Ashok Leyland recently enter into JV with KMW, has this change can result into the entry of Ashok Leyland in FICV competition ?
Any progress in FMBT ? Is there any indication of FMBT converting into a competition like FICV ?
Also, earlier FMBT was suppose to be ready by 2020, already 5 years delay ?/
Is the number of FICV to be inducted will be 2600 or this number can increase ?
Also will there be both wheeled and tracked ICVs ?
Is Indian army purchasing armored vehicles like HUMVEE ?
Indian army signed a contract with US on JLTV program. Are we still a part of that program ? If not are we purchasing it from somewhere else and how many?
What happened with the trials of 4 vehicles (mahindra axe,tata lsv, vectra etc.) which happened in Leh last year ? How many we are purchasing ?
Are our forces interested in Shri Laxmi Viper and Dhruv executive which looks alot like JLTV and in my opinion is the best vehicle in Indian market ?
prasun sir plzzz post some pics of arjun mk2 from the trials !!!!
i'm seriously not getting this sir....first u said that tejas will be getting a derivative of epe and them u say that tejas cannot use a 120kn engine....i don't know what to make of it !!!
Hi........on a different topic, on my earlier remark on the MMRCA.........
Yes, have read your articles and,like you, was looking forward to the EPE UPG F-18 F/E Intl being selected..........but, that was not to be....
That leaves the Eurofighter and Rafale...........and, from your articles in the latest Force, you seemed to be inclined towards the Eurofighter.....despite the Rafale being more a swing role/multirole, higher load, smaller and cheaper a/c with excellent electronics/avionics/RBE2 (and, ready Naval variant operational)............
Just wanted your clear choice (and - why ??)........
Parsun , India is yet to sign the Communication Interoperability and Security Memorandum of Agreement (CISMoA), a pact mandated by the US law for the transfer of hi-tech military equipment to friendly countries.
How come tejas with carbon fiber composite has an empty weight of 6560 kg...while the jf-17 bandhar doesnt have much of carbon fiber composite but weights around 6411 kg only..
Defence Research and Development organisation (DRDO) in its last News Letter has reviled plans of development of 6000 km ranged Agni-VI with Multiple warheads (MIRV), which will be able to target deeper in Europe and Asia Pacific and will have Ground based Missiles and also Submarine Launched Missiles, since new development will not only boost India’s Ballistic missile capability, but also will enable India to reach deeper inside Europe.
To Anon@6.24AM: Industrial JVs like that between Ashok Leyland and KMW, and Mahindra Defence & BAE Systems are interested in pursuing two distinctly different programmes. One concerns the tracked FICV, while the other concerns the 8 x 8 APC. In terms of priorities, the FICV’s R &D programme is being given importance over the FMBT. Work on the FMBT will begin in only 2015, while work on the FICV has been on-going. The prototype Abhay FICV technology demonstrator has been successfully developed and tested with a Greaves Cotton-built diesel engine and GLDS-built automatic transmission. A 40mm multi-purpose cannon based on the Bofors L-70 was also integrated with a turret. The idea now is to take this a step further in terms of production engineering, while retaining the core DRDO-developed items like the all-electric turret drive system, powerpack and hydropneumatic suspensions. The private sec tor will be invited to design and fabricate a weight-budgeted hull and chassis (incorporating composites to a large extent), gun-control system, vectronics (including the comms package and a hunter-killer fire-control system), and passive/active protection suite. But it all now depends on whether the MoD gets it right in terms of constituting the Project Implementation Team. As per the author’s report above, the MoD seems to have already screwed up at this very critical initial stage. In terms of numbers, an initial production run of 1,200 FICVs is envisaged.
To flanker 143: Photos of the Arjun Mk2 can be released by only the DRDO as it is a DRDO product at this stage. Regarding the F414EPE, to be noted is that the term EPE does not just mean an uprated thrust turbofan. The EPE also denotes improved reliability and serviceability. If the Tejas Mk2 were to be equipped with the very same F414EPE variant as that destined for the Super Hornet, then the Tejas Mk2’s airframe will have to be radically redesigned and its resultant air intakes will more or less resemble those of the Super Hornet, for starters. If that were to happen, then the Tejas Mk2 will be available sometime by the beginning of the following decade. Therefore, the ADA is now concentrating on the minimal amount of airframe redesigning reqd to fit the 98kN variant of the F414-GE-400 turbofan, which will have the very same reliability and serviceability enhancements as those for the G414-GE-400EPE.
