standby system are you referring to?

3 These two launches demonstrated several new indigenously-built technologies like automated pre-launch checks, booster-assisted launch phase trajectory control, stage separation in near-horizontal attitude, in-flight wing deployment, submerged air intake for engine and in-flight engine start

So this means these technologies were not shared by Russia & so it was developed in house?

4 So Novator OKB transferred the design data package of its 3M-14E LACM to ADE for re-engineering purposes. This means even the re engineering part cannot be done by ADE? This is disgraceful, isn't it ?

Many Thanks,


Raman said...

Really well written article total vintage Prasun Sengupta mode..........

Look forward to more............

Anonymous said...

Along with a disturbing rise in attacks on Army camps across Jammu and Kashmir, the Line of Control and the International Boundary in the State are also alarmingly tense past six months. Do you think India’s surgical strike across LoC was a strategic mistake?

ur detailed views?


Samar said...

Dear Prasun Sir,

As always your article is quite informative. I recently came across a news that Nirbhay program may be shut down after a series of failures. Pls give your views on this.
Since you have extensive information on defense matters, in your opinion what would be the course correction measures to turnaround problematic DRDO.

Thanking You,

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

Just as it was predicted:

Now such nuclear sabre-rattling has at last reached the Middle East! Everything seems to be proceeding as predicted earlier, leading to the showdown in 2018.

Rajesh Mishra said...

Thanx for this grand article.
BTW, the part, component or assembly whatever that has failed in the Nirbhay, has it successfully completed the multiple repetitive testing and if yes then it must be a problem of maintaining the quality. Please reply.

Sanjay Sharma said...

Dear Prasun,

1) Some Chinese nationalists have suggested that the 200 df 21s deployed in TAR can be used to wipe out our air forces on the ground or even to make us "navyless". Is that possible? If so what plan does India have to counter it?

2) Why do we have so few ballistic missiles when the Chinese are mass producing them by the hundreds? Is there a plan to build more?

3) Is the arihant that has been deployed possessing nuclear warheads aboard her or there just empty missiles?

4) How would you compare the MF-STAR with her European counterparts like the sampson, smart-l, empar and herakles? Apart from the herakles, the others dwarf the mf star in range and ability to detect stealth targets. Is the mf star atleast in the same league as the others or should we wait for the p18 destroyers for that?

5) How does mf star compare with the Chinese aegis aboard the type 52d?

6) What is the range and speed of the yj 12?

7) And lastly, what showdown were you referring to in your comment. An Israel pak war???

Daily Observer said...

Hi prasunda, great post as always.

I wanted to know about the true range of Agni-v, is it 5500km or 8000km ?

How many mirv will it carry and has the testing of the mirvs been done?

Where are the Agni series missiles stored during peacetime?

When can we expect to see a fully operational SSBN of Indian Navy with 12 intercontinental ranged SLBMs on active deterrent patrol?

Anonymous said...

The biggest hurdle to 2018, is who is prepared to take casualties? and Foot the bill?
Do you think Mr Trump will do that for us?

I personally think we will have to buildup capabilities to do it ourselves. Do you think we can build up our capabilities that fast?


Anonymous said...


What do you make of the J-31/FC-31 v2, that has recently flown in China? What are the chances that it will actually enter service? Is this their equivalent of F-35?


Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To RISHI: And how will the enemy know the precise time of an impending attack? If the 2 out of 4 failures of Nirbhay’s test-flights are due to the reservation system, then you will also have to concede the 2 other test-firings that were moderate successes were also due to the very same reservation system. Why can’t OFB design sniper rifles? Of course it can & it has. One of them was shown at DEFEXPO 2016. As for logical continuation processes, it is a consequence of the application of common-sense. If common-sense isn’t applied, then everything else fails. Now take the instance of the Rs.3,600 crore monstrosity due to come up 4km off Marine Drive, Mumbaim in a state that is severely debt-ridden! Here’s a depiction of that monstrosity:

In India it is all about symbolism & mind-games when it comes to paying lip-service to India's maritime history & heritage. Had common-sense prevailed, then a statue of Admiral Kanhoji Angre been built, & not that of Shivaji. And with this kind of money allocated, an entire artifial island could have been been through reclaiming, just as China has done on Changxing Island off Shanghai. And on that island a deep-water port could have been built somewhere near Ratnagiri or off Uran. This would have been the real game-changer for a country with not a single deep-water port along her vast coastline.

Instead, we just keep harping about India's rich maritime heritage & yet not a single memorial worth its name has been built anywhere along India's coastline be it in the Coromandel coast, the Malabar coast or off Odisha. Nor has any ancient shipwreck of Indian make ever been salvaged & restored to its original glory for display in any museum. Contrast this with what the Europeans, Americans & Russians have done in this matter. Indians, it seems, are contented only with publishing coffeetable books on such issues & that's as far as matters go. Not a single academic chair exists in the name of any of India's legendary naval commanders, be they from ancient Kalinga, or ancient Chola dynasties, the Zamorins, or the Vijayanagara empire or the Maratha empire. You are more than welcome to try to reverse such prevailing insanities & you have my very best wishes.

To RAD, RAJESH MISHRA, VIJAY & LACHIT: VMT, but it will wrong to write off this entire project as a failure, since 2 out of 4 test-flights have been successful so far. Hence, this is obviously a case of failure of industrial QCs on the part of some industrial vendors & rest assured that the deficiencies will be correctly identified & overcome. Had ISRO given up after the failure of the Russia-supplied cryogenic engines, then there would have been no GSLV Mk.3 existing today.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To RAD: If you examine the slide above showing the quad-pack arrangement for carrying underslung SAAWs, then you will notice that the SAAW has a rear rocket booster section that is not seen in slides showing the Spice-250. Boosters are reqd for SAAW because that PGM will have to be launched by low-flying aircraft resorting to terrain-masking in the opening hours of an air war. This in turn means the SAAW will have to boosted up to a certain altitude before its gliding phase commences.

