Total Pageviews

Thursday, January 16, 2014

KS-1A MR-SAM Scores First Export Success

Myanmar’s Tatmadaw (armed forces) in early November 2013 inked a contract with CPMIEC of China under which the latter will, starting June 2014, begin delivering a regiment of KS-1A medium-range surface-to-air missile (MR-SAM) system. This is China’s first export order for the KS-1A MR-SAM, which has been on offer for export worldwide since the late 1990s. Bangladesh’s air force, meanwhile, is close to ordering from South Korea the Cheongung (Iron Hawk) MR-SAM,  co-developed by a consortium of entities that included Russia’s Almaz Design Bureau, the ADD, LIG Nex1, Samsung-THALES and Doosan DST, was developed within a five-year period and entered the series-production phase last year. In Russia, the Cheongung will soon be produced as the S-350E Vityaz.
The KS-1A can serve as a close-in area air defence system to complement the more advanced systems, as well as performing as a gapfiller to preclude the need for additional, expensive strategic SAM systems. It was developed in the 1980s as a replacement for the HQ-61 SAM system. Due to reasons which have not been publicly disclosed, the KS-1 did not enter military service in China when development was completed in 1994. A likely reason was the poor manoeuvring capability of the missile. It could only engage targets with a 5g manoeuvring capability, making the KS-1 largely ineffective for defending against new-generation combat aircraft. The KS-1A is presently operational with both the PLA Army and PLAAF as the HQ-12 MR-SAM. The latest version of the system is known as the KS-1C, which features cannister-encased missile rounds.
The PRC’s 2nd Aerospace Academy, now known as China Academy of Defence Technology, or CADT, (also known as the China Changfeng Mechanics & Electronics Technology Academy) of the 7th Ministry of Machinery Industry (now known as CASIC), in 1981 began developing a 57.5km-range tactical endo-atmospheric interceptor missile called the KS-1, which was meant to intercept incoming tactical ballistic missiles. The first test-firing of the missile took place in 1989 and the KS-1 system was first publicly revealed at Le Bourget during the 1991 Paris Air Show. All R & D work on the KS-1 was concluded in 1994, following which series-production of the MR-SAM rounds began at the Gui Yang-based Guizhou Aerospace Industry Company Ltd. The newer KS-1A’s TWS-312 engagement control centre (ECC) and its SJ-231 missile guidance system (that includes the C-band HT-233 passive phased-array tracking-cum-engagement radar) are series-produced by the Xi’an-based Shaanxi Tianhe Industry Group. The latter two are mounted on TAS-5380 8 x 8 heavy-duty cross-country vehicles.
The KS-1A employs a single-chamber dual thrust, solid-fuelled missile, weighing 886kg, and comes equipped with a command line-of-sight guidance system under which mid-course correction commands are transmitted to the guidance system from the ECC. A control actuator system is located at the tail end of the missile behind the propulsion system. The HT-233 radar carries out airspace search, target detection, target track, identification, missile tracking, missile guidance and electronic counter-countermeasures (ECCM) functions. The HT-233 radar is automatically controlled by a digital weapons control computer housed within the ECC, and cable link is used to connect the SJ-231 to the TWS-312, which is the only manned station in a KS-1A Battery and it provides the human interface for control of all automated functions. The ECC communicates with all KS-1A Fire Units as well as with higher-echelon command headquarters, and has on board an Air Situation Display console and Tracking Display console that adopt customised BITE technologies, and have embedded simulated training software for engaging more than 100 airborne targets in various flight profiles, all of which can be used for operational training in peacetime.
The HT-233 radar, operating in the 300MHz bandwidth, has a detection range of 120km and tracking range of 90km. The radar antenna has 4,000 ferrite phase shifters. It can detect targets in azimuth (360°) and elevation (0° to 65°). It can track some 100 airborne targets and can simultaneously engage more than 50 targets when used in conjunction with a Brigade-level ECC (which can handle automatic command-and-control of three subordinate HQ-12/KS-1A Regiments). In some cases a KS-1A Fire Unit receives early warning of enemy ballistic missile launch, along with direction and time-of-arrival data. Target engagement can be carried out by the HT-233 in manual, semi-automatic or automatic mode. When the decision has been made to engage the target, the ECC selects the Launch Battery or Batteries to be used and pre-launch data is transmitted to the selected missile via microwave line-of-sight data links. The target position data is downloaded to the missile to aid the missile’s target acquisition. After launch, the missile is acquired by the HT-233 radar. 
The missile’s track command up-link and down-link between the missile and the HT-233 allows the missile’s flight to be monitored and provides missile guidance commands from the ECC’s weapons control computer. As the missile’s closest approach to the missile is reached (50 metres), a proximity fuze detonates the directional high-explosive blast fragmentation warhead. The missile’s engagement zone is between 300 metres and 27km in terms of altitude, while it has a slant range of between 7km and 57km, and a maximum speed of 1,200 metres/second. The KS-1A Fire Unit includes a 6 x 6 TAS-270A vehicle housing a slewable oblique under-rail suspension dual launcher carrying two missile rounds. The Fire Unit can deploy in three ways: the vehicle mode, the trailer mode, and the stand-alone mode. It carries two ready-to-fire missiles, is capable of remote operations, and is 360-degree slewable.
To make the KS-1A a cost-effective yet lethal MR-SAM, it was decided to adopt the command-link guidance approach. Under this, the HT-233 radar (using an integral IFF transponder, a spectrally pure TWT transmitter, two-stage superheterodyne correlation receiver for channels, high-speed digital signals processor, real-time engagement management computer, secure guidance command up-link, and a radar data processor) would accurately track both the airborne target and launched missile, while a flight/trajectory control computer inside the SJ-231 would calculate the required flight-path corrections for the missile, which would then be transmitted via a data-link to the missile’s on-board digital flight control system (including a digital autopilot, telemetry command receiver and decoder, and a transponder) for bringing the missile as close as 50 metres to the targetted aircraft, following which the proximity fuze will trigger the HE fragmentation warhead.
Presently, one KS-1A Battery can simultaneously engage three targets with missiles, and comprises 36 missiles, one SJ-231 ECC station and one HT-233 radar (for 3-D target search, detection, acquisition, identification and engagement; clutter rejection and missile guidance), one Type 305A S-band 3-D mobile tactical air defence radar (with a 250km-range), three power supply vehicles, six 6 x 6 missile launcher vehicles (that are dispersed to launch sites located up to 10km away from each other, with the launch platforms being microprocessor-driven and controlled through an electro-mechanical servo system), six missile transporter-loading vehicles, one tractor, one missile-test vehicle, three missile transport vehicles, one electronics maintenance vehicle, two tools vehicles, and one power supply vehicle.