To Anon@11.13AM: I don’t recall having made any specific case in favour of the Eurofighter EF-2000 in the latest issue of FORCE. The two product features on the Rafale and EF-2000 were in my view evenly balanced. If you want to know about my choice between the Rafale and EF-2000 then I would definitely opt for the Rafale, simply because the French Air Force is clearly committed to the future growth enhancements of the Rafale (while in the case of the EF-2000 only the RAF is in favour of making the EF-2000 a truly multi-role machine), and there could be some techno-industrial convergence between Dassault’s own Neuron UCAV and India’s Aura UCAV. On top of that there’s the involvement of SNECMA Moteurs with the Kaveri K-10 R & D effort. Therefore, strictly in terms of pursuing long-term airborne platform-related strategic industrial cooperation, France at the moment has a lot more to offer to India than the four-nation Eurofighter consortium.
To Anon@11.39AM: Are yaar, maine baar baar kaha ki adherence to CISMOA is required by India only when Indian armed forces are taking part in joint warfighting with the US and NATO forces. This means only when one has to operate under a unified C4I network architecture will one then have to adhere to the CISMOA guidelines. In India’s case since India is not part of NATO, there’s no need at all for India to make its armed forces fully interoperable with the US’s C4I network. India has its own C4I network architecture and the consequent IFF and communications security protocols and national secure modes of operation. It is for this reason that the Indian Navy’s P-8I LRMR/ASW platforms will have locally-built systems like Avantel’s mobile satellite communications system, Bharat Electronics Ltd-built IFF interrogator, radar fingerprinting and Data Link II system, Electronic Corporation of India Ltd-built speech secrecy system, and Maini Global Aerospace’s fuel-cell structural components. Such hardware will also go on board every other imported platform, be it a transport aircraft or a combat aircraft or an AEW & C platform or a warship or a UAV. In conclusion, it does not mean that non-signature on CISMOA will deny India the latest available state-of-the-art warfighting platforms.
To Anon@2.44PM: The amount of avionics LRUs on board the Tejas is much more than those on the JF-17 Thunder, for starters.
To Anon@5.57PM: The six Qing-class SSKs destined for the Pakistan Navy will each be able to carry the same number of heavyweight torpedoes as the Type 636 Kilo-class SSKs, plus at least three 1,500km-range land attack cruise missiles. These SSKs will have fuel cell-based AIP systems, making them superior to the Scorpene SSKs on order for the Indian Navy.
To Anon@8.16PM: No, none of the Prithvis are terminally guided. They use a ring laser gyro-based inertial navigation system. No one in India has to date released any photo of any Prithvi missile hitting its intended target.
To Anon@9.54PM: That’s because the Heavy Vehicles Factory at Avadi can only licence-build about 80-100 T-90S MBTs per year.
To Anon@11.55PM: The problem is not with the Communist Party of Nepal (CPN), which wants engagement with both China and India. The problem is with the Maoists, who might subvert the CPNs mandate to stage a coup. How far is Myanmar to obtaining nuclear weapons? Well, the SPDC military junta had set a target date for 2015. I believe they've already secured a few Nodong-1 IRBMs. Will Myanmar have the industrial muscle reqd for obtaining weapons-grade plutonium and then developing n-warheads in-house? It appears unlikely, unless the North Koreans help Yangon in the same way as they helped both Pakistan and Iran.
Prasun, when are the new LPDs expected to be in service, i know it is at preliminary stage, but as per plan if it goes?, and you have any news about the IAC-1 and IAC-2. when are they expected to launch IAC-1? Will the navy go for IAC-2 in an year or will wait and watch?