To BHOUTIK: Because the Klub was originally developed to have a range of up to 3,000km, which was what the Kalibre version of the Klub possesses. The small gas turbine engines being developed by HAL & GTRE are meant for use by UAVs. Turbofans for LACMs are extremely low-cost ones since they will be used only once in their lifetime.

To VIKRAM GUHA: VMT. 1) Redundancy here means the GPS receiver can receive Py-code precision coordinates from both IRNSS & Glonass constellations of GPS satellites. 2) The GPS receiver. 3) Not in-house. They came from Israel, just like the IAI/TAMAM-supplied RLG-INS. 4) Re-engineering of the Novator-supplied has been successful, as demonstrated by the 2 successful test-flights out of the 4 conducted so far. The problem is industrial vendor-related & concerns the lack of maintenance of consistent QCs on the Indian industrial vendor’s part.

To RAMAN: VMT indeed!

To RON: To presume that just 1 surgical strike will stop all cross-LoC incidents is INFANTILE.

To SAMAR: VMT, but those are rumours. 2 out of 4 test-flights to date have been successful.

To SANJAY SHARMA: 1) That’s only after assuming that the DF-21s & DF-26s have terminal seekers for pinpoint strikes. In reality, such seekers don’t exist & the DF-21Ds & DF-26s have only EMP-generating warheads. 2) China’s nuclear WMD arsenal is meant to counter those of the US & Russia. India’s arsenal does not have to follow suit. 3) No SLBMs or SLCMs on board S-73/Arihant so far. 4) MF-STAR is APAR, & is therefore a generation of the SPY-1 PESA radars used by the US Navy & Spanish Navy & Japan’s MSDF. 5) China does not possess any AEGIS-type combat management system. 6) Range won’t exceed 290km & the speed is supersonic, not hypersonic. 7) It was all explained last year in a previous thread.

To DAILY OBSERVER: 1) Closer to 7,500km, depending on trajectory shaping. 2) 3 MIRVs will be on board. No MIRV prototype has been built so far inside India. 3) Within undisclosed mountains, ravines & forests. 4) Only late in the following decade.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

Excellent interview of Ben Rhodes, US Deputy NSA for Strategic Communications:

Varunn said...

Sir, why didnt Indian forces go beyond Turtuk and captured all of Baltistan when it was there for the taking?

Sanjay Sharma said...

Dear Prasun, thank you for your replies.

1) You mentioned that df 21 are armed with EMP warheads. What kind of damage would it do to an air base or naval base if attacked?
Would it put the entire base out of action or just fry the ground Radars?
How soon will it be before we can repair the airbase and get our planes in the air?

2) The Chinese claim that their df21 is a "carrier killer". Does that not mean they may have developed high accurate terminal seekers for increased accuracy?

3) Our planes were kept in concrete bunkers in 1971 war helping us to survive op chengiz khan by pak. Are our air bases equipped with such bunkers today that can withstand an enemy air force first strike?

4) Your thoughts on our successful A5 test today? When will the A5 be fully operational with SFC?

sbm said...

The comments you've made in response to questions on this thread are absolutely invaluable.

If I might ask, what steps has India taken to protect things like combat aircraft, munitions stockpiles and nuclear delivery systems/ C4I and air defence systems against CBRN strike - including EMP?

Of course I accept that it can't be perfect, but surely something has been done even if much more needs to happen.

Any guidance much appreciated.

sbm said...

On Nirbhay, which two tests would you deem successful? I can see the 2nd test as partly so as there were reports that it did not keep to its planned low altitude.

Anonymous said...

The report to the Senate standing committee on water and Power of Pakistan made it clear that India is not the reason for Pakistan’s water woes. Instead of focusing on blaming India, Pakistan should better formulate its policies to manage the water crisis which has the potential of virtually ruining its economy and overall peace in the region.

ur views?


Rushil Anand said...

I am really glad you share these relevant videos and new article and hope you don't stop with them. Do you think that there is any particular book(s),magazine(s), articles and/ or video(s) related to IR and Military tech you would suggest to your readers to read/watch?

Rushil anand said...

Why do you think that Army superseded two senior commanders to appoint General Bipin Rawat? Is it because of his experience in CT ops?

rad said...

hi prasun
will it not be feasible to put a emp wharhead on a lakshya drone .?. It would be cheaper, as after the sortie we can command it to came back and thus reuse it .It would also prevent the tech from falling in to enemy hands .?
Is there money and tech resource to have a many aircraft lines to assemble the single engine fighter to be procured when we have assembly lines for LCA, alh, LCH, ka 226 etc?.
why do these fools keep issuing and cancelling the procurement of wepaons for special ops.Why can t we let the special ops guys choose and select the weapon of their own choice
You mentioned OFB was making sniper rifles, what do they make apart from the old dragunov and denel t-20?
will Pak have the money to by the chinese version of the f-35. The things are going china is also ruining the economy of pak by making it buy big ticket weapons like the submarine order etc.

Anonymous said...

The Centre’s proposal to set up a single, permanent tribunal, subsuming all existing ad hoc tribunals, to adjudicate on inter-state river water disputes could be a major step towards streamlining the dispute redressal mechanism. Will it be able to address the different kinds of problemsthat plague the overall framework?


Anup said...

Russia don't have VTOL (F-35) like aircraft or they are not interested to develop may I know why?

bhoutik said...

---- the link above points to a report that claims that the Agni-V missile splashed down close to kangaroo waters. is it accurate?