When networked with a Brigade-level ECC, a kill probability of not less than 90% of small-formation airborne targets (less than four aircraft whose airspeed is not greater than 700metres/second) can be achieved (when ripple-firing two missiles against a single target), and more than 95% when the target’s speed is not greater than 560 metres/second and the intruding airborne target density is not greater than four aircraft a minute. In terms of performance, therefore, the KS-1A is in the same league as (but much cheaper than) Raytheon’s RIM-162 Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile (ESSM), while being superior to the 45km-range BUK-M2E of Russia’s Almaz Antey Concern.
The improved KS-1A was publicly revealed at the Zhuhai Air Show in 2000. It is a command-guided missile with a range of 57.5km, capable of intercepting targets at altitudes of up to 27,000 metres. It enjoys a 15km increase in effective range over the earlier HQ-61, and as such represents a relatively significant improvement in air defence capability. The KS-1C variant made its public debut at the 2012 Zhuhai Air Show.
The KS-1A MR-SAM is extremely flexible in employment and deployment. It is best employed as a Regiment. However, its three Batteries can be employed for independent tasks if required. This is called the Autonomous Mode. The three Batteries can be deployed in various geometric formations, as suited to the vulnerable area/point being protected and the extent desired to be sanitised from hostile airborne threats. Similarly, the Battery can deploy its launchers in a way as to be optimal for target engagement as the threat is perceived ab-initio, or as it evolves during combat. Cross-country mobility enables quick re-deployment and the radar-based sensors can be so positioned as to achieve the optimum kill zone. The KS-1A Batteries can protect static, semi-mobile as well as mobile assets. These may be critical national assets in the hinterland or large mobile armoured formations (either Integrated Brigade Combat teams or Armoured Divisions) thrusting into enemy territory. The Regimental ECC and the Battery-level ECCs must be deployed in a manner, which will provide a clear line-of-sight to the Batteries, which may be placed up to a maximum of 30km away from each other. This requires the mast of the microwave communications antenna (on the radars, ECCs and Firing Units) to be raised to the required appropriate height.
The Type 305A radar must be sited while keeping in mind the screening constraints. The radar’s antenna must be aligned accurately by knowing its position and orientation with respect to the north. This information is made available to the Type 305A’s mission computer from a fibre-optic gyro-based autonomous land navigation system (ALNS). Care should be taken to align the Type 305A’s antenna with the ALNS and the system must be calibrated. The levelling of the Type 305A’s antenna needs to be accurate in order to avoid any tilt, which would introduce a bias. The SJ-231 is also provided with ALNS to measure its latitude, longitude and orientation with respect to the true north. This information is required by both Battery-level ECC and the Type 305A’s mission computer. The MR-SAM Firing Units operate automatically and are remotely controlled by the Battery-level ECC, which may be up to 1.5km away. Control is effected via microwave line-of-sight radio or line-cable links
The Type 305A automatically starts tracking targets at a distance of around 250km providing early warning to the KS-1A system and its operators. The target track information is transferred to Regimental ECC, which automatically classifies the targets. The three HT-233s start tracking targets around a range of 100km. This data too is transferred to Regimental ECC, which then performs multi-radar tracking and carries out track correlation and data fusion. Target position information is then sent back to the HT-233s, which use this information to acquire the prioritised targets with the help of the Battery-level ECC, which can engage a target(s) from the selected list at the earliest point of time, and is is assigned the target in real-time by the Regimental ECC. The availability of missiles and the health of the missiles are also taken into consideration during this process. Fresh targets are assigned as and when intercepts with assigned targets are completed. A single shot kill probability (SSKP) of 98% has already been achieved by the system taking into consideration various parameters of the sensors, guidance command, missile capabilities and kill zone computations.
There are a number of possibilities for deploying the KS-1A in autonomous Battery-level mode and in Regimental-level mode for neutralising the threat profiles with optimally defined multi-target engagement scenarios. In the Regimental-level mode there are a number of proven configurations to defend vulnerable areas depending upon the nature of the expected threat pattern and characteristics of the threats. Similarly, up to four B batteries in autonomous mode can be deployed to defend vulnerable areas/points. In all its deployment patterns, the KS-1A offers a multi-target and multi-directional area air defence capability. All its ground-based and airborne components are integrated in a plug-and-flight architecture under which the software-based integration of all hardware-based elements permits the autonomous management of various functions such as programmable surveillance, target detection, target acquisition, target identification and tracking, threat evaluation, threat prioritisation, interception assignment and target engagement.
Depending on the operational scenario—whether to defend a vulnerable area or vulnerable point—the KS-1A’s operational deployment pattern can be selected from either of the three above-mentioned types. In all the three patterns, up to four KS-1A Batteries (with 48 ready-to-fire missiles and four SJ-231 stations) can function together seamlessly even when deployed over a wide area and are linked to a Regiment-level ECC by secure microwave line-of-sight data links as well as mobile troposcatter communications terminals. When an entire Regiment of KS-1A MR-SAMs is deployed, use is made of a Type 305A ‘gapfiller’ airspace surveillance radar to provide a single integrated airspace picture to the Regimental ECC. The Type 305A and four SJ-231 stations can be networked with a Sector Operations Centre (SOC) via a DA-6 tactical internet controller using either underground fibre-optic links or land-mobile broadband, multi-channel, beyond line-of-sight, digital troposcatter communications terminals. 
This same type of systems architecture using the above-mentioned tools can be employed to develop an integrated, hierarchical air defence network that seamlessly integrates the LR-SAM, MR-SAM, E-SHORADS and VSHORADS into one monolithic guided-missile-based air defence system. To make the HT-233 radar virtually invulnerable to hostile electronic jamming, a number of ECCM features have been incorporated, including narrow transmit and receive beams, very low sidelobe antenna, automatic frequency selection mode, interference analysis and mapping, and randomness in frequency, space and time.



