Total Pageviews

Thursday, March 9, 2017

Arjun Mk.2 MBT Now A Firm Reality

Contrary to widespread speculation, the Indian Army (IA) has not forsaken or given up on the Arjun Mk.2 main battle tank (MBT). Instead, for the past four years, the IA’s Directorate General of Mechanised Warfare has been overseeing a collective developmental effort involving the DRDO, and the MoD-owned defence public-sector undertakings and private-sector OEMs that will in the near future result in a fully-loaded 60-tonne MBT armed with a 120mm smoothbore cannon while retaining the existing 1,400hp powerpack.
Under the supervision and guidance of the DRDO’s Avadi-based Combat Vehicles Research & Development Establishment (CVRDE), and with the help of the MoD’s Directorate General of Quality Assurance (DGQA) and the IA’s Corps of Electronics & Mechanical Engineers (EME), a number of key decisions have been to achieve a weight reduction of 8 tonnes in the existing design of the 68-tonne Arjun Mk.1A MBTs, 118 of which are now in delivery. 
For starters, the baseline hull of the Arjun Mk.2 will no longer be built with imported low-carbon, nickel-chromium-molybdenum rolled homogeneous armor (RHA) steel, but with lighter high-nitrogen steel (HNS) whose production technology has been mastered by the DRDO’s Hyderabad-based Defence Metallurgical Research Laboratory (DMRL) and has been transferred to Jindal Stainless Steel Ltd (Hisar). HNS will also be used by TATA Motors Ltd for producing the 83 Kestrel 8 x 8 armoured personnel carriers already on order.   
HNS is produced in a four-step process: primary melting of the steel can carried out in either induction furnace or electric arc furnace by using appropriate raw materials; secondary melting can be carryout in by nitrogen gas-purging in to the metal; under ladle refining, ferro-nitrates are added to molten metal for obtaining final nitrogen content in the alloy if it is required and hot-rolling is carried out in a single heat, without reheating. Minimum percentage of reduction should not be less than 75% of the slab thickness. To be placed in strategic locations in both the hull and turret will be the DRDO-developed ‘Kanchan’ ceramics-based composite laminate armour tiles as well as indigenously-built explosive reactive armour (ERA) tiles developed by the DRDO’s High Energy Materials Research Laboratory (HEMRL) on the front and sides of the hull and turret sections.
To ensure optimal weight budgeting during the production engineering stage, the CVRDE has contracted Dynamatic Technologies Ltd, which specialises in complex, five-axis robotic machining, as well as in converting two-dimension paper blueprints into three-dimension computer model that are more precise, and have tighter tolerances. Digitising the drawings creates a baseline configuration for greater accuracy. This in turn streamlines manufacturing, since conventional manufacturing based on two-dimensional paper blueprints tend to leave tiny gaps between the different components of an assembly that were filled with shims, leading to increased weight. But by digitising blueprints, those tiny gaps can be entirely eliminated during the manufacturing process.
Under another weight-reduction exercise, the CVRDE has contracted the Alicon Group for building all-aluminium road-wheels and ventilators for not only the Arjun Mk.2, but also for the IA’s existing upgraded T-72CIA medium tanks. They will replace the all-steel road-wheels built by Sundaram Industries for the Arjun Mk.1A. Similarly, TATA Power SED has been contracted for producing all-electric turret stabilisation/traverse systems, in place of the existing electro-hydraulic system.  
Improvements have also been made to the 1,400hp powerpack (comprising the MTU 838 Ka-501 diesel engine and RENK’s RK-304S gearbox) through the usage of indigenously developed cooling systems.
However, the area that will see the Arjun Mk.2 emerging as a true new-generation MBT will be vectronics, and in particular the battlespace management system (BMS), which has been designed to operate at the unit-level and below, and which will synthesise the battlespace situational awareness picture for the unit commander, whether it be a mechanised infan­try regiment or an armoured regiment. The MBT and selected infan­trymen will thus become situational awareness platforms. 
This project, which was started only in 2008, has since been pushed at a faster rate as this constitutes the cutting edge of the IA’s theatre-level Command Information Decision Support System (CIDSS) programme that is being run by IA HQ’s Directorate of Information Systems. The Future Infantry Soldier as a System (F-INSAS), which is also a part of the CIDSS project, is being progressed by the IA HQ’s Directorate of Infantry but will be a part of the overall BMS and battlespace surveillance system (BSS) network of the IA.
The BSS and BMS are in turn being integrated by IA HQ’s Directorate of Signals with other components of the fourth-generation Tactical Command, Control, Communications and Information (TAC-C3I) system through the CIDSS channel. Through the BMS and BSS the IA wants to provide a Divisional-level command-and-control system spanning the entire tactical battle area (TBA) spreading across individuals, detachments, combat platforms, sensors, sub-units, units to the Brigade Commander/Regimental Commander; achieve faster reaction capability and flexibility in command and control by providing information automatically in the right place at the right time, thereby compressing the OODA loop; provide a strong foundation for making decisions based on near-real time situational awareness and battlespace transparency, providing consistent and well-structured information, thereby enhancing the information handling capability of commanders at all levels; and strengthening information exchange by having a strong messaging and replication mechanism.
The BMS will be a highly mobile and integrated system with high data transmission rates, comprising a tactical hand-held computer with individual soldiers, tactical computers at Battle Group HQ, and armoured vehicles employing application/database servers connected via a data-enabled TAC-C3I communications network, all of which generate a common operational picture of the TBA. The software-defined radio-based communications nets will optimally utilise the bandwidth available for military communications, and will not interfere with the legacy communications hardware. They will be fitted to MBTs, ICVs and APCs and will be scalable to ensure their availability to all elements ranging from man-portable SDRs to high-power SDRs for armoured vehicles.
The original proposed time-lines for implementation of the BMS and BSS were as follows:
Phase-1: Integration of the system, establishment of the testbed lab and field-trials at testbed locations (one Combat Group and three Infantry Battalion Groups) by 2012. However, this timeline was subsequently stalled for two years due to indecision in the delimitation between the BMS and the F-INSAS.
Phase-2: Equipping of all armoured and mechanised infantry formations commencing in 2017.
Phase-3: Upgradation of the system by 2022.
Both the BMS and F-INSAS will make use of a host of digitised GIS-based tools (pertaining to both friendly and enemy territories) that are now available (work on them began in 2009) for the IA’s South-Western, Western and Northern Command HQs and that can be readily uploaded on to any armoured vehicle’s autonomous land navigation system (ALNS) and BMS terminal. Military Geospatial Information System (MGIS) helps in generating terrain trafficability maps, commonly referred to as Going Maps (GM), when data pertaining to five thematic layers, viz., soil, slope, moisture, land use, and landform is fed into the system. It is then integrated to produce the GMs in a three-level hierarchical manner. Terrain Feature Extraction System (TFES) is used for extracting terrain parameters or themes (land-use/land cover, landform, and soil type) from satellite images and associated knowledge base in an automated mode. The land use, landform, and soil layer has 10, 28, and 12 classifications, respectively. For land-use classification, a multi-layer perceptron (MLP) is used for training and subsequent generation of corresponding themes. The landform classification uses a texture-based method for creating a database that is used for training MLP. Terrain Reasoner System (TRS) helps decision-makers (troop commanders, wargamers and mission planners) in a combat development setting for arriving at route alternatives that are largely determined by the threat capability of the obstacles and strategic nature of the regions to be negotiated for a pre-specified mission accomplishment risk factor (MARF). The problem of navigation and route planning of vehicles or troops is defined as the final behavioural outcome of a sequence of complex decisions involving several criteria that are often conflicting and difficult to model. A fuzzy inference system has been built to implement the perceive-reason-act decision cycle of a moving agent representing a vehicle or a foot soldier in a safety-critical tactically driven scenario. Terrain Matching System (TMS) is an intelligent decision-support system based on the integration of CBR and fuzzy multi-criteria decision-making.
The F-INSAS project will be implemented in three phases—Phase-1 includes weapons, body armour, clothing and individual equipment; Phase-2 is the target acquisition system and Phase-3 comprises the computer sub-system, SDR sub-system, and operating software integration. Since the Directorate of Infantry has been developing Phase-3 of F-INSAS on its own, rather than being part of the BMS project, this has amounted to re-inventing the wheel. Instead, what should have been done was to develop Phase-3 of F-INSAS as part of the overall BMS developmental effort.