Arpit Kanodia said...


I dont know how much this is true, but there are some reporting that a USAF RC-135 S was flying near indian waters when Agni 5 was test fired.

Your opinion on this?

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To ABS: Here are my observations on you outstanding queries:

1) Thje future war will be a limited campaign as far as India is concerned, i.e. the liberation of Gilgit-Baltistan. There will be other greater powers like the US, UK, France etc etc that would be waging military campaigns aimed exclkusively at achieving denuclearisation of Pakistan, Therefore, to put all eggs in India’s baseket will be a fallacy. 2) Presently, only 1 satellite—Polaris-1/TechSAR/RISAT-2—is dedicated for military recce. Operating a fleet of dedicated military recon or comms satellites won’t be possible until the creation of a tri-services Space Command. 3) The bulk of the US$900 million aid will be spent on spares support of existijg military hardware & purchases of internal security-related hardware. No new types of military hardware will be propcured from the US and instead China will be the principal provider of military hardware in almost all categories. 4) That will tantamount to putting the cart before the horse. That’s because jointness is an operating philosophy that should be allowed to permeate through all military institutions. And that can happen ONLY AFTER the conduct of a strategic defence review that identifies what India’s core interests & objectives are & consequently policy directives are framed & it is based on these directives that the optimum military strategy will have to evolve. This entire process hasn’t happened. Instead, only a simple policy directive has been issued & that is: liberate Gilgit-B altistan at all costs. Consequently, the MEA has been the requisite adjustments & is thus now raising the issue of Balochistan’s accession to Pakistan in response to Pakistan’s rejection of the Instrument of Accession of October 25, 1947 that was inked between India & the princely state of J & K. The armed forces on the other hand are modernising based on the premise of launching limited offensive military campaigns aimed at liberating GB. But all this is being done without jointness. Tru tri-services cooperation & joint operations will be possible only when the existing academic institutions like the respective colleges of warfare are UNIFIED into a single joint warfighting institution, & the various warfighting simulation centres are merged into a national warfighting simulation centre comprising cells of all 3 armed services under a single roof. Only out of these will emerge concepts for unified/integrated theatre commands & areas of responsibility. Hence, unless all this happens, and they certainly won’t happen by 2018, then India has no choice but to be part of a larger multinational gameplan (i.e. de-nuclearisation of Pakistan)drawn up by the bigger world powers & which will be enacted at the same time as the campaign to liberate GB. For this to be achieved, India will have to offer its military bases for members of such a coalition & this is where pacts like LEMOA come into play.

To RAD: Rest assured that the VLRAAM referred to by Chinese internet fanboys is not a VLRAAM by any stretch of imagination, but merely a new-generation BVRAAM meant for use b y the J-20.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To SUJOY MAJUMDAR: The limited quantitires of sniper rifles reqd (as per the RFI) clearly indicates that the reqmt is only a single theatre command, i.e. Northern Command.

To BHAV: Afghanistan is already procuring military hatdware from India.

To SOUBHAGYA: Now that S P Tyagi has obtained bail, it is evident that the CBI still hasn’t been able to obtain any kind of clinching evidence about any money trail inking Tyagi to the AW-101 deal. In fact, only 32,000 of the 2 lakh pages of documentation obtained from Italy have been translated into English so far. The CBI therefore clearly displayed its professional ineptitude once again. Furthermore, in order to establish the conduct of any crime, the motive has always got to be established. This will always be impossible to establish in case of the AW-101 because the 3-engined AW-101 was the best product offered when compared to all its 2-engined competitors. Hence, one has yet to come across a case when bribes have been paid for selecting the best offer on the table. Had an inferior product been selected, then bribes would have been given to make an underdog emerge as the final victor.

To AMARDEEP: Of what use is an aircraft carrier when its on-board complement of combat aircraft are not even fully weaponised? Just examine all the recent photos of the J-15s on board the CV-16 Liaoning & you will see them armed either with AAMs & not ASCMs, or ASCMs but no AAMs. Now, what does this tell us all?

To VARUNN: Which year are you referring to? 1971 or 1999?

To SANJAY SHARMA: 1) Any attack with long-range EMP weapons will only temporarily knock-out the RF-based sensors & comms equipment for not more than a few hours. 2) No, China has never claimed so. It is the US led by the RAND Corp that first coined the term ‘carrier-killer’. 3) Wrong again. Concrete shelters never saved the day for the IAF in 1971, but the aircraft dispersal strategy did. 4) How can A-5 become operational when its MIRVs have yet to be flight-tested? A-5 won’t carry unitary warheads with megatonne yields & will therefore have to carry MIRVs. And MIRVs have still to be tested.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To SBM: VMT. 1) That depends very much on the kind of arsenals the adversary has. Strategic nuclear WMDs are never used as counter-force weapons & therefore do not target industrial infrastructure facilities. When used as counter-value weapons against civilian populations, the best defence against them is always a survivable nuclear deterrent, i.e. SLBM on board SSBNs. If TNWs are used against military installations, then their short ranges prevent them from striking targets inside the hinterland. Consequently, if RNWs or EMP weapons are employed against India, then the targets will always be only those installations that are close to a hostile border. Defensive measures reqd to protect oneself from such weapons include building underground installations, achieving overlapping redundancy in early warning sensors, & operating with smaller, dispersed formations on the ground. 2) Both the successful flight-tests of Nirbhay LACM were moderate successes, & not partly successful. At least 4 additional flight-tests are reqd before clearing this LACM for series-production.

To BHOUTIK: Yup, it is very much true.

To ARPIT KANODIA: Not near Indian territorial waters, but more near the telemetry tracking ships of the IN deployed in the IOR & this is to be expected. Any such SIGINT platform can easily operate out of either Diego Garcia or from western Australia.