Great insights Prasunda .

Meaning if the Iron Hawk deal goes through even Bangladesh will have better SAM systems than India .

On a different note is it true that it's not just Aksai Chin and parts of Arunachal Pradesh that is under Chinese control but also certain parts of Himachal , Uttrakhand and Sikkim ?


Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To VIKRAM GUHA: VMT. It would be unfair to state that Bangladesh will have better SAMs than India, since the Barak-2 LR-SAM/MR-SAM family is very close to being introduced into service by the IN & IAF. As far as administrative control goes, only Aksai China is under effective Chinese control. The other pockets in states like Arunachal Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh & Uttarakhand are not under China’s administrative control, i.e. those areas have not seen permament structures (like post offices or military barracks) being erected by China. There’s no encroachment of any type by China in Sikkim.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To VIKRAM GUHA: Two excellent documentaries on how the US found out about OBL's courier Ibrahim Saeed aka Abu Ahmed al Kuwaiti, & how the US gained access to OBL's DNA.

rad said...

Hi Prasun
I tend to believe that the hyper sonic missile tested by china is nothing but a warhead reentry vehicle that has not been decelerated enough as normal practice on reentry in to the atmosphere by adding extra heat ablative and heat resisting material.Obviously any long range ICBM will travel at a greater speed and greater reentry velocity, and any depiction of that is to scare the americans,could i be right.
You said the prithvi-3 is very accurate till the last decimal of a GPS receiver.Did you mean sarcastically or for real?.
Is the IA planning to adopt another 9mm carbine or do away with it totaly like the americans.'THere are so many good guns avilable in the market and it will be esy to get agood ones rather than depending upon the fools to give the a good gun. The MSMG looks hand made with bad ergonomics, though the cartridge is unique like the HK mp7 .Has it passed all the tests.
Why has mynamar bought latest missiles from China ?, whom are they intended for.
The awacs is flying in Baharain , are the problems sorted out?.

UJJWAL said...

Prasunda, DRDO is unveiling 130mm Catapult system based on Arjun Mk1 chassis.But,original IA requirement is 155mm 52cal gun.So,if this effort of DRDO make any sense? If this system has any future? Thanks, regards


Thanks Prasun Da .

(1) Re the capture of bin Laden do you think the US version is correct ? Indian intelligence had said then that the plan showcased by the US is too simplistic .

(2) Staying with SAM systems do you think either Tor-M2E or Pantsir-S1 can win the tender for India's more than fifty short range air defense systems or are their any other systems on offer that are more capable ?



Defense and Aerospace said...

Prasun ,

If the Aster-15/30 SAM combination is up for sale to India don't you recon that INDIA should purchase it ?


Sujoy Majumdar said...

Prasun Da ,

In the case of India's SPACE INDUSTRY , domestic industry provides around 70 per cent of the total technology content .

Why can't this success be replicated for India's Defense Industry ?



Anurag said...

A nice read Prasun da,as always.
I have a few questions to ask.
1.DRDO scientists had told that they would convert the Astra BVRAAM into an anti radiation missile.But all other ARMs weigh much more than the 152 kg Astra.For example AGM-88 HARM (350~ kg,106 km),ALARM (~270 kg,~93 km),Kh 31P (610 kg,110 km)-so don't you think that the range of ARM Astra would be too much less compared to other systems??
2.According to the open sources the unpowered version of the Raytheon AGM 154 JSOW has maximum range of 130 km when fired from high altitude!!And according to them the powered version will have a range of some 540 km!!
Then why is the ARDE aiming for just ~50 km for its future glide kits??The US achieved the ~130km range with refined aerodynamic shaping,why can't ARDE aim for similar range??If I'm not wrong OFB does manufacture a 500kg HSLD bomb,if integrated with the glide kit that should increase the range - what do you say??
3.Now coming to the Barak 8 MRSAM,at around 276kg/missile round,it's far lighter than the other missiles with lower ranges like MBDA Aster 15 (~320 kg,~35km ranges),Chinese KS-1A (~900kg,~52kms range) or ROK's Cheongung (~400kg,~40km) and IIRC,the dual pulse rocket motor was developed by DRDO.Then why don't they use this same propulsion system in the Akash SAM system to increase its range and at the same time cutting down its size,weight and development time - don't you agree??
4.Has the work on the 120 km range ER SAM version of Barak 8 been started??And what's the approximate maximum speed of Barak 8 MRSAM??
5.And lastly,is there any chance of IN ordering a third batch of 3 Talwar class FFGs??
THANX in advance.....

Sourav said...

Sir,in the wake of the new SAM threat in our neighbourhood,don't you think that ADE should urgently start development for a stealthy HALE UCAV armed with Jemima ATGMs specifically earmarked for SEAD missions??
I mean we already have a VLO platform under joint development,then why wasting time and resources on a project which is by far over ambitious and there is no immediate need too.And even the US with all its experience,vast resources and skill manpower is struggling with its JSF program,so how can we be different??
So don't you think that priority should be given to the Rustom H and AURA programs??

Unknown said...

Hi Prasun da,
I have been reading your blog since last month. I wanna say thank you for such insight on indian defence and industry.After readng your blog i find out how ignorant our media is. Also it is very painful to see despite tremendous potential we are still not able to develop many weapons due to our govt. policy.
I have one question. It is about sahayak system in our army.I thing army should discontinue this system. I wanna know your thoughts this. Once again thanks Prasun da .

Anurag said...

@Prasun da,I forgot to ask you about this Hindustan Times article in my previous comment.Here is the link: /india-news/India-has-avenged- loc-murders-says-army- chief/article1-1172275.aspx
Do you think there might be any truth in this??
THANX again.......

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To VIKRAM GUHA: This is what I have managed to piece together so far from various sources:

By 2002, CIA interrogators had heard uncorroborated claims about an al-Qaeda courier with the nom de guerre Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti (sometimes referred to as Sheikh Abu Ahmed from Kuwait). One of those claims came from Mohammed al-Qahtani, a detainee interrogated for 48 days more or less continuously between November 23, 2002 and January 11, 2003. In 2007, a prisoner named Hassan Ghul (who was sent to Iraq as Al Qaeda’s special emissary to Abu Musab Al Zarkawi in an attempt to stop the latter from killing Iraq’s Shias) was captured by Kurdish forces in northern Iraq & during his interrogation, he revealed that OBL relied on a trusted courier known as Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti, who was also close to KSM’s successor Abu Faraj al-Libbi. In 2007 itself, the CIA learned of al-Kuwaiti's real name as being Ibrahim Saeed Ahmed & that he hailed from Pakistan's Swat Valley. He and his brother Abrar and their families were living at OBL’s compound. In August 2010, officers from Pakistan's Inter Services Intelligence Directorate monitored a suspicious phone-call in which a man speaking in Arabic asked a contact in Kuwait to send money to an account in Pakistan. That courier was Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti. CIA paramilitary operatives subsequently located al-Kuwaiti in August 2010 itself and followed him back to the Abbottabad compound, which is 55km from Islamabad, 269km from Jalalabad, and 373km from Bagram.