Srinivasa Nanduri said...

Hi Prasun,

Great piece of information you have shared.

But what happened to the DRDO Cummins 1500 HP engine? Was it discarded due to financial viability reasons?

Also will there be a autoloader version planned in near future?

Srinivasa Nanduri

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

Just when I was wondering why no new scam is being unearthed, my prayers were answered last night. Watch this & have a good laugh:

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To SRINIVASA NANDURI: The option of the new 1,500hp powerpack wasn't taken up because had it been, the acquisition costs would have jumped up. Hence the decision was taken to stick to the existing 1,400hp powerpack since its industrial eco-system already exists in India. The autoloader option has also been dropped in order to minimise weight. Earlier, the option of importing the autoloader from France's Nexter Systems (the same that's used on the LeClerc MBT) was examined. Kirloskar-Cummins will now supply only the 400hp engines for the BMP-2 upgrade project.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

INS Viraat Documentary:

YALLA said...

Hi, what is this sub-system here below?

What is the status of Bharat Pack?

Is DRDO still working on FMBT? A concept was shown --

Any news of the new fsapds? They were trying to achieve 500mm+.


Raman said...

Excellent informative by when do you expect the Arjun Mk 2 to complete it's user trails and what numbers to you expect will be ordered ??

Good to see some 'action' on the Indian Defence effort and participation of the private sector increasing on virtually all fronts.....

Look forward to the 'concluding' part........

asd said...

Dear Prasun,

As usual:

You are truly a perfect human being unlike us(headless chicken)

Anonymous said...


1) When you say we have enough Agni 1/4 for both fronts, hope you do not mean 24 of each type suffice. Much greater numbers would be needed, especially for China.

2) More so given that the deterrent should be upgraded to deter conventional attack by a joint China/Pak force in the middle of internal unrest in the Kashmir valley.


Satya said...

Every tank is given priority in one of these three qualities (firepower, mobility and armomur) at the expense of other two. For example Abram is superior in firepower, Leclerc has better armour, Russian are jack of all trades. Which quality did the Indian army choose? And how does Arjun mk2 compare to American, Israeli and European tanks in these qualities?

Viswashish Jena said...

120 Smoothbore ? are you sure ?

Sarabvir Singh said...

Nice update Prasunda. Eagerly awaiting the "to be concluded" section.

Sarabvir Singh said...

Prasunda, in the first photo showing the details of the tank, it shows 120mm Rifled gun whereas in your post you have mentioned 120mm smoothbore. An error in one of the 2 or was the picture an old one?

Also, if it is a smoothbore gun, thats big news... can we know the name of the gun and other characteristics and details of it?

john said...

Could you please explain the reasons behind the substantial weight difference between T-90 (46T-Wikipedia) and Arjun (60T), accepting that Arjun is longer and wider with better crew protection.

john said...


Earlier IA refused to accept Arjun due to over weight and their main complaints were..

1. Logistics (Moving thru Rail/Trucks ...)
2. Weak Bridges in border areas, fearing bridge collapse....
3. Operating in Mountainous regions...

How are they trying to overcome this ? Or they place a token order and stick with T-90.

Any chance of Arjun replacing T-72s/large orders or will they talk about FMBT (They are searching for upcoming tank features of foreign tank/brochures)

joydeep ghosh said...

@prasun da

really great new, now a question

1. cant the same idea be applied to Arjun Mk1/1A to reduce their weight like Mk2

2. i last thread i asked that if the modification in HELINA/NAG can be done cant the same idea be applied to Pinaka/guided Pinaka/Akash1-2 and other similar systems to boost their lethality

3. below link says india wants full tech transfer for FGFA something Russia may not do this makes my belief stronger that AMCA will transform into FGFA ultimately


Joydeep Ghosh

Ludwig said...

Prasun sir, will Arjun MKII have canisterised ammo or armoured ammo storage, will it sport blowout panels like it's western cousins.

Asmit S. said...

Hi PS!Great article just some off-topic questions:

1.Is our current BMD system capable to take-dawn Pakistani Missiles?

2.Any news on FMBT?

3.In Aero-India,ADA-chief openly said that they will fit Safrenized Kaveri Engine with PV-6 and they will fly in next Aero India show (which is in 2019).So, in previous article,you wrote that MK2 will fly with F414.But if it will fly with F414, what will happen to Kaveri(which I guess will be capable of becoming operational by then according to French).Suppose if the French are able to make it successful before 2019,what will then happen to that engine if F414 is going to be used in MK2?

4.You said that India should go for THAAD,which is endo-atmospheric interceptor.So is our Exo-Atmospheric interceptor(PAD) perfect?

5.What will be in Phase-2 of our BMD program?

6.Are we capable(in present or in near future) to make Ka-band seekers?Which band seeker is currently our limit(means highest or means most advanced)?

Sorry for my bad English.
Thanks in Advance....

Pierre Zorin said... - deadly MK19 auto grenade launcher in action. How come India never buys these? Or do they have already?
What about the SAAB offering? Why not make this in India as well...

Pierre Zorin said... - Russian equivalent but seems to have more fire power. Why is there no Make in India option for such even?

Jyoti Sen said...

Dada. Does Iaf already took delivery of reaper drones? And fielded in Borders? News surfaced on this on newspapers.

Senthil Kumar said...

Dear Prasun,

Last 5 decades west is with Pakistan side. Now suddenly west start complaining that Pakistan is occupying Kashmir and CPEC is illegal.

1. What is the reason for change of mind.
2. Is world vision changed in Kashmir issue favoring India.
3. Till today Pakistanis are dreaming that Kashmir freedom is going to happen and CPEC is a game changer.

What is your view on today's world view about future of Kashmir.

S.Senthil Kumar

Gessler said...

