The principal navigation radar system on board is now called ‘Rukmani’, and has superceded the ‘Rashmi’ system in Bharat Electronics Ltd’s production line. The downmast navigational radar comes from Northrop Grumman and is licence-assembled by BEL.
The optronic fire-control system used by the 76/62 SRGM is a customised version of Selex-Galileo of Italy’s silent acquisition & surveillance system (SASS), a long range, passive IRST for naval applications, operating simultaneously in MWIR (3-5 μm) and LWIR (8-12 μm) spectral bands. The licence-assembled SASS is designated by BEL as the EON-51. To hide its foreign origins, BEL’s website dealing the Electro Optic Fire Control System (EOFCS) is still left blank (see: http://www.bel-india.com/index.aspx?q=§ionid=446). The same goes for the downmast navigational radar (see: http://www.bel-india.com/index.aspx?q=§ionid=444).--Prasun K. Sengupta
26 comments:
why do they name radars as apsaras / celestial nymphs (e.g. rukmini / rashmi etc? lol
Maybe because the DRDO scientists developing them are too darn superstitious? Or maybe they are 'Hindutva' or RSS sympathisers? Or they're craving for dwelling in a state of existential utopia surrounded by mythical glories? Who knows. Shit happens.
Hahahahahahaha.Lol.Really,shit happens.
sir which aps is the best out there....
why are intending to use iron fist even when israel has decided to use trophy as their standard aps for their tanks..... there....
why are intending to use iron fist even when israel has decided to use trophy as their standard aps for their tanks.....
When could be next test of Shuraya missile.
Have our IAF/ARMY placed orders for Barack 2 SAM's / volumes(nos).
Does Chinese 400 km range MBRL are territory huging capable - does it has any advantages in indian border(mountains)
Nice, So finally we have more US equipment on board our ships beyond LM2500 engines.
anon 240pm
i wanted to say which is the best aps available out there....
Hi Prasun
When we can have AMRIKAN radar on IN ships, ahy is IAF putting its feet down on indigenous radars on LCA..?
We can certainly have a better radar (RACR )on LCA and let DRDO folks keep working on AESA..
To Anon@2.40PM: All manufacturers of APS will claim their APS to be the best. At the end of the day what matters most is which OEM fully complies fully with the customer's QRs.
To Austin: Yes, but the first warships to incorporate such hardware were the three Shardul-class LST-Ls, for which US-based L-3 MAPPS supplied the IPMS and battle damage control system (a similar system is on the P-17 FFGs as well, and I wrote about it earlier at: (http://trishulgroup.blogspot.com/2009/10/ipms-for-new-indian-warships.html) while Raytheon supplied the integrated brifge system and inertial reference system. Earlier, in the early 1980s some of the Leander-class FFgs had Westinghouse-built VDS suites.
To Saurav Jha: Before the year's end we all will come to know exactly which radar will go on board the Tejas Mk2 and LCA (Navy) Mk2.
To Austin: While in Mumbai for the commissioning ceremony of INS Satpura, MDL had arranged for a conducted tour-cum-briefing on MDL's future expansion plans and following tha a cruise on board INS Mysore was arranged. It then emerged that the situation regarding indigenous sonar development withon DRDO remains pathetic, to say the least. All the R & D gains made during the period of Cmdre Paulraj and later Dr V K Aatre have long since been forgotten and therefore, instead of adopting ultra low-frequency sonars (like the navies of the US and Singapore have done), the Navy today is stuck with legacy low-frequency systems.
the comment "Or maybe they are 'Hindutva' or RSS sympathisers" sounds like an idea pinched from Dikvijay Singh
i cant explain this... but although these comments & articles are riddled with bullshit, we still enjoy them. in that sense, you rock... [By a "fanboy nerd" from BR.]
well what acc to you is the most effective aps presently avalible...
and why are we still looking towards iron fist for arjun mk2 when even israel has switched to trophy for its tanks....