To ANUP: Because Russia doesn’t operate any platforms like LPHs or LHDs & Russia’s armed forces don’t possess any kind of long-range expeditionary warfare capabilities.

sbm said...

Thanks Prasun. How have India's preparations been wrt the EMP threat realistically faced? Also which two tests of Nirbhay do you say are moderately successful? First and Second ?

Thanks again

Technology, Photograpy and Travel said...

Your words are coming to be true dada


Anonymous said...

Prasun Da,

Would the final Agni V retain the first three stages of the most recently tested version, while replacing the unitary payload with a post-boost vehicle and MIRV ?

When and after how many more tests will Agni V be ready for deployment?


Devopriyo said...

Hi Prasun,

Would appreciate your comments on the Following 3 Articles

1) On LCA Mk2 -

2) On China's response to A5 Test -

3) How True is this report and how will China respond to this ( if True)

Sanjay Sharma said...

Thank you very much for your replies Prasun sir

Varunn said...

I was referring to 1971.

Anonymous said...


I have two questions:

1. Why everyone in the press is so worried about CPEC? My thinking is at most it will put down a first rate infrastructure, with low volume trade to/from China at most.

2. If we do take G&B, could that trigger a wider war? They started a full scale war over Bangladesh in the west.


bhoutik said...

why monitor Agni-V test if India is not considered a threat? do they do the same when the French test? and couldn't the tests have been done unannounced by India to prevent snooping? wouldn't that have been better?

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To TECHNOLOGY, PHOTOGRAPHY & TRAVEL: VMT. Today the outgoing CAS of IAF confirmed that the deal for 56 C-295s for IAF & 6 for ICGS will be a G-to-G deal & will be inked next year. Also, 7 companies are being withdrawn from the MoD's blacklist & the related paperwoprk is now with the Law Ministry. OEMs like OTOBreda, IMI, Rheinmetall & IAI are in the list. Once the de-blacklisting takes place, IMI will resume supplying TCS modules for Pinaka-1 MBRL rockets since the DRDO-replicated clone of the TCS has failed in recent firing trials. All these were clarified at the CAS' press conference today. Wonder why the 'desi' presstitutes aren't reporting it in full.

To BHOUTIK: What's wrong with you? Doesn't a parent monitor what the child does? Such monitoring is routine & universal. How can flight-testing be secret when the missile has to traverse international airspace? NOTAMs have always got to be issued 7 days in advance to keep that corridor of international airspace clear of all air traffic.

Pratap said...


Outgoing Air Chief say IAF needs 200-250 Rafales (or some other medium weight aircraft) to maintain edge over adversaries

Why a tiny country like Qatar with no enemies need a strategic airlifter like C-17 Globemaster? They already have 4 in service. India should request Qatar to spare the 4 they ordered in 2015.

Anonymous said...

What do u think of present UN functioning where power lies within 5 countries?

Brexit was the start,Trump next, Hollande not running, Merkel to fail, LePenn to rise!!!

a lot has happening in international politics what are u views sir?


bhoutik said...

yikes! sorry prasunbhai. apologies for my lack of literacy on these matters. but man, that parent-child analogy...

Pierre Zorin said...

Hi Prasun - not many wished Merry Christmas so here is one belated to you and other readers/contributors.
That new plane AN-132D is it funded by the Saudis? Does this mean Pakistan will have a share of them too when series production starts? Unusual for Saudis to hook up with Ukraine! Saudi Arabia must one day become the world's weaponry museum - they seem to have everything in their shopping cart regardless of whether they need or can have the trained personnel to use them! Would it not have been better if India partnered with Ukraine seeing that plane shares commonality with the An-32 - in fact looks to me a modernised An-32?

Kaustav said...

The silly media speculation about two parallel Mk1A and Mk2 LCA Tejas programs is over the top with articles going around that Mk2 prototypes will be built by 2018-19 and productionised by 2020 simply means that after the manufacture of 20 or 40 LCA Tejas Mk1 with F404 engines the IAF shall have 80 odd LCA Tejas Mk2 with F414 engines, hopefully without a break in production btween the two types. This ties in well with the stated numbers from Government IAF sources of 123 Light Combat Aircraft requirements.

Fanboys are welcome to speculate about Kaveri engined, Uttam AESA equipped stealthy future LCAs as the inability to have even LIFT versions of the LCA speaks volumes about ADE/HAL capabilities nas intentions. After all the HF24 Marut also had a production run of similar 120 odd aircraft.

Kaustav said...


Further to my previous note, HAL does have now the potential to develop the entire range of pilot trainers admittedly 25 years too late what with basic turbo prop trainers, intermediate jet trainers and LIFT versions of the Tejas with indigenoues aero engines if only they can get thir act together and generate orders

rad said...


Was NOTAM issued when we tested the k-4 missile ?. If we did not then what would have been the consequences for us?.
We dont find any articles in the world press talking about the liberation of G&B in Pakistan. You do seem to suggest t hat the free world is hatching a plot to do so . I find it hard to believe as pak will go to any extent to prevent that. ie unless there is a freedom struggle like in Bangladesh.
Pse elucidate the water war going on , can we really screw pakistan with water?.They seem to be shit scared about that , will it not be an excuse for them to bomb the dams with cruise missiles?. Of course there will be war nut pakistan is a failed state and some one might take it into there hands to try something foolish a s they always did in the past and then got kicked in the balls.

Devopriyo said...

Hi Prasun,

Would appreciate your comments on my previous post and also let me know what you think on the following



Satya said...

Prasun, Antonov AN-178 could be a great option for India instead of Ilyushin MTA. What do you think?

Varunn said...