@Pierre Zorin - We already have the AGS-17 Plamya, the Russian equivalent of the Mk.19 AGL.

The Indian said...

What about the protection suite?Is it Trophy or Arena or what?Kestrel has been ordered?For what use?Please throw some light on the Kestrel episode too.Are we using Lahat or a better missile system.Can you also throw some light on the improvements in the instruments or target acquisition systems.Are we manufacturing Catherine systems or even better?What about the ERA tiles Some more details please.What about anti aircraft?

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To YALLA: That houses the IR jammer from ELBIT/El-Op. That is not DRDO’s conceptual FMBT at all. It is just another graphic illustration of the type anyone else can make. FMBT is now merged with the FRCV project. Work is still going on for the 650mm RHA APFSDS penetrator. 600mm penetration was achieved in 2013 itself.

To RAMAN: VMT. All that will be revealed in the concluding part tonight.

To ASD: VMT. There have been several cases of forceful confiscation of land & entire settlements have been forced to relocate without any financial compensation just for the sake of creating security buffer zones for Chinbese vehicles to pass through the roadways in PoK.

To SATYAKI: 1 & 2) In you estimation how many BMs will suffice? 100? 200? Deterrence is a political game based on exact science of yield estimations & the quantum of damage caused. It is not levelling an entire landmass.

To VISWASHISH JENA: Yes. Rifled bore was reqd when HESH rounds were specified for use against dug-in enemy fortifications. Now the IA has opted for thermobaric rounds.

To SARABVIR SINGH: That’s the DRDO for youm which in its hyper-eagerness has labeled the Arjun Mk.1A as the Mk.2. Why should gun barrels have names?

To JOHN: In short, the T-90S & T-72M1 are medium battle tanks. The Arjun is an MBT. As for weight issues, the problem was never with the Arjun, but rather with the bridging infrastructure along the exterior lines of communications in Rajasthan & Punjab/Jammu corridors. MLC-70-class bridges were reqd to be built & this took some time but now the various state govts’ PWDs have done what was expected of them. FMBT is now part of the FRCV project & so the FMBT project per se no longer exists.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To JOYDEEP GHOSH: 1) How can existing Arjun Nk.1s & Mk.1As undergo weight reduction when the weight reduction process begins at the production engineering stage? Or do you want all existing Mk.1s & Mk.1As to be sent to the smelters? Even then how would you convert RHA into HNS? So do try to pause once in a while & think exactly what you’re implying before asking such questions. 2) Again, a thoughtless query. Pinaka-1 rockets will be superceded by Pinaka-2 rockets since both types can be fired from the same launcher. And neither Pinaka nor Akash have had any issues with seeker sensitivity of the type faced by Nag/HELINA. 3) Again, full ToT is NEVER possible & no one in the world does it.

To LUDWIG: Cannisterised ammo storage with blow-out panels in only the turret. In the hull section the ammo stowage is already armoured.

To ASMIT S: 1) VMT, but where exactly is such a ‘desi’ BMD system? Where are its space-based & land-based early warning elements? Where are the command-and-control elements? EL/M-2080 LRTR is not exactly an early warning radar. 2) The only FMBT that is now a firm reality is the Arjun Mk.2. 3) Si9mple: lest’s wait till 2019 & see if any variant of the LCA flies with any kind of Kaveri turbofan. Because if GTRE & ADA can jointly develop a turbofan with the help of SNECMA Moteurs & qualify it on any combat aircraft between 2017 & 2019, then this will be a feat hitherto unmatched by even the world’s foremost aerospace powers. Do you seriously believe that GTRE/ADA will be able to pull this off & make giants like GEAE, P & W, Rolls-Royce, SNECMA, Russia’s United Engines Corp KSC & Japan’s IHI all look like fools for taking decades to qualify state-of-the-art turbofans on combat aircraft? 4) PAD was discarded long ago & the PDV has replaced it in the test-firing regime. If the PDV is so good, then why waste money on the S-400? 5) I have no idea. Maybe the S-400. 6) Ku-band seeker has already been developed for existing applications like Astra-2 BVRAAM & Astra-1’s SAM variant. Work on developing Ka-band seekers is still in progress.

To PIERRE ZORIN: The IA has had AGS-17 Plamya AGLs since the early 1990s & has used them in combination with the 7.62mm MMG with devastating effect along the LoC ever since then.

To JYOTI SEN: Most unlikely.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To SENTHIL KUMAR: That’s simple: all those countries had had opened their doors to Pakistani immigrants are now finding out to their horror that these immigrants & their succeeding generations have continued to live in sectarian ghettos & have never assimilated themselves into mainstream society & have therefore become an unwanted societal liability & a menace to law-enforcement agencies in those countries.

To THE INDIAN: Right now the APS reqmt is not viewed as being urgent. Arena is way too bulky. When the IA decides to go for APS, it will undoubtedly opt for a proven system like the Trophy. Kestrel 7 x 7 APCs have been ordered for a pilot project that will see a Battalion-sized fighting formation being totally digitised & containing elements of the BSS, BMS, F-INSAS & TAC3G networks & all their relevant new-generation lightweight & software-defined vectronics. LAHAT cannot be used by rifled-bore cannons. Hence the CLGM has been developed & this very CLGM will also be usable by 120mm smoothbore cannons. There are no changes to the DFCS & related sensors—they stay the same as those of Arjun Mk.1A. Thermal imaging sensors are from SAFRAN’s SAGEM subsidiary & use all the elements found in the SAVAN-15 DFCS (the Al Khalid MBT uses the same). Catherine from THALES is only on the T-90S. ERA tillers are locally developed ones, replacing the ones imported from Russia for the Arjun Mk.1A.

Asmit S. said...

Hello PS!

1.Actually there was news recently that CSL is on the edge of completion of Naval SHip which could track incoming Missiles.Suppose if early warning systems gets deployed, is AAD/PDV capable of intercepting Pakis. Missiles?

2.Although you are true on that quality stuff on Kaveri,but let's suppose that it comes-out to be satisfactory to IAF.And it also meets all the requirements.So in that case,what will happen it if ADA already bought F414 as you mentioned previously?

Link for Question 1's reference:

Thanks in Advance........

joydeep ghosh said...

@prasun da

i think i couldnt frame my querry well

1. regarding the Arjun mk1/1a what i meant was actually new wheels and belts that have cut down the weight of mk2 by 1 ton, cant those be added in the former

2. the reason i asked about Akash was bcoz the SAM was earlier known to have some problem in hitting targets and even now reportedly its hit ratio is 8/10

3. why does navy want to replace the Barak 1 SAM


Joydeep Ghosh

AVIRAL said...

Prasun Da
1) Is DRDO trying to establish its own commercial Unit just like Antrix of ISRO?
2) Today in a reply of NoD to Parliamentary committee on defence said that they have pulled the plug on HAL's IKR project. It also said that HAL is trying to convert Kiran aircraft with new engine and avionics.

3) Which assault rifle do you think the army will use to replace INSAS??

4) We lost 3 army men to Pakistani sniper last year..Which sniper rifle will replace current Russian SVDs??