W.R.T to the following article, kindly express your opinion regarding aircraft carrier Vikramaditya and the nuclear submarine being handed over by Russia
http://rusnavy.com/nowadays/concept/analysis/importingaircraftcarriers/
http://rusnavy.com/nowadays/concept/views/nerpavschakra
@Prasun: Yes I am aware of some serious problem with sonar of our key assets developed indigenously but I would rather not identify the asset and let it just pass its in our interest.
BTW what is your impression on MAKS , Can we expect a detailed write up on your visit ?
Prasun K. Sengupta said: The late Gen K Sundarji, whom I count as one of my mentors, was a brilliant writer, as is Gen (Ret'd) Paddy Padmanabhan, who was actually the person who initiated several conceptual studies on the Indian Army's transformation post-OP Parakram. Lt Gen (ret'd) Mathew Thomas is another one. From the US side there's Ret'd Brig Gen Theodore 'Ted' Mataxes, Admiral Hyman Rickover--the father of the US Navy's all-nuclear submarine fleet, Admiral Arthur Cerebrowski, who conceptualised and articulated the network-centric warfare concept. Ted Mataxes is a graduate of the Indian DSSC in Wellington, and in the mid-1970s he along with Lr Gen Mathew Thomas and Maj Gen Israel Tal--all three of them--jointly drafted Singapore's defence doctrine--the porcupine concept. Maj Gen (Ret'd) Haim Herzog, a noted military historian and a former President of Israel, is another good writer on military affairs.
Heberian said: Hello Prasun-Would you please share any URLs where one can find Ted Mataxis and Thomas Mathews credited with Singapore's change to the "Porcupine" thing? The reason I ask is because I have a deep interest in Singapore's evolution, and strategy going forward. I was unaware that we had a connection in their change of strategy in the form of Thomas Mathew. Thanks in advance. August 27, 2011 7:48 PM
Prasun K. Sengupta said to Heberian: Regretably, there are no URLs or official written material available on this subject. I came to know about them only during chance encounters with these former officers as well as with the likes of S R Nathan--the present-day President of Singapore who back then was the Chairman of Straits Times Press Holdings--in Singapore between 1987 and 1993. August 28, 2011 2:07 AM
Heberian said: Hello Prasun-Thank you for the reply. I understand. Ted Mataxis and Israel Tal I understand, I was just surprised because of Thomas Mathews name; given the patronizing political correctness many in Singapore (and Malaysia) display around us "achas" and "apu nenehs". But come to think of it, it kind of makes perverse sense.If you have time, please post something about your observations about the Super MKI and the PAK FA. And specially the logic behind the Mirage 2000 upgrade (costs). Many thanks..August 28, 2011 1:38 PM
To Heberian: Well, you're right about the political correctness attitude, but here again this is all due to the geo-strategic myopia displayed by India throughout the 1960s and 1970s. The Southeast Asian nations like Singapore and Malaysia had during those periods looked up to India for leadership and a display of 'strategic defiance' against a nuclear weapons-armed communist China. In fact, Lee Kwan Yew had famously stated after the first Chinese nuclear test in 1964 that India too should build a nuclear weapon and drop it in the Indian Ocean, if only for the sake of demonstrating its will to stand up to China. Likewise, when it came to conceptualising the idea of ASEAN, these countries first approached India to lead this grouping, but it was Nehru's India that turned this offer down, to her own peril. It is indeed a sad commentary that while these Southeast Asian were well aware of India's civilisation overreach and its existence as a globalised geo-political entity in ancient times (against an isolationlist China that built the Great wall to isolate itself from foreign influences), post-independent India under Nehru failed to grasp the true legacy of India's civilisational heritage and build upon it. However, despite all this, countries like Singapore persisted in its engagements with India and it may interest you to know that in late 1989, the then Chief of Air Force, RSAF (and a good friend of mine) Brig Gen Michael Teo, became the first ever foreigner to fly a sortie on board an IAF MiG-29B-12 during his official visit to India.