This is outrageous. Why are we procuring 1580 TGS guns from Nexter/Elbit when we have already developed the ATAGS? How does ATAGS compare to Trajan and ATMOS?

abs said...

Quite a staggering set of information. Thanks a lot Prasun da.

Rajesh Mishra said...

Will it be prudence of India if it proceeds to import few of the cruise missiles till the Nirbhay project becomes completely fruitful ??

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To SBM: At the tactical level, there is no evidence as yet to suggest that either China or Pakistan are procuring weapons like SAAW & so the threat from such weapons as such does not exist. Regarding Nirbhay, the answer is yes.

To SATYAKI: Yes. Agni-5 in its fional avatar with MARVs will be available sometime early in the following decade.

To DEVOPRIYO: The LCA Mk.2 as a MRCA is still in the detail design stage & ptototype fabrication won’t begin until late next year. If 3 flying prototypes are available + 1 for structural fatigue-testing, then the flight certification programme will be concluded only by 2-23 at best. A larger airframe, a new-design Cockpit-NG, mission avionics like AESA-MMR & IRST sensor, internal ASPJ suite + MAWS fitments, actuated retractable in-flight refueling probe, OBOGS will all have to be installed, integrated, flkight-tested & certified. The IAF has not yet finalised its reqmts for new-generation lightweight PGMs that are now available. Turning now toHAL’s re-engineered Tejas Mk.1A option, it is confirmed that it won’t have OBOGS or even an internal ASPJ, meaning the EL/L-8222 ASPJ pod will be mounted to the right of the pylon for Litening LDP, which in turn increases drag & coupled with absence of MAWS suite, the Mk.1A will therefore be unable to engage in dogfights & will thus be employed primarily as a battlefield air interdiction platform armed with air-to-ground PGMs & a slightly redesigned cockpit. But the question that arises then is: if Tejas Mk.1A meets the IAF’s revised ASQRs then where’s the need for a LCA Mk.2? If there are no convincing answers forthcoming, it means that the Mk.1A won’t be ordered in bulk if HAL fails to deliver the Mk.1A’s specified performance parameters, & then the only other fallback option is the LCA Mk.2 MRCA. In any case, any Mk.1A platform minus MAWS, internal ASPJ suite & IRST sensor will simply not stand any chance in air combat nowadays. As for ASPJ pods, the universal rule is for 1 pod per 2 aircraft. No air force in the world equips all its combat aircraft with ASPJ pods because when flying in formation, it only takes 1 pod to jam hostile air-defence systems & ASPJ pods are therefore never used for protecting solitary platforms, but rather an entire attacking formation. Therefore, to assume that an ASPJ pod is a substitute for an internal ASPJ suite is a total fallacy. For, even combat aircraft with internal ASPJ suites (meant for countering radar-guided BVRAAMs) are reqd to carry escort EW jammer pods for neutralising ground-based air-defence networks.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To VARUNN: Because in 1971 it was the USSR that had insisted that the IA adopt a ‘holding’ approach along India’s western front. This was because the USSR did not want the PLA to mobilise in strength so as to militarily intervene in Pakistan’s favour & that’s because the Soviet Red Army’s OP-PLAN then was to attack & capture Xinjiang had the PLA attacked India along the McMahon Line to the east. Earlier by mid-August 1971 the Red Army had mobilised 16 Motorised Rifle Divisions through Mongolia against China’s Inner Mongolia in order to keep the PLA guessing. The USSR’s Red Army’s plan then was to create a feint along Inner Mongolia while the main offensive would be launched from Soviet Central Asia against Xinjiang. Consequently, duen to all this, the IA HQ instructed the then XC Corps GOC Lt Gen Sartaj Singh to hold back all plans for capturing Khapalu & Skardu. Once the war began on November 21 near Tripura, the Indians quietly told the US that the IA had no plans for staging huge ground offensives inside West Pakistan & that in turn mollified the US Joint Chiefs of Staff & they along with Dr Henry Kissinger in turn prevailed upon President Nixon to refrain from taking any military action against India. Thus, while the USN’s 7th Fleet was ordered to go southwest from the South China Sea, all it did eventually was to just enter the Andaman Sea from the Lalacca Strait & then immediately turn southwest & head toward Trincomalee.

To CHRISTOPHER: 1) Everyone’s worried because they all understand the unviability of CPEC & they also know that CPEC is being used as a figleaf by both China & Pakistan for an altogether ulterior motive, i.e. thye operationalisation of Pakistan’s survivable sea-based nuclear deterrent. 2) There never was any full-scale war in the west in 1971, as I’ve explained above. Had it been so, then the IAF by Day 4 of the ear woul;d have transferred 4 of its 6 combat aircraft squadrons from the North East after achieving air suporemacy over East Pakistan within 48 hours. As for a wider war, of course it will be so but not just with India, but with a multinational coalition that will then be reqd to de-nuclearise Pakistan by military means.

To BHOUTIK: LoLz! Anyone who wants to remain as the No.1 superpower can never take any chances with anyone & will therefore be reqd to snoop more on its friends than on its enemies. That’s one of the fundamental covenants of Arthashastra.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To PRATAP: That’s because today it is all about geo-economics & not territorial geo-strategy. Even a small country with vast economic resources can apply tremendous amount of ‘soft power’ by becoming a member of multinational military coalitions. Countries like Qatar, UAE & Singapore fall into this category.

To PIERRE ZORIN: VMT & the very same to you & all your loved ones. In Saudi Arabia there are always 2 parallel military hardware procurement channels/practices for two distinct end-users. One is for the regular Saudi armed forces & the other is for the Saudi National Guards. The An-132D is a rugged workhorse capable of operating over harsh conditions & it can therefore be employed in areas like Yemen & other trouble-spots where the Saudis have outsourced their proxy wars to mercenaries. Between the An-132D & C-295. I will prefer the former primarily on cost grounds & its far lower direct operating costs.