5) What is Anamika Carbine and will it replace Sterling sub machine gun and what is the status of JVPC.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To ASMIT S: 1) Did you see the dateline of that story? It is of 2015 vintage, so it’s not recent at all. Secondly, it is becoming increasinbgly clear that more reliance is being placed on Alice in Wonderland-type OS for X-Box/Playstation than for the laws of physics in asking such questions, a trend that I find extremely worrying. For example, since Pakistan’s BM launch-sutes are in central Punjab or Baltistan, then how the hell will any naval vessel-mounted BMEW radar produce the optimal results? Instead, won’t a static site located in the hills of Himachal Pradesh or even in Dehra Dun provide far better results?

Your second question seems to be directly inspired by a story (written by a moron) that appears here:

This moron is only now finding the time to go through FORCE’s interview of Dr S Christopher that was published last month. Furthernore, Dr Christopher ain’t a licenced aeronautical engineer & therefore can’t be a mature commentator on aircraft-related aviation matters. And you of all else must bear in mind that physical sciences are absolute sciences & there’s no room for suppositions or maybes or ifs or buts. So, kindly show me any 1 example from any corner of this world where this technological feat that you crave for has been accomplished. If not, then you will have to admit that all this talk about an airworthy Kaveri rising like a phoenix is total baloney that defies all known laws of the physical sciences. If you still reckon that SNECMA will provide a magical wand to GTRE for transforming Kaveri or an Alladin’s magic lamp supplied by SNECMA will usher in the desired results, then I can’t argue against such thoughts & perhaps Dr Christopher himself will be able to provide some illumination to you.

And lastly, here are 2 pointers for those morons who write stories of the type weblinked above: Firstly, no one test-flies a brand-new engine on a brand-new aircraft. Any airworthy version of Kaveri will first have to be flown on an airborne testbed, followed by certification-related flights on a proven twin-engined airframe purely for flight safety reasons. And GTRE has already secured a commitment from the Russians for leasing a MiG-29 testbed from Russia’s Gromov Flight Test Research Institute. This was confirmed by GTRE itself & I had even uploaded this interview in a previous thread. Secondly, whenever a whining noise emerges from either a turbofan or even your table-top fan or ceiling fan, it’s because of only 1 reason: lack of lubrication in areas where ball-bearings are housed. Maybe Dr Christopher needs to refresh his school-going physics lessons before making such on-the-record remarks that only portray India as the world’s laughing stock.

Rajesh Mishra said...

Very good article that was long awaited.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To JOYDEEP GHOSH: 1) Those lesser enhancements will be carried out only during the projected mid-life upgrades of those MBTs that have already been produced. 2) Those problems had nothing to do with the fire-control systems’s design. They were due to QC problems at the shopfloor-level that have since been ironed out. 3) Because those SAMs are nearing the end of their total technical service lives. Hence only the missile rounds need replacement. The fire-control system will stay the same.

To AVIRAL: 1) LoLz! That proposal was mooted way back in 2001 itself! And nor will the appointment of BrahMos Aerospace as the marketing arm solve the problems. What is reqd is a full-spectrum marketing company that will function as DRDO Inc & will include engineering/marketing liaison representatives from the various OEMs that are building such products, & should also include serving service officers on deputation who are the best-placed to present their operational experiences with such marketeable weapon systems to prospective customers. 2) Well, I guess I stand vindicated in the end. For I has been stating since 2009 that all air forces flying BTTs & AJTs don’t require any IJTs. Instead, they require only LIFTs for Stage-3. I can now only presume that the IAF took my dire warnings (about the IAF becoming a gloval embarrassment by acquiring BTTs, IJTs & AJTs but no LIFT) on this issue seriously & that’s why the file on acquiring a few tens of Tejas Mk.1 tandem-seaters has just be re-opened!!! Again that means I can have the last great laugh. 3) GHAATAK SLR made by OFB Ishapore Rifle Factory. And please donl;t ask this question ever again as it will really piss off the likes of PIERRE ZORIN. 4) It will most likely be of US origin. 5) Never seen it. Have seen only JVPC been shown at OFB’s Booth at Aero India 2017.

YALLA said...

Actually, it is a concept by CVRDE shown to uni students. However, this was before the FRCV by IA.


Arjun Flail System

Arjun ARRV

Gehrman said...

Sir, I have a question regarding Yuri Bezmenov, was what he said correct about Russian propaganda in India? And what do you think is the situation now? Is still our elite under the influence of foreign powers?

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To YALLA: Those illustrations were all from a commemorative coffee-table book brought out by CVRDE about 3 years ago. The FCOS concepts are now all part of the FRCV project & the Arjun BLT & Arjun ARRV will all be built with HNS. The definitive Arjun ARRV design was shown last year at DEFEXPO 2016 by both CVRDE & BEML.

To HEHRMAN: I have no idea. Perhaps you could share a weblink containing his statements.

Gehrman said...

If you want you can watch this video :

Anonymous said...

Sir, first of all this is a great blog you got there. Began reading recently and learned a lot.

However if have some questions i am curious about.
I don't have much knowledge in this field so i hope you don't find my questions waste of time.

1) Do you still have see rafale coming back up via private sector?

2) Is it true that $2 billion deal for second akula is seed money for 6 SSN by L&T and Russia?
If so then what's the progress?

3) What is the final sanctioned personnel strength of "Mountain Strike Corps"?

4) Are my concerns that navy faces too many accidents true or baseless? What are global trends in naval mishaps? Is it sabotage, personnel shortage or something?

I hope they are worth your attention to answer.

Please and Thank you.


Anonymous said...


1) Depends on yield: if 150kt is our max. yield, 100 or so would be required for each front. For Pakistan, given their radical islamic ideology, capabilty for destruction of all tier I cities and major strategic targets is a must, along with as many Tier II cities as the balance allows. For PRC, capability for destruction of 5 major urban agglomerations would be a deterrent. Given that this has to be achieved in a second strike, after potential loss of 50% of our arsenal, 100 or so would be the requirement for each front. Higher yields would mean fewer required. ABM capabilities, which PRC appears to be developing, means more warheads are required. Precision strike cpabilties of the PRC, like the DF-26 would again increase these numbers.

2) Even UK and France facing a very low security threat deploy ~200 and ~300 warheads of ~100 kt yield respectively. So the 100+100 number for each front is reasonable in our case. More depending on the extent to which PRC's ABM capabilties and first strike capabilities develop.

3) The very fact that we are going in for MIRVs means that we ultimately intend to achieve an arsenal close to the UK/France level. Whether that would be enough for PRC by the time it is achieved is a question. Ultimately, existing capability should not lag the requirement for credible deterrence. Minimality should be secondary to credibility.


Anonymous said...


Agni-4 has its first test (successful) in Nov 2011, while Agni-5 had its firs successful test in April 2012. Yet Agni-4 is already supposed to be operational, while Agni-5 waits till 2021/22. Is MIRV development the only reason for this or is there also a political decision for `strategic restraint' ?

YALLA said...

This is the OFB 9mm Anamika.

It seems they are also making a 9mm JVPC, or this might be a mistake?