To Anon@7.12AM: The two articles are self-explanatory. What more precisely do you want to be explained? The only conclusion I can draw is that there's no logic in leasing a totally new type of nuclear-powered submarine when India herself has begun building such submarines. Afterall, what is it that the K-152 Nerpa/Akula-3 will be able to do which the ATV demonstrator Arihant will not be able to?
To Austin: Have just finished meeting the editorial deadlines for the forthcoming issues of FORCE and TEMPUR magazines and now have some free time on hand to finish my MAKS 2011 show report and another report dealing with the critical design shortcomings of the LCH. The special write-up on the FGFA will appear in the October 2011 issue of FORCE. Will try to upload the MAKS report over the next 48 hours.
To Anon@10.31AM: It wasn't a comment, more of a speculative question.
To Anon@10.37AM: You mean my observations about the BR fanboys arguing about the type of main gun on the Project 15A DDGs--76/62 or 127/54? Or the BS in BR forums about the Arudhra and LRTR being indigenous radars? Or is it about the BS being churned by by the likes of ROHITVATS who can't distinguish between arrogance and audacity? Or is it the BS in BROADSWORD about the "China Study Group, a secretive government body that considers all strategic issues relating to China"? For the benefit of all, the China Study Group was never a secretive grouping, but a govt-owned think-tank. It was set up in 1976 by Mrs Indira Gandhi just prior to the general elections and it was first headed by the late K R
Narayanan, who was then a serving IFS officer.
Prasun are we looking at the same bridge as Shiv has posted in his blog ?
http://livefist.blogspot.com/2010/04/photos-ins-shivalik-bridge.html
They appear to be different or its not the same complete layout as vison master FT series.
To Prasun-
Thank you very much for the explanation.
I did not know about Lee Kuan Yew's statement, but am not at all surprised by our Nehru's interpretation of statesmanship. I just recently started reading Jim Baker's "Crossroads", after completing 2 of Mahathir's books, and the more I read and see and learn here in SE Asia, I can just see so much wasted opportunities for India. And we never seem to learn. My respect for China increases all the time, and I wish we had politicians who could squabble less and do more for the nation, economically and militarily.
Again, thanks for the explanation!
To Austin: The Northrop Grumman brochure shows a generic layout, as the company cannot be expected to produce brochures for customised installations for every customer/platform.
To Heberian: The attitudnal mismatch between China and India arises due to the differing national outlooks in their respective post-independence eras. China chose to be a non-status quo power while India chose to be a status quo entity. It was this very reason why the Sino-Indian conflict took place in 1962 and both parties could not solve the border demarcation issues in an amicable manner throughout the 1950s. Nehru thus never displayed any statesmanship, but pure docile idealism at a time when dynamic realpolitik of the type practiced and preached by Chanakya/Kautilya was the need of the hour.
To Heberian: India's decision-makers can only be expected to make the right decisions if they have the appropriate advisory/support institutions inplace to suggest pragmatic and viable policy options. If not, then strategic gaffes will be an inevitability. This is exactly what has been happening since 1999(when the govt of the day developed cold feet and decided not to cross the LoC and do a reverse-Kargil), because there is no institution in India like the Chinese Central Military Commission or even a National Defence University. That is why I keep on harping on the dire need for the creation of the post of Chief of Defence Staff. In the absence of such instituitions, policymaking and policy conceptualisation has been entrusted on to the hands of bureaucrats, scientists and technocrats, all of whom are loathe to accept words of advice from the armed forces. Inevitably, therefore, the Navy is forced to acquire SSBNs when all along it wanted a fleet of SSNs first, while an unaccountable DRDO makes bold but unsubstantiated claims of developing a strategic BMD system without even an iota of thought being accorded to the dangerous, unsustainable and destabilising nuclear arms race such developments will trigger not just with Pakistan, but also with China.
so whats ur take on Ajai's new article about India's ABM efforts and plans to deploy it to protect indian cities in 3 yrs time?
To Anon Above: My take will be uploaded tonight.
Post a Comment