The RFP for the four LPDs is due to be released by the year's end. Four LPDs are reqd of which two will be built by a DPSU and two by a private shipyard. Keel-laying of the first LPD could take place by 2014. IAC-1 is due for launch next year, while the larger IAC-2 is still in the concept design stage and is unlikely to be built before 2016.
That's right. Only the DRDO's verbal claims. And not a single photo (to support the claimed firing accuracies) to prove to the Indian taxpayer that his/her money is being well-spent as a result of these worthless Prithvi-2 test-firings.
do you expect delay in inservice for IAC-1 from projected 2014. when you say IAC-2 built before 2016 you mean keel laying or whether complete to launch.there are rounds saying it may be nuke powered and catapulted. do we really need to go for the super carrier style what is your take.
I think the prithvis being test fired are just from stock and trial practicing. i dont think the accuracy of these things matter much. Prithvi was a baby step and our initial tactical cum strategic missile. so i guess it ends there in the 'was'.
Hi Prasun, Thanx for answering, i am anonymous who posted questions at June 10, 2011 6:24 AM. If you can reply to my other questions it will be a real help.
Also, is Prithvi tested recently a MIRV ? There were models of MIRV Prithvi at Defexpo 2010...
There were reports of IN interested in NG's RQ-4 and fire scout. Are they purchasing it ?
Is there any reports of our forces purchasing or their plan to purchase a HALE UAV ?
There were recent reports in aviationweek of Rustom-H to be a turbofan, is it true ?
What is the progress of assault rifle being developed by drdo under FINSAS program ?
To Anon@6:14AM: Last December, the IN's CNS had stated that IAC-1 is due for launch in mid-2011, but nothing like that has happened so far. He had also stated that IAC-1 will proceed for sea trials by 2014, following which service induction will take place by 2016. IAC-2 will be bigger and could well have catapults instead of the STOBAR. Its keel-laying is due to take place by 2016.
To Anon@6:40AM: Regretably, I've not paid much attention to the JLTV-like projects and small arms developments and therefore would be unable to throw new light on any such issue. I can only state that companies such as TATA Motors, Ashok Leyland and Mahindra Defence, with their foreign JV partners, can easily satisfy any JLTV reqmts of the Indian armed forces. The Prithvi wasn't tested with any MIRV simply because the Indian armed forces have not envinced in any growth version of the Prithvi. As for the Indian Navy's interest in UAVs, yes it is interested in the RQ-4 and Fire Scout, but no procurement decision has been made so far. HALE-UAVs are due to be procured by all three armed services, that's confirmed. But which ones? We will have to wait for the RFP being issued first. At the moment, there are no plans to replace the Rustom-H's twin piston engines with a turbofan.
To Roy@11.26AM Have already answered your query above.
To Hitan: All ring laser gyro-based inertial navigation systems on Indian ballistic missiles and the BrahMos have been locally designed and built.They have been on public display since DEFEXPO 2008. The same goes for fibre-optic gyroscopes.
Prasun, If Dassault offers to replace the M2K with Rafale instead of upgrade and integrating the K10 in Rafale at later stage then it will be too hard to resist. Your posts also indicates that is happening.
But what the EADS brings to table. Do they have anything remotely as tempting as the French offer ?
To SSG: Firstly, nowhere have I stated or implied that the Keveri K-10 will be used by the Rafale. The M88 turbofan and its future growth versions will continue to power the Rafale over the following two decades. The Kaveri K-10 will be specific only to the Tejas Mk2. Secondly, SNECMA Moteurs could also help GTRE develop a marine industrial gas turbine variant of the K-10, since the usage of such gas turbines by Indian Navy warships will only increase in the years to come, and the existing GE-designed LM-2500 gas turbine (on the three Project 17 Shivalik-class FFGs) is a 30 year-old design that one can do well without. In contrast, the four-nation Eurofighter consortium brings to the table indirect offsets like helping NAL and HAL to design and produce 70-seat regional commuter turboprops and regional jetliners, and act as project consultants (like what Cassidian is now doing) for developing the Tejas Mk2 and its future growth versions. Between the two, the French offer seems to offer more value for money.