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To VSJ: VMT. 1) It will be through a public-private partnership. 2) Nope. That’s a rumour. 3) That is still a matter of debate. So far, only 2 Divcisions have been raised, if I’m not mistaken. 4) This is a universal phenomena. Reasons for this are either manpower shortages in some vital areas, or lack of adequate shore-based training infrastructrure.

To SATYAKI: The ideal force-mix for India will comprise 30% of deliverable warheads being land-based, the remaining 50% being submarine-based, and the last 30% being air-delivered by combat aircraft. The UK & France like the US, consider themselves as global superpowers & therefore require a far higher number of target vectors. India does not. And as I had mentioned before, in my personal estimation, Pakistan does not possess more than 12 deliverable nuclear warheads even today. For a country that possesses 4 unsafeguarded PHWRs for producing plutonium but does not possess even a single fuel reprocessing industrial plant, the only conclusion one can therefore draw is that whosoever is doing the reprocessing under an outsourced contract is likely to keep Pakistan on a very tight leash & for very good reasons. BTW, the Pakistani Supreme Court 2 days ago remarked that while that country prides itself as being a declared nuclear weapons state, it still is unable to supply pure drinking water for 160 million of its estimated 200 million population.

Udesh said...


1. Chinese airlift and air-tanking capability will get a boost soon with these aircraft. See this:

Has India ever thought of building a wide-body transport aircraft? with Ukrainian help or anyone else?

2. Japanese have developed their airlift aircraft Kawasaki C-2 which has a 27-37 ton airlift capacity and can land even on 970m runways. Since Japan has no such huge market and it is constrained by laws to offer its aircraft in open market to everyone, is India interested in purchasing this aircraft and manufacturing completely in India? Japan will get a huge market and India a solid aircraft which can be further developed into many varieties of aircraft. A kind of aviation maruti cooperation model.

3. What is going on C-295 aircraft front? There was first news that TATA had been selected for the aircraft and only in-country testing was left. Then, Antonov wrote offering An-178 and An-132 aircraft. Then, TATAs wanted to build 100 aircraft at-least for business viability. What exactly is hampering this deal in comprehensive sense when the decision was already made in 2015 itself? C-295 can easily replace all An-32s and therefore the order would be in hundreds but how come there is so much confusion going around?

What do you think?

Asmit S. said...

Hello PS!

My new set of question is:

1.How is Arjun Mk2 compared to Al Khalid?

2.I know that practical tests are yet to be done,but just as a layman's question,that if we study on declared info.about Uttam AESA Radar,how much will you rate it out of 10?

3.According to you,how much time will it take approx. to make Phase-1 of BMD operational?

4.Is it true that Israel is going to help us in developing Seeker technology?

5.Mistral vs. Juan Carlos.Your take?

6.Approx. when will INS Vikrant will be ready for sea-trials?

7.There is completion of replacing INSAS.There are 3 options;Galil ACE,ARX-160,M4 and FN Scar.Your choice?

8.What is Project Pralay?

9.Is it true that France gave ToT for Hammer PGM system as an offset for Rafale Deal?

10.How far are we in achieving MIRV technology's milestone?

Thanks in Advance......

Anonymous said...


1) Why do the likes of Hans Kristensen and other western sources talk of 140 Pak warheads, and Pak having the fastest growing arsenal ?

2) If 12 deliverable warheads is all they have now, and they are to be kept under a tight leash in the future as well, why go for ababeel, a system that is MIRV capable ?

3) The ideal force would be as you said. But that will take 10+ years to materialize. In the meantime, the requirement against PRC still stays, whatever you may say against Pak.

4) If hardly 2 dozen missiles of A1 and A4 type are required, why would SFC ask for a much better production rate ? You yourself confirmed that this rate has improved recently with multiple lines of production set up for strategic as well as tactical missiles.

5) Hopefully this indicates that SFC has a much greater requirement than what existed as of 2015, with considerabe progress having been made to fulfil that requirement


Asmit S. said...

And yes,Sorry I forgot to Add one question:

>What is the difference between 4th Generation warfare and 5th generation warfare.

john said...


Thanks for the prompt reply and the very informative Arjun 2 article.

One major complaint about this Tank was track shredding. How did they solve this ?

Expect an article about NAL Saras revival (14 & 19 seater)

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

And the troubles just keep on coming......


Prasun Da,

Standing committee on Defence in a report said "Some of the new
weapons systems in testing phase are: New Generation Anti Radiation Missiles
(NGARM), Quick Reaction Surface to Air Missile (QRSAM), Man-Portable Anti-Tank
Guided Missile (MPATGM), Kautilya, Pralay" ( ) ....Really..Pralay and QRSAM are under TESTING......and what is Kautilya...

Was there some problem in towed array sonar of DRDO.. ( ) says "Under the deal, the German company will transfer technology to Bharat Electronics Ltd (BEL). The public sector undertaking will build 10 Actas under licence from Atlas."

what is Stand-off Anti-tank Guided Missile (SANT)being developed by DRDO ??


And dada, what is Supersonic Missile Assisted Release of Torpedo (SMART)and Anvesha the standing Committee report mentions.....

Pierre Zorin said...

Glad you said it Prasun. I was about to boil some oil to pour into the ear canal if that question was asked yet again. You have been asked and answered no less than a dozen times in three threads! Hopefully that question has finally been shot down.

Pierre Zorin said... Trophy APS intro.

AVI said...

Prasun da

1)Will IA order more than 116 Arjun mk2 tanks?? If so then how many they can induct?

2)Pakistan still uses old technology to steer their missiles unlike thrust vectoring used by our latest Agni missiles. Plus their missiles appear too much bulky... Why do you think they spread the news of MIRVed Ababeel and can the develop MIRV tech??

buddha said...

What is Rudra M III mentioned in the defence ministry report.
I was going through it. Failed to understand the meaning ...

Shantanu kumar said...

Prasun, When can we see the first prototype of this MKII version?

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To UDESH: 1) China had to develop the Y-20 because it could not import transports like the C-17A Globemaster or Airbus A400M, while India could & did. Therefore there never was any reqmt for developing any indigenous alternative. 2) India’s answer to a C-2-type airlifter is the IL-214 MRTA. 3) LoLz! It is a gigantic waste of money. After all, what is it that the C-295 can do that the MRTA can’t? Both are high-wing STOL transports & hence greater attention should be paiud by the MoD to expedite the MRTA co-development effort with Russia. In any case, Ilyushin OKB has now qualified the IL-214 MRTA for being powered by PS-90A turbofans (as shown at Aero India 2017)—the same engines that will power the to-be-refurbished IAF IL-76MDs & IL-78MKis & which already power the A-50I PHALCONs. Furthermore, such IL-214s can easily be converted into regional air-freighters as well as regional jetliners. So, the PMO needs to take a holistic approach to all this & get the MoD & Civil Aviation Ministry to interact with one another to evolve a set of common specifications & a common, risk-sharing production schedule so as to ensure economies of scale. If not, then all the mistakes that were made for the Saras aircraft’s developmental effort will be repeated .