Meanwhile, six of OBL’s children and one of his wives, missing since the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan, were under house arrest in Teheran, Iran, till December 2010. Among them were Hamza & his mother Khairiya Sabar, a woman believed to be about seven years OBL’s senior. Both of them appeared at the Abbottabad house in February 2011 and then moved into a room on the second floor, right below the room OBL shared with his youngest and favourite wife, 29-year-old Amal Ahmed Abdul Fatah from Yemen. According to Pakistan Army officials, the US raiding party took back Hamza alive along with OBL’s dead corpse. It is also suspected that Iran & the US had a back-channel agreement under which Khairiya Sabar & Hamza were allowed to go to Abbottabad (after the CIA had passed on al-Kuwaiti’s cellphone contact details to Iran & Teheran in turn had relayed this to the wife-and-son duo) from Teheran & their movements were constantly tracked by the CIA with Iran’s help. It is this that gave the CIA iron-clad proof about OBL’s existence inside the Abbottabad compound. In April 2011, after one of OBL’s KSA-based sisters passed away in Boston while undergoing cancer treatment, the FBI had subpoenaed for her brain in order to extract her DNA formula (for subsequent matching with that of OBL).

cont'd below...

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

The raid of May 2 involved 79 personnel & was carried out by 24 heliborne US Navy SEALs from the Red Squadron (SEAL Team 6) of the Joint Special Operations Command’s US Naval Special Warfare Development Group (DEVGRU). The SEALs flew into Pakistan from a staging base in Jalalabad in eastern Afghanistan. The 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment (SOAR), a US Army Special Operations Command unit known as the "Night Stalkers", provided the two stealthy Black Hawks that were used for the raid itself, as well as the two much larger Chinooks that were employed as back-ups. The two Chinooks, with two additional SEAL teams consisting of approximately 24 DEVGRU operators for a quick-reaction force" (QRF), were kept on standby & were on the ground in a deserted area roughly two-thirds of the way from Jalalabad to Abbottabad. The Chinooks were equipped with M-134 Miniguns and extra fuel for the Black Hawks. Their mission was to interdict any Pakistani military attempts to interfere with the raid. Another Chinook, holding 25 more SEALs from DEVGRU, were stationed just across the border in Afghanistan in case reinforcements were needed during the raid. The two Black hawks and two Chinooks entered Pakistani airspace between Ghursal and Shilman in Khyber Agency between 11.15pm and 11.30pm and flew over the River Kabul, Chakdarra and Kala Dhaka, before reaching Abbotabad. Two Black Hawks and one Chinook reached the compound in Abbottabad’s Nawan Sheher neighbourhood. while one Chinook stayed back along the left bank of the River Indus at Kala Dhaka near Kander Hassanzai for refuelling the Black Hawks and the Chinook on their way back. The force reached Abbottabad at 12.30am after a 70-minute flight. By 12.32am one of the Black Hawks made a rooftop exfiltration. One Chinook flew in at 12.40am and landed on the fields near the eastern compound. There was no electricity in that area (since eight CIA personnel who had earlier departed from the US Embassy in Islamabad had earlier cut off the electricity supply for that area in Abbottabad), but it was restored by 12.35am. Within 38 minutes only some 30 bullets had been fired. The downed Black Hawk was destroyed at 1.06am. The remaining Black Hawk and Chinook then left for Kander Hassanzai for a 10-minute refuelling and exited Pakistan’s airspace by 2.26am. PAF’s F-16s got airborne from Mushaf air base at 2.50am.

cont'd below...

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

PAF controllers at Air Defence Command in Chaklala tracked the USAF’s F-15 CAP and E-3A AWACS in Afghan airspace, but logged the activity as routine. By 1.20am, personnel from the Quick Response Force (QRF) of Pakistan’s 19th Frontier Force Regiment had arrived on the scene, along with other police officials. The commander of the QRF had received information about the raid at 12:40am, when US forces were still inside the compound. The commandant of the PMA, who is also the Army Garrison commander in Abbottabad, arrived at 1:40am. Next, superior officers of Pakistan’s military hierarchy were informed, and at about 2am, Maj-Gen Ashfaq Nadeem, the Director-General of Military Operations (DGMO) called Gen Ashfaq Pervez Kayani, Pakistan's Chief of Army Staff. Kayani then rang the Chief of Air Staff, Air Chief Marshal Rao Qamar Suleman at 2:07am--two hours and 47 minutes after the initial incursion--to inform him that Pakistani airspace had been violated, asking him to "shoot down the intruding helicopters", according to the DGMO's testimony. It took an additional 43 minutes for the PAF to scramble F-16s from its Mushaf Air Base (in Sarghoda, about 240km away). This was approximately three-and-a-half hours after the initial incursion. It is also approximately 24 minutes after the last US helicopter had left Pakistani airspace. Gen Kayani then spoke with then-Pakistani Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani and the Foreign Secretary, apprising them of events. It was not until 5am that Admiral Michael Mullen, the US Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee (JCSC) called Gen Kayani, explaining what had happened. Significantly, that is the only phone call made between US and Pakistan authorities, and it occurs between two senior military officers. Gen Kayani then waited a further hour and 45 minutes to make his final phone call of the night, at 6:45am, to President Asif Ali Zardari.


Unknown said...

Hi Prasun,
Why does IAF need Intermediate Jet Trainer?
Most of the world's air-forces use only Basic/primary trainers followed by AJT. Even NATO flight training has that system.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To RAD: It is not at all surprising that China too is involved in scramjet-related R & D, which could in future lead to the emergence of hypersonic cruise missiles as well as scramjet-equipped space shuttles. I meat every word about the Prithvi-3. No sarcasm was involved. Carbine version of INSAS for military usage already exists. 9mm carbines are for short-range CQB-type engagements by CAPFs. MSMC has succeeded in all its user-trials by various CAPFs. Myanmar’s military procurements are targeted against its traditional adversaries: Bangladesh & Thailand. No one else. EMB-145I & its DRDO support staff are on a gallivanting expedition, nothing more. Muc more R & D needs to be done before certifying the EMB-145I AEW & CS as an operational airworthy platform.

UJJWAL: Last November itself I had clearly stated that the 130mm Arjun Catapult was an in-house DRDO technology demonstration effort that NEVER HAD any support or endorsement from the Indian Army. Nothing has changed since then & this remains a waste of money, time & effort.