To Anon@10.33PM: Certainly not for the Shaheen-1 TBM, while on the other hand there is no confirmation as yet of the Shaheen-2 MRBM having entered service. It all depends now on how serious India is in terms of developing and deploying a two-tier BMD network.
The F-414 version ordered for the Tejas is listed as the highest thrust version of its class since its the only version which has been ordered. The F-414 EPE variant is still essentially an offering for which research has been done.
@ Austin June 8, 2011 4:19 PM
ReplyDeleteIt is impossible for Pakistan to arm its shaheen missiles with MIRV as they dont have technology and missile is way to small for such purposes
our abms can easily target the Pakistani scud series missiles and their basic solid fuel missiles
hell even iran have better missiles then pakistan
Ashok Leyland recently enter into JV with KMW, has this change can result into the entry of Ashok Leyland in FICV competition ?
ReplyDeleteAny progress in FMBT ? Is there any indication of FMBT converting into a competition like FICV ?
Also, earlier FMBT was suppose to be ready by 2020, already 5 years delay ?/
Is the number of FICV to be inducted will be 2600 or this number can increase ?
Also will there be both wheeled and tracked ICVs ?
Is Indian army purchasing armored vehicles like HUMVEE ?
Indian army signed a contract with US on JLTV program. Are we still a part of that program ? If not are we purchasing it from somewhere else and how many?
What happened with the trials of 4 vehicles (mahindra axe,tata lsv, vectra etc.) which happened in Leh last year ? How many we are purchasing ?
Are our forces interested in Shri Laxmi Viper and Dhruv executive which looks alot like JLTV and in my opinion is the best vehicle in Indian market ?
prasun sir plzzz post some pics of arjun mk2 from the trials !!!!
ReplyDeletei'm seriously not getting this sir....first u said that tejas will be getting a derivative of epe and them u say that tejas cannot use a 120kn engine....i don't know what to make of it !!!
Hi........on a different topic, on my earlier remark on the MMRCA.........
ReplyDeleteYes, have read your articles and,like you, was looking forward to the EPE UPG F-18 F/E Intl being selected..........but, that was not to be....
That leaves the Eurofighter and Rafale...........and, from your articles in the latest Force, you seemed to be inclined towards the Eurofighter.....despite the Rafale being more a swing role/multirole, higher load, smaller and cheaper a/c with excellent electronics/avionics/RBE2 (and, ready Naval variant operational)............
Just wanted your clear choice (and - why ??)........
Parsun ,
ReplyDeleteIndia is yet to sign the Communication Interoperability and Security Memorandum of Agreement (CISMoA), a pact mandated by the US law for the transfer of hi-tech military equipment to friendly countries.
http://www.indiastrategic.in/topstories1052.htm
First a ground & air launched cruise missiles and DF-21 with a maneuverable reentry vehicle (MaRV) and now a MIRV.
ReplyDeleteit seems pakistani anti-ABM program is running at much faster rate then our ABM program
How come tejas with carbon fiber composite has an empty weight of 6560 kg...while the jf-17 bandhar doesnt have much of carbon fiber composite but weights around 6411 kg only..
ReplyDelete“DCNS India signed an indigenization contract under the Scorpene submarines programme”.
ReplyDeletehow many weapons can be carried by the new Chinese sub they are providing to Pn?
ReplyDeletewill these sub come with TOT like Scorpene for India?
how good are these Chinese subs compared to Scorpene
is Prithvi terminal guided?
ReplyDeleteDRDO claimed 10 m cep which is very goood then anything pakistani missiles can do
do u have any pic of Prithvi hitting its taget?
ReplyDeletewhy India did not got 310 tanks and indigenous production of 1000 T-90S by 2012 while it will be 2020.
ReplyDeletesource http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htarm/articles/20021223.aspx
Hi Prasun,
ReplyDeleteWhy woul the west act against china if they were to occupy Nepal by invitation by a democratically elected Communist pary Govt(hypothetically)?
how close is burma to a Nuke?