To ASMIT S: 1) Al Khalid is a medium battle tank, whereas the Arjun is a main battle tank. 2) There’s no declared info on Urram AESA-MMR because the definitive design has not yet evolved. How then can a conceptual design even be compared with what’s available in the market as mature systems? 3) At least another 5 years, if BMEW radars are included. 4) No, because all technologies have already been developed elsewhere in the world & their design/industrial patents are freely available for everyone to study & learn. The technological challenge for India is in the area of industrial production. 5) I prefer the design from Navantia/L & T. 6) Not before 2020. Because extensive internal wiring for the lower decks & aircraft bay areas has not even begun & that’s because the final design has not yet been frozen by the IN’s DGND & due to this the Russian OEMs in turn have been unable to freeze their own designs for all those modules which they will supply for IAC-1. 7) Again???? It’s the Ghaatak SLR. 8) Again???? 9) Total untrue. 10) As I said before, all technologies have already been developed elsewhere in the world & their design/industrial patents are freely available for everyone to study & learn. The technological challenge for India is in the area of industrial production. 4th-gen warfare is what Pakistan practices. 5th-gen warfare is what the US did against Iran just so that the latter could accept all the conditions under the Iran Nuclear Deal.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To SATYAKI: 1) Why? Out of ignorance & arrogance, I guess. So far none of them have placed any empirical evidence on-record to prove their claims. 2) Because BMs like Ababeel will carry only a single n-warhead while the rest will be decoy MIRVs that too will be reqd to re-enter the atmosphere so as to fool any endo-atmospheric interceptor missile. 3) And exactly how many warheads you reckon the PRC has allocated for use against India? 4 & 5) That’s because the SFC is reqd to replace all existing A-1s with A-4s. A-1/A-2/A-3 all have 1970s era navigation systems, whereas A-4 has 1990s era nav systems.

To JOHN: VMT. Track shredding was a human error problem, since the DIEHL-supplied tracks were not built to withstand the ground-pressures of a 63-tonne Arjun Mk.1. In addition, Arjun Mk.1 drivers transitioning directly from T-72M1s were reckless when operating the Arjun Mk.1. But with proper ab-initio training on the Arjun Mk.1 driving simulator, this deficiency was taklen care of & eliminated.

The Saras can never be revived under NAL’s stewardship. Far better for NAL therefore to be told to hand over all developmental efforts to HAL. Anyone who still belives that NAL can finally taste success is living in a fool’s paradise.

To AVIRAL SINGH: 1) Test=phase means component testing phase, & not the complete weapon stage. 2) The Nagan TAS & Mihir dunking sonar suite were both jubjed as they were LF systems whereas the IN wanted ultra-low-frequency sonar suites. SANT is a 12km-range version of the HELINA for which a microwave RF seeker is under development. Anvesha was explained in the previous thread. SMART is similar to the Novator 91RE1/91RE2 family of rocket-assisted, anti-submarine torpedoes.

To BUDDHA: It stands for Rudra Mk.3 with glass cockpit & NVG-compatible cockpit displays.

Anonymous said...


It is unlikely that (future project) Rudra M-III refers to the Rudra helicopter as it is listed as a "Missile and Strategic system". Further in another report of new projects that were initiated last year Rudra M-II (not M-III) was described as an 'Air to Surface' missile.


Anonymous said...

One more point on Rudra M-II and Rudra M-III: Both these projects are DRDO's, while Rudra Helicopter is HAL's.


Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To SCRUTATOR & BUDDHA: LoLz! Under the title 'Missile and Strategic System (MSS)', 2 iktems are mentioned: the RudraM-III (for missile) & SLCM under the category of strategic system. Now to whose project is the Rudra helicopter-gunship. HAL is the OEM for producing the 2 Rudra variants of the ALH but it owns the IPR of only the ALH's design. The IPRs of both versions of the Rudra helicopters is held by the DRDO since it was the DRDO labs that carried out all platform customisation work & certification tests/trials. Now, since Rudra M-2 & Rudra M-3 come under the category of 'air-to-surface missile', this then leads us to conclude that they stand for the RUDRASTRA weapons-storage/weapons-launch system that mkes use of the HELINA ATGM--and the IPRs of both are DRDO-owned. Obviously, the drafters of that report did not do a proper job when vetting the contents of that report prior to its publication * tabling.

As for the SLCM, it is noteworthy that the type of SLCM hasn’t been identified, but it can safely be inferred that it will be the supersonic BrahMos-NG that is now being developed for both air-launch & from 533mm torpedo tubes of the six Scorpene SSKs, just as the IN’s upgraded Type 877EKM SSKs can fire both the subsonic Novator 3M-14E LACMs & the supersonic Novator 3M-54E ASCMs.

Anonymous said...

The curious thing about the Rudra M-II project is that among the DRDO projects approved last year, Rudra M-II got the highest amount of money. That leads me to think that it may be a completely new missile. Could be the EMP missile too!! Very less information is available on this project, leading all of us to just speculate!

(Normally I haven't seen the launchers for missile getting a designated project name - at least not to the outside world; and definitely not the kind of money that's getting poured into it)


Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To SATYAKI: Watch this videoclip on China's WMD proliferation track-record:

Pierre Zorin said... - TATA MPV can only travel at 80km/hr STREIT group has 3 selections and the designs look less vulnerable. Shouldn't TATA have done a JV?

ConcernedCitizen said...

Hi Prasun,

I read a recent report about a proposal to setup an aerospace university led by HAL.

I personally think the Indian government was mistaken in setting up huge national labs and routing a huge chunk of research funding to them thereby undermining research done in our universities (after all our few Nobel lauretes come from acedimia before the national lab times). In the West a lot of research seem to be lead by universities which have a fair amount of autonomy. Do you think these proposals and the recent setup of aerospace university led by ISRO is to make amends of its past mistakes? Do you think the government with its plans for privatizing several DPSUs and encouraging private sector to step up in this field also plans to decentralize research to a large extent by promoting such universities?

Pierre Zorin said...

Can people please stop asking which SLR would replace INSAS once for all - here is the answer for the umpteenth time watch this -

rad said...

hi prasun
pse explain the working of the ALWACS , and how it jams anti tank missiles.

how do submarines get targeting data for long range ASCM like the 3M-54E ASCMs

what is our next best option as russia seems to playing hardball regarding the il-214?

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To SCRUTATOR: Instead of guessing & speculating, it is always better to get confirmnation from the source (i.e. DRDO) which you haven't done while I have. Of course the Rudrastra project got financial sanction last year because how can it be developed if the definitive HELINA ATGM to be used itself wasn't available before last year for test-firings!!! And for those who are clueless about how complex such developmental projecs are, it is not just about a weapons-launch/ejection system. There's an entire eco-system involved to make a weapon like HELINA functional, inclusive of the ATGM itself & its storage cannister, the twin & quad launch-tubes, and the fire-control system for target acquisition/target engagement and related data-links. Together, all these elements constitute the RUDRASTRA suite.