To VIKRAM GUHA: Regarding E-SHORADS, all contenders are equally worthy, but the SpyDer-SR along with DIEHL’s IRIS-R/T-SL combination are the best on technical & financial grounds as of now.

To DEFENSE & AEROSPACE: No I don’t, for the simple reason that too much effort & money has been invested into the PDV & AD-1/AD-2 R & D programmes & consequently it is worthwhile to wait till 2016 for such homegrown interceptors to emerge as mature solutions.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To SUJOY MAJUMDAR: Of course it can be replicated, BUT ONLY IF all the existing DPSUs are converted into stock market-listed corporate entities after the Govt of India undertakes a strategic divestment exercise. Only after this is done will HAL be able to become something Dassault Aviation & BEL will be become something like THALES or SAMSUNG & BDL will become something like MBDA & the shipyards will become something like DCNS or Navantia. It’s a simple, elementary solution & the only available solution, since the Govt of India is already finding it almost impossible to finance the existence of the unproductive DPSUs due to the increasing financial demands from the armed forces (for accelerating capital procurement projects & for increased pay-scales). Something therefore has to give & sooner the Govt of India realises this, the better.

To ANURAG: 1) The ARM variant of Astra will weigh about the same as ALARM or AGM-88A. 2) When the US talks of JSOW’s unpowered max range, it’s talking about it being launched from high-altitude cruising platforms like B-52s & B-1Bs. In India’s case, such high-altitude launch platforms are unavailable & therefore such claims can’t be made by anyone in India. It’s that simple & has nothing to do with te DRDO’s deficiencies. 3) From a design standpoint, it’s not possible since it will involve a total-re-engineering of the Akash missile round, making it a futile exercise. Far better therefore to just switch over to higher energetic solid-rocket propellants to achieve modest range increases. 4) Of course it as started. Max speed is close to Mach 3. 5) Yes, there is, definitely. 6) Of course there is truth in it.

To SOURAV: There’s no alternative to the ‘crawl, walk, run, sprint’ approach. Consequently, Rustom-1 will have to be followed by a Rustom-2 & after that a twin-turbofan UCAV version of Rustom-2 will need to be developed & only after this can AURA emerge. There are never any shortcuts to such an approach.

To ARVIND KUMAR: VMT. Of course such colonial legacies need to be done away with ASAP.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To UNKNOWN: I have been stating since the past five years that there’s no operational reqmt from either the IAF or IN for the IJT. The project to develop the IJT was born at a time when there was no hope whatsoever of ordering the Hawk Mk132 AJT. But once the Hawk Mk132s were ordered for the IAF & IN, both the end-users had no reqmt for the IJT. From that standpoint, the IJT project was ill-conceived. What the IAF & IN need most after the PC-7 Mk2 BTTs & Hawk Mk132 AJTs are at least 90 LIFTs—a reqmt that can easily be fulfilled by the tandem-seat version of the Tejas Mk1 MRCA. This is similar to what South Korea’s ROKAF has adopted, i.e. KT-1 BTT, Hawk Mk67 AJT & the TA-50 LIFT.

Anonymous said...

Hi Parsun,

How is the statement "superior to the 45km-range BUK-M2E" qualified? Granted the KS-1A SAM has a slight range advantage (under certain conditions) but BUK-M2E has a significantly larger engagement envelope, especially at low altitude and with the 9S36 mast mounted radar. Many other parameters like simultaneous engagements seem to be worse for the KS-1A also.

Anonymous said...


1 Why dont India buy S 400 from Russia, even when it is offering the most advance SAM to it ?

2 Whats the status of China su 35 deal,how big a worry it will be for india?

3 former Russian amb. had claimed that Arihant is based on Akula 2 design,do you think russians actually gave such an advance design to india?

4 I read some report that israel will join hands with india for f insas,can you explain?

5 Is indias BMD system comparable toUS or Russian systems?

6 Will Israeli elm 2050 aesa and cockpit NG be onboard tejas mk 2 and what will be the max weapon load?

Magan said...

First Anonymous, then Parsun? Sounds like the old Marwari's Bengali - Are Parsunji hamake to bowloon aapni ki vabey ei shomosto conclusion korchen!! Hope got it right.... :)

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Anon@1.03AM: Applications of KS-1A & Buk-M2E are totally different, for starters. The former in wheeled configuration is meant for protection of static VAs & VPs much like the IAF version of the Akash Mk1 is. Buk-M2E on the other hand is optimised for battlefield air-defence & nowhere in the world has it been deployed for roles like base air-defence or for protection of strategic installations. Low-altitude air-defence is catered for through SHORADS & E-SHORADS, & never MR-SAMs. Consequently, the KS-1A’s sole role is to effect airborne interceptions at medium & high altitudes. In addition, Buk-M2E’s deployment pattern at the Battalion-level & Brigade-level has never been showcased by its OEM. Therefore, it will be imprudent to compare apples with oranges.

To Anon@4.01AM: 1) For the very same reason that I’ve explained above to DEFENCE & AEROSPACE TECHNOLOGY. 2) The deal has yet to be converted into a firm contract. 3) Actually, if one compares the various internal electronics-based consoles & processors, the ones on board the Arihant are a full generation ahead of those on board the INS Chakra. 4) The Israelis like their competitors from the UK & the US are all offering 4G-based technologies using tactical internet networks for F-INSAS. 5) The system, is. The network, not yet. 6) Already answered that in the previous thread.

To MAGAN: ‘Parsun’ did seem rather amusingly odd.


Prasun Da ,

As always many thanx for sharing such profound insights .

At a time when Western OEMs are leveraging BIG DATA to streamline MRO related work (link below) HAL and DRDO are writing stories (LCA , Arjun 130mm canon) without a script

Thanks again ,


Rajeev Chaturvedi said...

Dear Prasunda,

1. Can you give any information on any Indian capability in X-Band, phased array, solid-state, long-range air defense radar? like An/TPY-2?

2. Long ago, there were some discussions about India seeking PAVE PAWS radars? What happened?

3. What happened to the last two AEW&C Phalcon aircrafts? Are they being built? Are they coming? Last I heard was that Uzbeks were planning to convert TAPO into a tools factory? Then who will give Il-76 for installing Phalcons? Russian ones are still long way from completion?

4. Can you give some information on S Band, L Band and X band? What is their use? Which band is required for VLO aircraft tracking?

5. What is the difference between AESA radar and APAR radar? Are they the same?


Sujoy Majumdar said...