To KAUSTAV: HAL is still years away from developing a credible turbofan,k be it for military aircraft or a civilian regional commuter. If a country like Japan has taken such a long time to develop turbofans & the Chinese have so far failed to develop a single one, one can well imagine how long it will take India to develop a turbofan for aircraft.

To RAD: Before any weapon system is tested in international airspace & international waters, an advance 7-day NOTAM & a notice for a designated maritime exclusion area MUST be mandatorily issued. Tjis is a global rule as per international conventions & no one dare compromise on this issue. Imagine if such a NOTAM was not issued, & an A-5’s multiple stages hurtling down & colliding with Qantas or SIA A380 airliners cruising in that same area! You won’t find any written materials about liberating GB but there are materials concerning the probable de-nuclearisation of Pakistan & any Indian military campaign to retake GB will only be an adjunct to what the world’s powers (excluding China) have in store for Pakistan.

To SATYA: That’s not how I would approach the issue. I will examine the hardware choices from a common-user standpoinbt, i.e. a platform that will be procured in large numbers for civilian commuter transport & in far lesser numbers for pure military usage. That’s how the MRTA project should have been structured so as to make it affordable & create economies of scale & also ensure a profitable local industrial eco-system. What is instead happening today is the tail wagging the dog! And this is all due solely to the non-application of common-sense. Hence, while NaMo talks about ‘smart’ policing, he fails to get the foundations right first, i.e. scrapping the Police Act of 1861 & enacting new legislation. It is all splendidly explained in this discussion:

And if the foundations are not set right, then everything built upon it becomes a sterling disaster like this:

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To VARUNN: Wrong question. What should instead be asked is: why procure towed howitzers & their tow-trucks when MGS like the Caesar are available in which the howitzer is truck-mounted? Why is the French Army itself ordering more Caesars than towed 155mm/52-cal howitzers? And ATAGS is still another 6 years away at the very least. By external looks, it looks exactly like a re-engineered Dhanush 52 of OFB that was shown at DEFEXPO 2016. It is therefore not an all-new design as is being touted. Only difference is the all-electric drive but that’s nothing revolutionary such drives for turret stabilisation are now standard fitments instead of the earlier electro-hydraulic drives. And where will the AQTAGS be finally assembled & integrated? By all accounts it will at OFB’s Jabalpur facility since TATA & KALYANI are only producing sub-systems & it is the ARDE that is doing all the systems integration work while all the vectronics has come from BEL (i.e. the same package that has been developed for the Dhanush-45 & Dhanush-52).

To ABS: VMT. Here’s an incisive analysis on why Pakistan will never be able to eradicate terrorism & extremism from its DNA:

And here’s another one on Pakistan’s Mounting Debts:

66% of that country’s annual revenues are spent back on only debt-servicing. And due to the lack of winter rains, Pakistan’s two water reservoirs at Mangla & Tarbela are on the verge of running dry. This in turn will create water scarcity for the winter Rabi crop & farmers will be hard-hit & this in turn will create greater unemployment & restlessness among the lower-class populace & this distraught lot will have no other option then but to turn to religiosity for quick solutions & the brainwashing will then begin. The country’s ruling civilian elites & the military will find it impossible to control all this & hence a growing number of such brainwashed folks will join proscribed/banned entities like ISIS/LeT/JuD/LeJ/JeM in search of salvation. And once the snows start melting in J & K, expect all these barbarians to be deployed at their infiltration launch-pads. So, from March 2017 onwards, the LoC & the IB along Jammu will heat up like never before as will the Durand Line to the west. If the Govt of India is then smart, it will seize this opportunity to launch a ‘coldstarted’ armoured/mechanised thrust in order to permanently annex the Chicken’s Neck area & use the Munawar Tawi River alongside Chammb as a natural defence line. India’s line of thinking must be: if Pakistan is incapable of ensuring the writ of law on its territories in the Ravi-Chenab Corridor, then that country has no moral & legal right to exercise sovereignty over such territories. This probably will be the principal precursor to the eventual campaign aimed at retaking GB. This perhaps explains the MoD’s decision last week to order 1,500 sets of CBRN detection kits for fitment to BMP-2K ICVs—enough to equip 3 mechanised brigades of the IA. This is also a signal being sent to Pakistan (about calling Pakistan’s TNW bluff) & hence the public disclosure by the MoD about such an order being placed.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

Short video on the IN's submarine arm:

Good views of the interior of SSKs & SSGN.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To BUDDHA & SENTHIL KUMAR: Interesting analytics:

Remote-viewing Great Pyramid of Giza

Remote-viewing Atlantis:

To RAJESH MISHRA: No need for that. Matters are being sorted out & there's no need to panic.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

Trade Routes of Indian Ocean Region:

Pierre Zorin said...

Those who missed or didn't know about here are links that will give you an insight into defence tech available today:;;
make in India could have many of these companies building stuff....
One point to note: of all the weaponry - one very old platform still remains undisputable - gorgeous women! especially in the midst of middle age blokes all around some of the shapely women in the background just stand out even without any IR vision :)LoL

Manu Singh said...


1. What is the difference between the roles of the Mounted Gun System (Ceaser/Archer/ATHOS etc) and Self Propelled Wheeled Artillery ? Their roles seem fudgy and items available even rare.Moreover, which guns are competing in the both tenders in India?

2. ACM Raha mentioned that AN-32 was risky as it flew at a lower altitude while CN-295 was better for flying people to Andamans because of its higher cruise altitude. However, specification based altitude flight limit of AN-32 is more than CN-295. Its 9500 meter vs 9100 meter so his statement is contradictory. Can you clarify please?