Defence Research and Development organisation (DRDO) in its last News Letter has reviled plans of development of 6000 km ranged Agni-VI with Multiple warheads (MIRV), which will be able to target deeper in Europe and Asia Pacific and will have Ground based Missiles and also Submarine Launched Missiles, since new development will not only boost India’s Ballistic missile capability, but also will enable India to reach deeper inside Europe.
ReplyDeleteTo Anon@6.24AM: Industrial JVs like that between Ashok Leyland and KMW, and Mahindra Defence & BAE Systems are interested in pursuing two distinctly different programmes. One concerns the tracked FICV, while the other concerns the 8 x 8 APC. In terms of priorities, the FICV’s R &D programme is being given importance over the FMBT. Work on the FMBT will begin in only 2015, while work on the FICV has been on-going. The prototype Abhay FICV technology demonstrator has been successfully developed and tested with a Greaves Cotton-built diesel engine and GLDS-built automatic transmission. A 40mm multi-purpose cannon based on the Bofors L-70 was also integrated with a turret. The idea now is to take this a step further in terms of production engineering, while retaining the core DRDO-developed items like the all-electric turret drive system, powerpack and hydropneumatic suspensions. The private sec tor will be invited to design and fabricate a weight-budgeted hull and chassis (incorporating composites to a large extent), gun-control system, vectronics (including the comms package and a hunter-killer fire-control system), and passive/active protection suite. But it all now depends on whether the MoD gets it right in terms of constituting the Project Implementation Team. As per the author’s report above, the MoD seems to have already screwed up at this very critical initial stage. In terms of numbers, an initial production run of 1,200 FICVs is envisaged.
ReplyDeleteTo flanker 143: Photos of the Arjun Mk2 can be released by only the DRDO as it is a DRDO product at this stage. Regarding the F414EPE, to be noted is that the term EPE does not just mean an uprated thrust turbofan. The EPE also denotes improved reliability and serviceability. If the Tejas Mk2 were to be equipped with the very same F414EPE variant as that destined for the Super Hornet, then the Tejas Mk2’s airframe will have to be radically redesigned and its resultant air intakes will more or less resemble those of the Super Hornet, for starters. If that were to happen, then the Tejas Mk2 will be available sometime by the beginning of the following decade. Therefore, the ADA is now concentrating on the minimal amount of airframe redesigning reqd to fit the 98kN variant of the F414-GE-400 turbofan, which will have the very same reliability and serviceability enhancements as those for the G414-GE-400EPE.
To Anon@11.13AM: I don’t recall having made any specific case in favour of the Eurofighter EF-2000 in the latest issue of FORCE. The two product features on the Rafale and EF-2000 were in my view evenly balanced. If you want to know about my choice between the Rafale and EF-2000 then I would definitely opt for the Rafale, simply because the French Air Force is clearly committed to the future growth enhancements of the Rafale (while in the case of the EF-2000 only the RAF is in favour of making the EF-2000 a truly multi-role machine), and there could be some techno-industrial convergence between Dassault’s own Neuron UCAV and India’s Aura UCAV. On top of that there’s the involvement of SNECMA Moteurs with the Kaveri K-10 R & D effort. Therefore, strictly in terms of pursuing long-term airborne platform-related strategic industrial cooperation, France at the moment has a lot more to offer to India than the four-nation Eurofighter consortium.
ReplyDeleteTo Anon@11.39AM: Are yaar, maine baar baar kaha ki adherence to CISMOA is required by India only when Indian armed forces are taking part in joint warfighting with the US and NATO forces. This means only when one has to operate under a unified C4I network architecture will one then have to adhere to the CISMOA guidelines. In India’s case since India is not part of NATO, there’s no need at all for India to make its armed forces fully interoperable with the US’s C4I network. India has its own C4I network architecture and the consequent IFF and communications security protocols and national secure modes of operation. It is for this reason that the Indian Navy’s P-8I LRMR/ASW platforms will have locally-built systems like Avantel’s mobile satellite communications system, Bharat Electronics Ltd-built IFF interrogator, radar fingerprinting and Data Link II system, Electronic Corporation of India Ltd-built speech secrecy system, and Maini Global Aerospace’s fuel-cell structural components. Such hardware will also go on board every other imported platform, be it a transport aircraft or a combat aircraft or an AEW & C platform or a warship or a UAV. In conclusion, it does not mean that non-signature on CISMOA will deny India the latest available state-of-the-art warfighting platforms.