Prasun Da ,

The way I see the PDV/AD-1/AD-2 projects proceed is that DRDO will waste crores of taxpayers money on these projects till 2016 and
then eventually will state that they might NOT be able to deliver on time , the usual alibi for INABILITY & INCOMPETENCE .

Eventually GOI will have to place an order for Astra 15/30 , THAAD , S 400 or any other such similar systems .


rad said...

Everyone is already preparing for BJP government. What do you think?


@ Sujoy Majumdar ,

I am jumping in with my 2 cents before Prasun Da replies to your question .

You see, there is nothing wrong in having a homegrown BMD system coz that gives you a bargaining chip with foreign OEMs .

I suspect the same logic is at play with the LCA MK2 as well . If Dassault or Sukhoi in the years to come decides to put a price tag on the Rafale or Super Sukhoi that's extremely high , GOI can cancel such negotiation stating they would rather invest in the

Myabe the DRDO / HAL will screw things up like you said , I will grant you that but then as I explained above there are virtues of homegrown programs .


Vikram Guha

Raj said...

Dear Prasunda,

You have mentioned several times that IAF does not want IJT. Today, they say something else..

Now they want to buy them from abroad. They want to start from 30 % requirement and then will ask MoD for cancellation of HAL program and go for the full order with foriegn OEM.

What's going on? It sounds bit fishy and downright disgusting attitude. I had heard that BAE was doing consultation to remove anomalies of IJT.

reddy said...

@Vikram Guha,

Thanks for interesting link.
Am working as a Hadoop Developer and let me see the use-case you provided.

NEEL said...


take a look at this..
Isn't Atlas Eletronik's Seahake the preferredand better choice for this contract?

Thanks & Regards

Vikrant said...

1)your assessment on the current bangladesh situation and steps india needs to take to get int recognition for hasina?
2)what is the status of m-777 and MRTT contracts aan dis the iaf looking to junk HAL IJT?

sntata said...

Dear Prasun,
DRDO has put up a proposal to constitute Defence Technology Commission to decide on the direction of military technology research in India and it is being processed by MoD. Do you think it will do any good or will it be like many other commissions?

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To VIKRAM GUHA: VMT. Actually, the problem is not about embracing new MRO concepts at all. Te problem lies squarely in the MRO infrastructure arena. For instance, HAL has not yet set up dedicated MRO, spares warehousing centres or even simulator-based flying training facilities for the Dhruv ALH anywhere else in India. Everything is concentrated in Bengaluru. The same is the case with Arjun MBT: everything has to be sourced from Avadi when dedicated MRO workshops & spares warehousing depots are reqd up north. The IAF on the other hand has its BRDs functioning at 50% capacity only due to severe shortages of skilled human resources. Such activities can cleared be outsourced from the private-sector, but evidently the MoD isn’t even bothered to explore such innovative solutions with ASSOCHAM, FICCI or the CII.

To RAJEEV CHATURVEDI: 1) They’re all available in previous threads dealing with BMD, IACCCS & the Aero India 2013 & DEFEXPO 2012 show reports. 2) Nothing at all. 3) Contract for two additional A-50I PHALCONs is expected to be inked later this year. New-build IL-76TD-90 airframes can now be easily sourced from Russia itself since the aircraft manufacturing facility at Ulyanovsk is up & running. 4) They’re all available in previous threads dealing with BMD, IACCCS & the Aero India 2013 & DEFEXPO 2012 show reports. 5) Both AESA & APAR used active phased-array antenna. Generally, AESA refers to airborne MMRs, while APAR is available in both ground-based & warship-borne configurations.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To SUJOY MAJUMDAR: While the PDV is strictly a technology demonstration exercise as of now, the AD-1/AD-2 are not are these are being developed in response to the IAF’s ASQR. Consequently, the AD-1/AD-2 interceptor family will definitely be deployed to meet the specified operational reqmts. PDV is a double-edged sword & can also be used as an ASAT, provided the Govt of India takes a political decision to acquire & deploy ASAT weapons. And like I had explained before, the problem has never been the DRDO’s technological inability & incompetence, since the DRDO is perfectly capable of delivering all that is desired. The problem has always been apex-level project management/steering, which is beyond the DRDO’s technocratic purview & has traditionally been strictly the domain of politicians & bureaucrats. For instance, the moment it is decided to develop RLG-INS for NLOS-BSMs, the MoD needs to step in & direct: 1) the three armed services to detail their reqmts for RLG-INS suites, & 2) the DRDO to develop not just a RLG-INS, but a family of RLG-INS that will find applications on board aircraft, UAVs, warships, submarines & armoured vehicles. The same goes, for instance, for design of bridge systems for warships. Presently, the IN’s FAC-Ms, DDGs, FFGs & LST-Ls are all fitted with diverse array of bridge systems, navigation radars, optronic sensors, ECDIS etc, all sourced from different OEMs. Matters are no different for the ICGS. The need of the hour therefore is for the MoD to give more latitude to HQ Integrated Defence Staff for formulating joint service procurement plans for common-user items like these, plus NVDs, radars & platforms like attack helicopters, so that the India-based OEMs can from the very outset quantify the total estimated quantum of reqmts & plan accordingly on production-level economies of scale. Therefore, in conclusion, it’s unfair to always just blame the DRDO for the country’s military-industrial shortcomings. The only ones to be blamed are those who’re running & mismanaging the MoD.

To RAD: I fully concur.

To RAJ: It’s not the IAF that’s saying this, but those buffoons & morons that together constitute the Parliamentary Select Committee on Defence, as the report clearly states. As for the IAF, procuring any IJT, indigenous or foreign, will only make it the world’s laughing stock at a time when the need is clearly for LIFT solutions, as I had explained above yesterday.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To NEEL: The problem with Black Shark was that the solution for its integration with the Scorpene SSK’s SUBTICS suite was Navantia’s IPR & since Navantia’s consultancy contract with MDL expired in March 2013, the solution also remained evasive & that’s when ATLAS Elektronik stepped in with the Sea Hake, which in any case will be ordered for the four upgraded Class 209/Type 1500 SSKs that are being equipped with ATLAS Elektronik’s ISUS-90 combat management suite. ATLAS Elektronik still claims that the Sea Hake can be seamlessly integrated with SUBTICS, but this has not yet been demonstrated, whereas the Black Shark has not only been integrated with SUBTICS, but is also presently operational with the two Scorpene SSKs of the Royal Malaysian Navy. Therefore, if the DAC has authorised the DPB to initiate contractual negotiations for procuring Black Sharks, it means that Navantia’s consultancy contract with MDL has been revived.