To RAD: ALWACS is an active IR emitter that jams the passive IR target acquisition/sights of wire-guided ATGMs like the HJ-8/Baktar Shikan. It's just like an EW jammer, except that it functions in the IR spectrum instead of RF spectrum. The only way any submarine can accurately acquire & track hostile targets is through its own mast-mounted search radar. Russia never played hard-ball with IL-0214 MRTA. It was the IAF that shifted the goalposts by insisting in the 11th hour that the aircraft's turbofans be equipped with FADEC.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

As part of capability enhancement endeavour, a major milestone was achieved on 11th March 2017 when an enhanced version of the BRAHMOS-1 BLOCK-3 supersonic cruise missile with an Extended Range (ER) was successfully test fired from the Integrated Test Range (ITR) Chandipur at sea in Balasore, off the coast of Odisha. In a historical first, the formidable missile system once again proved its mettle to precisely hit enemy targets at much higher range than the current range of 290km, with supersonic speed of 2.8 Mach. During the launch at 1130 hrs, the land-attack version of the supersonic cruise missile system met its mission parameters in a copybook manner. It was a text book launch achieving 100% results, executed with high precision from the Mobile Autonomous Launcher (MAL) deployed in full configuration. “With the successful test firing of BRAHMOS Extended Range missile, BRAHMOS-ER, the Indian Armed Forces will be empowered to knock down enemy targets far beyond the 400 kms. BRAHMOS has thus proved its prowess once again as the best supersonic cruise missile system in the world,” Dr. Sudhir Mishra, CEO & MD of BrahMos Aerospace, said from the Launch site. Dr S Christopher congratulated the BrahMos team, DRDO & NPOM scientists involved in today's successful mission. The launch was witnessed by Deputy Chief of Army Staff, Director General Artillery, Corps Commanders and many other senior officers from Indian Army.

Srinivasa Nanduri said...

Hi Prasun,

Just read on twitter timeline: "India's Supreme Court, at government urging, dismisses plea for inquiry into Italian AgustaWestland's €6-million media bribery".

Seems your prediction that AW related issues are political and govt. will have to make a about turn is coming true. Seems like first step towards revising the bad decisions.

Hopefully IAF will come around and take the IL 214 seriously. Why go for C295 when IL 214 can be made in India and can do much more. Why is govt. not interveneing and setting things right on this.

In March edition of ForceIndia, there is mention of H225M for Coast gaurd and NUH competition between Bell and Airbus. Why do we need NUH, cant LUH or dhruv be used instead. Also, why do we need another helicopter, can S70B be used instead?

Srinivasa Nanduri

Anonymous said...


What do you make of the number of DAMS going up in our neighbour's? Where are they going to get the money from?


AVIRAL said...

A jouro is talking something which i think is impossible.

What do you think he is talking so???

Kaustav said...

The Ghatak is ofcourse not shown in the youtube clip though, only the Excalibur and the MCIWS are, thigh it does talk of the 7.62mm x 39 version being procured for paramilitary and correctly for icounterinsurgency and anti-terrorist killer weapons

Anonymous said...

Prasun Da, thank you for your answers.
I have some queries on Brahmos program.

1) Will Brahmos Er 450km and later 800km will come in block 1/2/3 variants? Are the vls/tube launched slcms planned for them?

2) What mods were done to convert Brahmos into Brahmos Er (450 km version)?

3) As Drdo said it will need only software tweaks to convert it to Brahmos ER, then can tweaks be performed to existing inventories of Brahmos?

4) Can that tweak be performed on under trial variants of Brahmos namely Brahmos Air and Brahmos slcm (assuming if we chose to).
Can it be done on Brahmos Ng?

I don't have much idea on these so hopefully you can answer them.

Thanks in advance. Keep up the great work.


Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To VSJ: You are obviously asking all these after reading the hogwash posted here:

Firstly, what was test-fired today was the BrahMos-1 Block-3 which has a certified range of 550km. So any talk of 450km or 800km is pure bullshit. Operators of this missile variant will be the IA (ground-launched) & IAF (both ground-launched & air-launched variants). The earlier BrahMos-1 Blocks-1/2 & BrahMos-A will continue to have a range of only 300km. Software tweaks don’t increase missile range, greater internal fuel-carrying capacity does. As for launches from submarines, all variants of BrahMos-1 can be vertically launched only from SSGNs & the IN does not possess such a SSGN, although the S-72/Arihant SSBN is capable of being modified to vertically launch BrahMos-1. Only the BrahMos-NG will be narrow enough to be accommodated inside 533mm torpedo-tubes of submarines.

To ARESH: They’re getting all the money from China. All such data was presented to the Pakistan Senate on March 9, inclusive of all CPEC-related projects & their funding sources.

To SRINIVASA NANDURI: Well, perhaps divine providence is now coming into play against Messrs. Parikkar & Co’s political blackmailing antics, judging by the sound whacking the BJP has just received in the Goa elections. Rest assured that the GoI will intervene as it has already seen & read the writing on the wall. The same goes for the LUH. All other stories appearing elsewhere on the LUH issue are old & outdated & are of 2013 vintage & are therefore being regurgitated/recycled/repeated. The IN first & foremost wants to upgrade its 20 AgustaWestland Sea King Mk.42Bs. The 10 Ka-28PLs are already being upgraded in Sevastopol, Crimea, by Russia under a contract inked last July. If at all the IN succeeds in obtaining funds for procuring new imported helicopters, they will be only the 16 S-70B Seahawk NMRHs. The NUH reqmt (replacements for SA.316B Alouette III) is for a light single-engined helicopter primarily for rotary-winged flight training purposes. All talk about the so-called light twin-engined NUH reqmt has already fizzled out within both the MoD & IN HQ.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To KAUSTAV: Here’s more ‘bandalbaazi’ from the ‘desi’ patrakaar caricatures:

The writer of this piece of ill-informed fiction does not even know that the LACMs like Novator’s 3M-14E & the Nirbhays test-flown so far are/have all been powered by NPO Saturn’s 37-01E turbofan rated at 325Kgf thrust. A ‘desi’ re-engineered variant of this turbofan, called SJE-350 and rated at 350Kgf thrust, is presently in production by Intech DMLS Ltd & this turbofan’s component castings were provided by Bharat Forge, while HAL provided the mid-air cartridge starting mechanism that was tested as far back as 2013. NPO Saturn’s 36MT turbofan, rated at 450Kgf, has since 2012 been offered for a projected twin turbofan-powered version of the Rustom-2 MALE-UAS & it is for this reason that the diesel engine-powered version of Rustom-2 was re-named as TAPAS. The GTRE-designed Manik turbofan, known earlier as the Laghu Shakthi, is designed to be rated at 425KgF & its poster at Aero India 2017 had clearly mentioned that this is meant for a UAV. Anyone with a modicum of common-sense should have gone straight to the booths of ADE & GTRE at the DRDO pavilion & asked about the Manik’s application & the reply would be that this is meant for a projected twin turbofan-powered Rustom-2 MALE-UAS whose airframe will be souped-up (i.e. increased geometry version of the Tapas’ airframe). A similar enquiry at the JSC United Engines Corp booth about the 36MT’s offer would have elicited a similar response. That’s how real investigative/factual journalism ought to be practiced.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To SRINAVASA NANDURI: Looks like the Russians too have had enough of malicious Pakistan-originating insinuations about Russia arming the Afghan Taliban. Here's the clarification from Russia's Foreign Ministry:

Comment by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation on 10-03-2017 WRT the accusations against Russia of support to the Taliban Movement

The Ministry has noticed the accusations against the Russian Federation recently made by the representatives of the command of foreign military contingents stationed in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, as well as some Afghan officials, that Moscow allegedly supports the Taliban Movement. The Russian side is "charged" with the supply of arms, financing the activities of this extremist organization and even assisting in setting up of training camps for militants on the Afghan territory. Needless to say that all these accusations are not substantiated. Replication of such absurd figments reveals a staged campaign to discredit our country, with throwing in a message of "undermining" international anti-terrorist efforts in Afghanistan by Russia to the Afghan and world community. It is obvious that behind these attempts there stand certain forces both outside Afghanistan and inside it who are not interested in stabilizing the situation in that country. This is also being done to divert attention from the responsibility for numerous mistakes made in more than 16 years of the foreign military presence in Afghanistan. Russia makes a significant contribution to the collective fight against terrorism in Afghanistan. We provide free assistance in equipping the Afghan National Security Forces with arms and ammunition, organizing training of their officers in respective Russian educational institutions. As far as limited contacts with the Taliban movement are concerned, they are aimed at ensuring safety of Russian citizens in Afghanistan and encouraging the Taliban to join the national reconciliation process under the leadership of Kabul and on the basis of three well-known principles: the recognition of the IRA Constitution, disarmament, break-up of its ties with IS, Al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations. These actions are unlikely to "legitimize" the Taliban as the movement was already recognized by Kabul as an equal dialogue partner during the series of meetings of IRA officials held in 2015 with representatives of the Taliban in Qatar, China, the UAE, Norway, Pakistan. It is not a secret that many countries of the region and beyond, as well as the United Nations Mission in Afghanistan maintain contacts with the Taliban. Unfortunately, until now such meetings and various formats established to help stabilize the situation in the IRA have been unsuccessful. In this light, Moscow has decided to intensify efforts to develop a unified regional approach to advancing the process of national reconciliation and creating favorable conditions for establishing direct talks between the Government of the IRA and the Taliban Movement. The consultations in the format of the Moscow Dialogue with participation of interested partners held in December 2016 and February 2017 year were directed at achieving this target. We intend to continue this work with a view to ending the fratricidal war as soon as possible, reaching harmony and peace in Afghanistan.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

Pakistan's Tarbela Dam Hits Dead-Level & Mangla Dam Headed for the Same:

Srinivasa Nanduri said...

Hi Prasun,

Thanks for your replies.

The below statement has really got me excited. Now Pakistan will get some tough love from Russia and even China cannot stop it.

”Moscow has decided to intensify efforts to develop a unified regional approach to advancing the process of national reconciliation and creating favorable conditions for establishing direct talks between the Government of the IRA and the Taliban Movement."

And I read somewhere that India was assured of the interactions between Russia & Taliban by Russian government. Seems our foreign policy is working fine.

Dunno why such negative news is spread as if China is some 9 foot monster cornering India and Pakistan with the help from China is out to get India.

I guess even NSG entry and Massod Azhar issues will sort out too in due course of time as Chinese position is untenable for long.

Srinivasa Nanduri

Daily Observer said...

A 550 km range for the brahmos means that literally any location inside Pakistan is now within range of our cruise missiles.
I feel the brahmos now is a bigger deterrent against Pakistan than even our Agni series missiles.
My question is,
1) how many do we have in service with each of our services and what is the annual production rate of the brahmos?
Google doesn't have any reliable info on this.
2) what should be the ideal number of these missiles in our arsenal according to you?

3)With regards to il-214 can't we just buy the ipr from the Russians like the Saudis bought the ipr of the an32 from Ukraine?
We can mass produce it for both civilian & military applications.
We can buy a few subsystems and engines for these birds from the Russians to keep them happy.

4) once the lca mk1a is ready can't we increase production rate to replace all the mig21s within 5 years.

5) once the definitive lca mk2 is ready can't we ramp up production rate to 30-40 airframes per annum?
They could replace the mig29, Mirage & jaguars

6) do we really need 42 squadrons to defend our airspace?
Pakistan wont have more than 10 squadrons of jf17 in the next decade at best and will have to retire most if not all of its current fleet except a couple of f16 squadrons?
The plaaf also isn't capable of using more than 20 squadrons against us due to geographical limitations.
Add to this the fact that the army & iaf will have close to 200 dedicated attack helicopters by 2030.

AVI said...

Prasun da

Will IA order more than 116 Arjun mk2 tanks???

dushyant hardaha said...

newly elected of goa MLA passed the resolution in favour of mr pariker
who will be Next CM?

ANIK said...

Prasun da,

COMINT, ELINT and SAR payload for TAPAS is still not ready. Do you think it will be inducted by 2021?? And will the jet powered Tapas is going to be our first UCAV?? And what about Ghatak. Ghatak is the name of dry version of Kaveri or is the name if UCAV?

rad said...

hi prasun
can the brahmos engine be made in India if the russians for some reason stop delivery after all we are working with it daily basis , what would be the difficult parts to re engineer.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

Shantanu kumar said...

Prasun sir, Parrikar is going back to Goa, who do you think would be a good choice?

Arpit Kanodia said...

As we know LY-80 is semi active homing and Barak-8 is active homing.

But how much LY-80 is capable than Barak-8 as a whole system, including radars and command & control structure?

Rajesh Mishra said...

US in Syria brought the ISIS to such a place where it was easily shot almost dead by the Russia. Now Russia will bring out the Taliban and Pakistan to such a open space where it will be easiest to shoot them dead by the USA and all others.

SUVO said...

PRASUN DA ,2 article:

(1) Excellent article about CPEC in DAWN. Pakistan is beginning to realise that China is fast gobbling up their country.

(2) Another brilliant article . What puzzles the writer is- “How the terrorists who have been eliminated were identified and located so quickly?”

Sam said...

Sir, my queries from the previous thread.
1. What is the true range of the Barak 8 SAM?
2. Shouldn't the Navy be funding development of longer range SAMs like RIM 174? Something with around 120 to 200km range and capable of denying the use of large swathes of airspace to the enemy?
3. Is there a program to incorporate Anti-satellite capability to the Navy ships?
And one more:
4. Is there a Barak 8ER version being developed by IAI?
Thanks in advance!

Sushant Makhnotra said...

Prasun sir,
The question i want to ask is a little out of context of the current thread, but i dont know anyone else;can you please throw some light on as to why kolkata class destroyers are underarmed in compatison with its missiin profile, its size and comparable warships or is it deliberate obfuscation on its real capabilities?

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To SUSHANT MAKHNOTRA: What has brought you to such a conclusion? 16 BrahMos-1 ASCMs 64 Barak-8 LR-SAMs is a pretty good mix by any standard. Only deficiency is in the area of gun artillery: there should have been a 127mm gun on the DDGs, instead of the 76/62 SRGM.