To Anon@2.44PM: The amount of avionics LRUs on board the Tejas is much more than those on the JF-17 Thunder, for starters.
To Anon@5.57PM: The six Qing-class SSKs destined for the Pakistan Navy will each be able to carry the same number of heavyweight torpedoes as the Type 636 Kilo-class SSKs, plus at least three 1,500km-range land attack cruise missiles. These SSKs will have fuel cell-based AIP systems, making them superior to the Scorpene SSKs on order for the Indian Navy.
To Anon@8.16PM: No, none of the Prithvis are terminally guided. They use a ring laser gyro-based inertial navigation system. No one in India has to date released any photo of any Prithvi missile hitting its intended target.
To Anon@9.54PM: That’s because the Heavy Vehicles Factory at Avadi can only licence-build about 80-100 T-90S MBTs per year.
To Anon@11.55PM: The problem is not with the Communist Party of Nepal (CPN), which wants engagement with both China and India. The problem is with the Maoists, who might subvert the CPNs mandate to stage a coup. How far is Myanmar to obtaining nuclear weapons? Well, the SPDC military junta had set a target date for 2015. I believe they've already secured a few Nodong-1 IRBMs. Will Myanmar have the industrial muscle reqd for obtaining weapons-grade plutonium and then developing n-warheads in-house? It appears unlikely, unless the North Koreans help Yangon in the same way as they helped both Pakistan and Iran.
ReplyDeletePrasun, when are the new LPDs expected to be in service, i know it is at preliminary stage, but as per plan if it goes?, and you have any news about the IAC-1 and IAC-2. when are they expected to launch IAC-1? Will the navy go for IAC-2 in an year or will wait and watch?
ReplyDeleteThe RFP for the four LPDs is due to be released by the year's end. Four LPDs are reqd of which two will be built by a DPSU and two by a private shipyard. Keel-laying of the first LPD could take place by 2014. IAC-1 is due for launch next year, while the larger IAC-2 is still in the concept design stage and is unlikely to be built before 2016.
ReplyDeleteSo we have to relay on the DRDO claim that Prithvi has CEP of less then 10 meters
ReplyDeleteThat's right. Only the DRDO's verbal claims. And not a single photo (to support the claimed firing accuracies) to prove to the Indian taxpayer that his/her money is being well-spent as a result of these worthless Prithvi-2 test-firings.
ReplyDeletedo you expect delay in inservice for IAC-1 from projected 2014. when you say IAC-2 built before 2016 you mean keel laying or whether complete to launch.there are rounds saying it may be nuke powered and catapulted. do we really need to go for the super carrier style what is your take.
ReplyDeleteI think the prithvis being test fired are just from stock and trial practicing. i dont think the accuracy of these things matter much. Prithvi was a baby step and our initial tactical cum strategic missile. so i guess it ends there in the 'was'.
Hi Prasun,
ReplyDeleteThanx for answering, i am anonymous who posted questions at June 10, 2011 6:24 AM. If you can reply to my other questions it will be a real help.
Also, is Prithvi tested recently a MIRV ? There were models of MIRV Prithvi at Defexpo 2010...
There were reports of IN interested in NG's RQ-4 and fire scout. Are they purchasing it ?
Is there any reports of our forces purchasing or their plan to purchase a HALE UAV ?
There were recent reports in aviationweek of Rustom-H to be a turbofan, is it true ?
What is the progress of assault rifle being developed by drdo under FINSAS program ?
prasun da, Vikrant class aircraft carrier --> when's it due to be (i) launched (ii) sea trialed (iii) commissioned? [tentative]. regards, roy.