TO VIKRANT: 1) Both India & China along with Russia are on the same page in terms of supporting Sheikh Hasina & so far no one has raised a public outcry aganst the recently-concluded general elections. . 2) Decisions on all such contracts will be taken this March after the revised expenditure estimates from various union ministries are received by the Union Ministry of Finance.

To SNTATA: These are mere cosmetic efforts in order to shirk away from tackling the bull by its horns. And like I had explained before & also just above, the problem has never been the DRDO’s technological inability & incompetence, since the DRDO is perfectly capable of delivering all that is desired. The problem has always been apex-level project management/steering, which is beyond the DRDO’s technocratic purview & has traditionally been strictly the domain of politicians & bureaucrats. Therefore, in conclusion, it’s unfair to always just blame the DRDO for the country’s military-industrial shortcomings. The only ones to be blamed are those who’re running & mismanaging the MoD.


Dear Prasun,
Earlier you had told that INSAS is at par with the best in the world. It has evolved with passage of time. But why then IA is looking for new assault rifle??? They could have gone for a new INSAS family gun otherwise. Plz. tell me.

Unknown said...

Now INS Sindhughosh ?

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To NISHANT THAKUR: Obviously due to deliberate human negligence this time.

reddy said...

Ramco Systems Bags MRO ERP Projects

Anonymous said...

Hi Parsun,

Thank you for your response, great discussion.

Apples and oranges is a good point but I feel the two systems are closer in application than suggested, Buk-M2E now offered with the wheeled MZKT chassis and Syria deploying Buk-M2E to Al-Mezzah ahead of the aborted US strikes.

Considering the low altitude capabilities of Buk, S-300 and so on. For me the limitations of the KS-1A suggest the long range and command guidance choices would necessitate a very sensitive fuze which would preclude effective interceptions at low altitude. Or poor/unsolved characteristics of the radar or missile (clutter management for example).

In the face of modern SEAD/DEAD or 'shock and awe' tactics for attacking strategic locations and SAM I think the KS-1A is limited compared to similar systems. But I bet its cheap which helps it sell, like FD-2000.

Keep up the great blog...

Akshay said...

Has the Shaurya missile been inducted into the IA ?

Arpan said...

Dear Prasun,

Happy New Year,

Would like to know your view on the following

1. The Tejas - Pylon 7 akin to a center line never seems to be loaded while in flight.All pics that i have come across till ioc2 dont show pylon 7 loaded in flight. Any Reason?

2. Tejas High AoA & LSP 6 - Any news on this? or have they scrapped LSP 6 completely??

3. 2S25 Sprut SD - is the IA looking into this for the hills??
IMO it packs quite a punch (125mm)for its size,air droppable with crew,light weight (18t weight apprx), amphibious..the armour/defence suite though might need a relook though... what do you think?

4. Any news on our Arjun Mk2?

Awaiting your feedback...



Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Anon@8.16PM: VMT. MR-SAMs like Buk-M2E or KS-1A or even S-300PMU-series were never meant to intercept low-altitude targets, but only those cruising at medium-/high-altitudes. But battlefield MR-SAMs like Buk-M2E do need to overcome clutter reduction if deployed over undulating terrain or within valleys & hence the raisable masts containing target engagement radars. Furthermore, for low-altitude air-defence, there’s the motorised TOR-M2KM & S-350E Vityaz that’s now available, just as from China’s ALIT there’s the motorised LY-80E & FK-1000 that’s available. The FD-2000 & FT-2000 are both long-range systems. The success of any SEAD/DEAD mission depends primarily on the attack tactics used, as demonstrated by the Israelis in both 1973 & 1982 & by the US in early 1991, & not purely on the capabilities/limitations of ground-based air-defence systems.

To AKSHAY: Nope. It was never meant for the IA. The only time it was publicly displayed in 2010 showed it in IAF colours.

To ARPAN: VMT & the very same to you. 1) No particular reason. But the centerline pylon is certified for carrying a LGB. 2) All indications are that it has been scrapped. 3) Nope. There’s no need for it since the IA has never specified an air-droppable light tank & such light tanks in any case won’t survive against the likes of ZTZ-96G or ZTZ-99 MBTs of the PLA. Consequently, the T-90S or even Arjun Mk1 will be quite suitable for deployment in either Ladakh or Sikkim, PROVIDED the BRO succeeds in building the long-overdue all-weather roads in these two areas. Also, the Rudra helicopter gunship armed with PARS-3LR ATGMs will be equally potent in terms of blunting any offensive armoured thrust in both the Dolam Plateau & Chumbi Valley. 4) Nothing new as yet. Perhaps more will be revealed at the DEFEXPO 2014 expo.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

India’s Research and Analysis Wing (R & AW), which in early 2012 had acquired two pre-owned Bombardier Aerospace-built Global 5000 regional air transportation for conversion into broad-area surveillance aircraft, recently took delivery of the first of these two aircraft from Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI). Both Global 5000s will be permanently based at the Aviation Research Centre (ARC) of R & AW’s Charbatia air base in India’s Odisha State and they will replace the ARC’s two 21-year-old Gulfstream G-III special-mission aircraft and a Learjet 35A that are fitted with only ITEK-built LOROP cameras. Each Global 5000 has been fitted with a belly-mounted IAI/ELTA-built EL/M-2060P synthetic aperture radar and roof-mounted SATCOM antenna, and a fuselage-mounted Elbit Systems-built Condor-2 long-range oblique photography (LOROP) camera, plus SIGINT/ELINT sensors provided by Elbit Systems. While the ARC is the owner of such aircraft, the two Global 5000s will be flown and maintained by the Indian Air Force and they will be used for real-time border surveillance along India’s territorial frontiers.

And here's the photo:

Anonymous said...

Is the Kashmir issue capable of starting a nuclear war especially with TNWs in the hands of Pakistan army and Navy ?

What do you think would happen if India deliberately decide to denounce nuclear weapons ?
Will international community help us cleansing Pakistan of nuclear weapons and terrorism ?

Does India have capability to thwart a tactical nuclear attack ?

Btw, is it not practically sensible to be nice to your neighbor (china) than to your distant penpal (US of A) ?

Pakistan & china - is it a marriage of convenience or true love ? What does it take to break this vicious friendship ?

AK said...

Dear Prasunda,

On the issue of Pak TNWs, have a look at the following report:

What do you think?

Raj said...


I guess this paper beautifully covers the issue of problems in Indian Defence industry:

Can you please build upon this?

Thanks and best

SS said...