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To MANU SINGH: 1) The wheeled SP reqmt arose only briefly because of a deputy chief of Army staff in 1999 Lt gen Shamsher Metha who in the midst of OP Vijay in 1999 had the ludicrous idea of importing surplus stock G-6s from South Africa. This proposal then got stuck within Army HQ fopr all the wrong reasons & only after the Army's own internal examination of the conduct of OP Vijay was concluded did the Army realise that for both plains-based & mountain warfare the MGS or truck-mounted 155mm/52-cal howitzer was the best option. But it took at least another 10 years for Army HQ to junk the outrageous wheeled SP howitzer reqmt & instead merge it into a MGS reqmt that calls for a truck-mounted howitzer. But when it comes to standardisation, i.e. going for an all MGS fleet of howitzers instead of having a mixed bag of towed & motorised MGS howitzers, this won't be possible unless & until a strategic defence review reveals the need for appropriate & mission-critical war directives aimed at combatting the entire spectrum of conventional warfare. Only after all these exercises are conducted will it become crystal-clear that the way ahead lies in ALL-ARMS manoeuvre warfare, i.e. field artillery too will have to be highly manoeuvreable both strategically & tactically.

2) If ACM Raha said, it, then he's factually wrong. For, the fact remains that SATCOM-based emergency locator beacons were NEVER installed on the An-32Bs. Such beacons are nowadays installed even on general aviation twin-seaters & it should baffle everyone why such critical life-saving avionics are not installed on workshorses like the An-32Bs. But one should not be surprised, for the IAF began introducing into service the combat pilot's emergency personal locator beacons for aiding CSAR operations only by the mid-1990s even when such systems were available from the 1970s itself.

rad said...

hi prsun
I do remember that SAAb has a pylon that has a MAW and dispenser as well.It can be used for mounting a missile as well.As we have chosen the derby and python 5 it would easily be feasible to mount western missile on it.I Think that would solve the problem of MAWS which by all means is imperative.

Anup said...


IAF reject Russian Il-78MKI offer.

Its' true?

Aloquik said...

Sirji you say that stop seeing chinese as 9 eet tall but how did they manage to defeat US in NK in 1958 when they were ill equiped as compared to US ?

Varunn said...

sir, what are these 2 devices on this soldier's right chest ?

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To RAD: The best location for installing MAWS (only 2 units) on the LCA is rearwards, i.e. somewhere near the vertical tailfin root. This option will prevent aerodynamic drag as it will be a conformal fitment.

To ANUP: LoLz! ACM Raha NEVER stated anywhere that more IL078MKIs will not be procured. All he had stated was that there were maintenance-related problems with the IL078MKIs. He never went any deeper into the subject. In fact, all 6 IL-78MKIs are due for their scheduled mid-life updates.

To ALOQUIK: If the US was defeated by DPRK in the 1950s, then how come the UN Command is still there guarding the 38th Parallel & how come the UN military forces were never driven out of the Korean peninsula?

To VARUNN: Standby charged batteries for the Motorola wireless radio on the left.

Anonymous said...

ur views


rad said...

Hi prasun
it seems ARDE has developed an ejector seat and it has been proven in a mig 21 ejection where bot the the crew men were safe ??? I did not know we had started making ejection seats??? Is the claim true?.
Notice the garish paint scheme on the htt-40 ???

Aloquik said...

Sir online chinese bot community says that their soldier droveUS out of DPRK and their soldiers are hence superior(lolz) to US ...

Anonymous said...

So PRC finally blocked India's move. Sir what are the options available to India to retaliate rather than just mere statements. Could something be done which might bring some pain to these Commies.

Anonymous said...

Sir as PRC is brazen in support of Pakistan it seems it might do atleast something to prevent this multinational effort if denuclearisation of Pakistan.As it took on the UN at Korea.
This might have vad consequences for their export based economy, but it might follow the Russian example in Ukraine when it invaded Ukraine even after knowing it clearly this will ruin their economy.
Waiting for your answers

Anonymous said...

Will India take back only Gilgit Baltistan or Gilgit Baltistan as well as Muzaffarabad.

Manu Singh said...


Thanks very much for your crystal clear response.

Wish you and your family a great and memorable HAPPY NEW YEAR. Have fun and be the always !

Pratap said...

As per TOI report U.S is offering joint development of futuristic helicopters and FCIV project in which Israel could also be included. What kind of helicopters is US developing under FVL project. And what can you tell about US army's future Infantry combat vehicle. I think India should grab the FICV offer without wasting any time.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To PRATAP: LoLz! Looks like Trump & Co have taken serious note of what I had earlier outlined here:

For starters, this should be the takeoff point: For radically improving the LUH’s hot-and-high operating parameters and enhancing flight safety, an option that could well be utilised in future under the auspices of the US-India Defence Trade and Technology Initiative (DTTI), under which HAL will be required to form an industrial partnership with US-based AVX Aircraft Company for incorporating the latter’s patented modification kit into the LUH’s airframe. With its unique blend of co-axial rotors and dual ducted-fans, the AVX kit offers greater aerodynamic and fuel efficiency, speed, range, payload, improved hover-out-of-ground effect (HOGE), and the ability to operate in hotter temperatures and at higher altitudes than any of today’s conventional light helicopters. It also reduces brown-out conditions in the landing configuration since, thanks to the ducted-fans, the helicopter can use a 5-degree nose-down or even-level approach to the landing zone. This increases flight safety by giving the pilot a greatly improved view of the landing zone.

Am glad that at least someone has read the writing on the wall that is referred to above concerning the LUH & if such common-sensical decisions are made, then that will fetch huge technological & financial rewards for India.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

SELEX LINAPS Digital Gun Management System (DGMS) using the FIN3110 inertial navigation unit (INU).