ReplyDeletePrasun, can I just clarify whether LR Gyroscopes on Indian missiles (agni etc) are indegenous or from Russia? Thanks
ReplyDeleteTo Anon@6:14AM: Last December, the IN's CNS had stated that IAC-1 is due for launch in mid-2011, but nothing like that has happened so far. He had also stated that IAC-1 will proceed for sea trials by 2014, following which service induction will take place by 2016. IAC-2 will be bigger and could well have catapults instead of the STOBAR. Its keel-laying is due to take place by 2016.
ReplyDeleteTo Anon@6:40AM: Regretably, I've not paid much attention to the JLTV-like projects and small arms developments and therefore would be unable to throw new light on any such issue. I can only state that companies such as TATA Motors, Ashok Leyland and Mahindra Defence, with their foreign JV partners, can easily satisfy any JLTV reqmts of the Indian armed forces.
The Prithvi wasn't tested with any MIRV simply because the Indian armed forces have not envinced in any growth version of the Prithvi.
As for the Indian Navy's interest in UAVs, yes it is interested in the RQ-4 and Fire Scout, but no procurement decision has been made so far. HALE-UAVs are due to be procured by all three armed services, that's confirmed. But which ones? We will have to wait for the RFP being issued first. At the moment, there are no plans to replace the Rustom-H's twin piston engines with a turbofan.
To Roy@11.26AM Have already answered your query above.
To Hitan: All ring laser gyro-based inertial navigation systems on Indian ballistic missiles and the BrahMos have been locally designed and built.They have been on public display since DEFEXPO 2008. The same goes for fibre-optic gyroscopes.
Prasun, If Dassault offers to replace the M2K with Rafale instead of upgrade and integrating the K10 in Rafale at later stage then it will be too hard to resist. Your posts also indicates that is happening.
ReplyDeleteBut what the EADS brings to table. Do they have anything remotely as tempting as the French offer ?
so is shahen missiles getting MIRV?
ReplyDeleteTo SSG: Firstly, nowhere have I stated or implied that the Keveri K-10 will be used by the Rafale. The M88 turbofan and its future growth versions will continue to power the Rafale over the following two decades. The Kaveri K-10 will be specific only to the Tejas Mk2. Secondly, SNECMA Moteurs could also help GTRE develop a marine industrial gas turbine variant of the K-10, since the usage of such gas turbines by Indian Navy warships will only increase in the years to come, and the existing GE-designed LM-2500 gas turbine (on the three Project 17 Shivalik-class FFGs) is a 30 year-old design that one can do well without.
ReplyDeleteIn contrast, the four-nation Eurofighter consortium brings to the table indirect offsets like helping NAL and HAL to design and produce 70-seat regional commuter turboprops and regional jetliners, and act as project consultants (like what Cassidian is now doing) for developing the Tejas Mk2 and its future growth versions. Between the two, the French offer seems to offer more value for money.
To Anon@10.33PM: Certainly not for the Shaheen-1 TBM, while on the other hand there is no confirmation as yet of the Shaheen-2 MRBM having entered service. It all depends now on how serious India is in terms of developing and deploying a two-tier BMD network.
plz read http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/jaipur/Field-trials-of-Arjun-tank-begins/articleshow/8820376.cms
ReplyDeletecan you explain diff. bet. arjun vs mark 1 vs mark 2.
sir any update on the F-INSAS program....
ReplyDeletethey were saying that first phase is going to be completed by 2012.....
also post what stuff goes into the phase 1 and phase 2....
thanks in advance.....
To Anon@3.40PM: Have already explained it at: http://trishul-trident.blogspot.com/2011/04/arjun-mk2-mbt-emerges.html
ReplyDeleteTo flanker143: Am not aware of any updates on the F-INSAS programme beyond what was shown at DEFEXPO 2010.
Mr. Prasun can you say why GE on its website has mentioned that F414 INS6 will be the highest thrust engine of its class?
ReplyDeletehttp://www.geae.com/aboutgeae/presscenter/military/military_20101001.html
Paul @ 17 June,
ReplyDeleteThe F-414 version ordered for the Tejas is listed as the highest thrust version of its class since its the only version which has been ordered. The F-414 EPE variant is still essentially an offering for which research has been done.