SUVO said...

A report by the Federation of Pakistan Chambers of Commerce and Industry (FPCCI) has noted that at the current rate of influx of Chinese nationals into Balochistan and after completion of the China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), the native population of the area will be outnumbered by 2048.

lachit said...


(except porkies , sickularists , presstitudes , jihadis congis apptards jihadididi may they have a rotten year and all the ill luck) LOLZZZZ

The Engdoc Society said...

I have gone through videos of farsight institute related to remote viewing.
Is it for real?
How can possibly they do it?
I wonder Indian RAW or military ever employs such means.

buddha said...

Happy new year sir...wish you all the best

Rajesh Mishra said...

Happy New Year to all of You.

Siddharth said...

Happy new year Dada, and to all fellow Indian Brothers, Sisters and Comrades.

Arh93 said...

Happy new year Prasun'da. Wish you all the best. May it brings lot of happines and prosperity to all.

Gopu said...

Happy new year to all.

Good news that the blacklist will be lifted sometime soon.

As of today, is Saudi Arabia in possession of three Agni-3 MRBMs?

Ved said...

Happy New Year Prasun and all members.

SUVO said...


Kambar said...

1) Since the C-17s are all sold out, should we go for the A-400M? Why are there no jumbo turbo-prop jets like the A-400M that are for civilian passenger and cargo markets?

2) Is the MTA project dead? I thought MTA was about boosting our civilian-military aviation infrastructure, but now we would just be importing Il-214 planes. How should MoD proceed? Buying more C-130Js and then scrapping the MTA project?

3) Is it true that Avros are not used as workhorses but rather ferry officers on joy rides? If so, why should they be replaced? The recently upgraded An-32 fleet will last for a long time as it is.

4) Respectfully contrary to your opinion, ATAGS seems like a good project. OFB cannot produce in quantity with adequate quality, so it is a good idea that OFB is delegating sub-systems to other firms. OFB will have trouble making more than 12 howitzers alone per annum, while we need around 60-100 new howitzers per annum. This can only be done with two production lines or if OFB does only final assembly.

5) Will DRDO partner with Ashok Leyland to make an MGS ATAGS system? An indigenous MGS should be very possible to make, so there is no reason for import abroad. Its as ridiculous Lt. Generals Shamsher Mehta's plan to import SP howitzers. Also the tracked howitzer idea is ridiculous. The cost of the K-9 is 300% the cost of an MGS. Next army will want rail-based howitzers and dedicated gunships with chin-mounted howitzers.

6) If Finmechanica is not going off the blacklist, does this imply that Finmechanica is guilty in the MoD's eyes?

7) Is the FICV project dead? What happened to the Abhay ICV and the Kestrel APC? Is the Army happy with the BMP-2 for the current requirements? I read somewhere that the BMP-2 has several armour weaknesses including near the main fuel tank and have heard first-hand reports of poor crew ergonomics from people on those machines.

Anup said...

Sir, Happy new year

Akhil said...

Hello respected prasun ji, very very happy new year to you and your family. Regards and greetings.

Vikram Guha said...


Wishing you success,happiness & prosperity throughout 2017

rad said...

HI prasun
what make are the vectronincs that are going to be put on the dhanush and atags ?Is it as good as the selex LINAPS?.Are they good enough like the linaps?.
can these be tied into a battle management system where in automatic fire solution can be input from the counter battery radar?
You had mentioned that the drdo failed in reverse engineering the the TCS for pinaka ,you have also shown pics of the mbda TCS system in collaboration with alpha design. Has there been a collaboration? what has come of it. How is it better than that of israel. How do these things work, gps?.
HAs the deal with AVX BEEN DONE?
WHAT would be the main advantage of having a future MTA against a cheap proven an-132d? apart from more pilots needed?

financeblogger said...

Request your opinion on the above article.

SKINS said...

Happy new year everyone

Sanjay Sharma said...

Happy new year Prasunji

financeblogger said...

In the above video, Hamid Bashani stating India should join CPEC and explaining the pros and cons which is a paradigm shift for the entire region

Request your opinion on the same.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To ALL WELLWISHERS ABOVE: Very best wishes to you & all your loved ones for a productive & positive 2017. It would do us all to recall the last dialogue in the Bollyowood movie MANJHI, in which Dashrath Manjhi says: Bhagwan pe bharose par mat baithain raho, kay pata bhagwan khud hum per bharose kar ke baithaa hai (don't just sit tight by entrusting everything into the Almighty's hands, for it may well be that the Almighty has already entrusted everything--hardwsare, software & user manuals--into our hands & heads).

To FINANCEBLOGGER: For those who understand, CPEC is nothing but a chimera for converting a targetted country into a vassal state by annhilating its local manufacturing sector & making the country a dumping ground for cheap & unreliable Chinese products & services. The Sri Lankans have already gotten sucked into a debt trap as a result of China's grand designs & now it is Pakistan's turn to follow suit.

To RAD: Vectronics for Dhanush & ATAGS are identical & both use the SIGMA-30 RLG-INS from SAGEM/SAFRAN. The overall suite is comparable to that on the M-777. The MBDA terminal guidance kit is not like the TCS but is GPS-based & is therefore far more expensive. The deal with AVX is still being examined & chances of it being taken up are quite good since the PMO had taken notice of my report on this subject sometime in mid-2016.

To GOPU: The Union Law Ministry is expected to clear SELEX ES from the blacklisting process & this in turn will enable Selex ES to bid as well with others for supplying AESA-MMRs for the Tejas Mk.1A as well as for the upgrade of the IN's Ka-28PL & Sea King Mk.42B naval helicopters.