When it comes to design of Naval destroyers or frigates, we can see the Chinese naval architects designs mimicking closely with American designs (Like their Arleigh Burke Class destroyers). Where as the Indian designs closely resemble the European platforms. Now the latest German designs (As available in open literature) follows the same approach of distributed placement of APAR radar arrays around the superstructure of ships to avoid a blackout in case of a hit at one antenna array. Where as in case of Kolkata class destroyers which is having the entire AESA antenna array unit mounted on single mast lacks the backup (Once taken a hit it might cause the unavailability of all the four antenna arrays). Your views.

rad said...

HI Prasun
I dont understand the logic of india going in for smaller sized air frames for specialist mission aircraft like the embraer and the smaller gulf stream 280 etc.
Though you have said that ARC has 2 global 5000 aircraft, they dont seem to have ordered the same aircraft. Neither do i understand the logic in mounting a smaller capabile SAR radar pod elm 2060 rather than an active phased array stuff like the JSTAR and the ASTOR. Does Israel posses a radar in the similar league?Or is due to the fact that the Phalcon awacs can also do SAR work as well, i do remember you mentioning that .
More over the Israeli speaker in aero india was talking about future systems being dual capable Ie surveillance of air space and land using the same antenna.
I dont understand the capability for target towing etc?
Is there a proposal to t urn the astra into a ARM issile and wait for another 10 year?

vrp said...

what are the chance of Indian fighters against this missile? can they counter this missiles?

sir your views on this post in some previous post you have stated that PA will never hand over nuke to Pak navy, how true is this post and what should be India's strategy?


raw13 said...

There is one important thing you guys need to take into account when you read any article written by an indian about pakistan (eg. on TNW)....take it with a kilo of salt. Ask anyone in the west they will tell you this.

Objectivity does not come naturally to indians wrt pakistan. I admit few of them are good. Have a read of this:

If you want to learn how Pakistan plans to deploy/ use TNWs. There are couple of great technical papers written by NATO officials. Pakistanis have said many times that, that is their blue print.

...but there are also people who say pakistan has no nukes!!!

Want to lean about the org chart of pakistan's nuke authority, SPD:

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Anon@5.35AM: And where will such TNWs be used? And if at all the TNWs were the panacea for all of Pakistan’s ills & for according conventional deterrence, then why are Pakistan’s armed forces spending close to US$6 billion per annum on acquiring conventional weapon systems? It is these questions that need to be answered before the rest of your questions.

To AK & VRP: I’m highly surprised by the utterly irresponsible analysis of a former Vice Admiral of the IN regarding Pakistan’s WMD posture. Firstly, I’ve already explained several times before why only the Pakistan Army is the sole custodian of all of Pakistan’s WMDs. Secondly, exactly how many Vera-E passive surveillance systems (PSS) has the Pakistan Army acquired for protecting its WMD storage sites? Only two so far. Neither the PN nor PAF possess such PSS. Thirdly, there’s no such weapon as a dirty nuclear bomb. It has never existed & never will, except for Hollywood flicks. Fourthly, TNWs can never be used in the high seas in international waters because, the maritime target/s will always remain elusive & manoeuvring, making targetting all the more impossible & since any TNW explosion will also destroy merchant marine targets astride the international sea lanes of communications, their usage in the high seas is next to impossible.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To RAJ: Regretably, I don’t agree with your prognosis. That paper, in fact, has done what all other such papers have done so far, i.e. put the cart before the horse & shirk away from the core issues. Before any country even contemplates the attainment of weapons indigenization objectives/targets, it first has to agree on what kind of warfare it is expected to wage in the years to come, where will such wars likely be fought & lastly, how will the warfighting objectives be attained. The following monographs will help you understand this imperative:

Only after articulating such a national security posture can one move on to the next stage of formulating the necessary warfighting directives. Only after this comes the stage of acquiring the necessary tools (weapons) reqd for executing the warfighting directives & exploring various ways of procuring such tools, i.e. through indigenous R & D or through imports. That’s why it is critical that the Govt of India declassifies the ‘Strategic Security Review’ that it had conducted in the fall of 1998. If, for instance, the Review rules out the occurrence of an all-out war along India’s territorial frontiers & instead states that only limited high-intensity conventional & sub-conventional wars will be the norm, then this will result in the IA being downsized & restructured. Then, there will be no need to acquire weapon systems optimised for desert warfare like what the IA is aimlessly procuring right now. It is indeed laughable to see the IA insisting on procuring foreign/indigenous weapons that will be fully functional during daytime in the Thar/Cholistan deserts when it is more than evident that the desert theatre will be totally irrelevant during a future round of conventional limited warfare to India’s west against a nuclear overhang. Doctrinally speaking, such type of warfare for tangible tactical gains will be possible from both military & political standpoints only over disputed area, i.e. in Jammu & Kashmir. The same goes for the areas along the LAC & the only worthwhile areas there are in Ladakh & Sikkim, nowhere else. And as for desert warfare, even in 1971 the Pakistan Army’s gameplan in Rajasthan/Longewala was to commence offensive operations after dusk & achieve the objectives by sunrise. The IA too learnt from this & accordingly two of its three strike corps is configured for fighting from dusk till dawn in the deserts, & never during the daytime. One cannot fight during daytime when temperatures inside any armoured vehicle will be so high that the vehicle’s crew/passengers will be knocked out by heat-strokes! Then why all this constant hullabaloo about making the Arjun MBT or Nag ATGM fully functional in the deserts at noontime or in the afternoon??? Why test out the Arjun Mk1 for a mobility run of 16,000km when during wartime it will log in no more than 500km at most on the battlefield, since the IA won’t venture beyond 20km inside Pakistan?

Cont'd below...

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

Then there’s the issue of choosing between import substitution & export promotion. By choosing the former since 1956, India has created Central Public Sector Enterprises like the DPSUs whose only task was to licence-produce imported hardware. Had export promotion been accorded overriding priority, then, just like its counterparts in the ROK, these military-industrial entities would have been profitable & would have produced internationally competitive products/solutions. This is where India went wrong & this is what the ROK did right. And as I had explained above, due to lack of institutional farsightedness, R & D has been conducted in a piecemeal manner, for instance in the arena of ring laser gyro-based inertial navigation systems (RLG-INS) coupled to GPS receivers. Contrast this with how SAGEM of France developed the SIGMA family of RLG-INS & why today the IA’s Pinaka Mk1 MBRLs use a land navigation system using the SIGMA 30 RLG-INS, why the IN’s warships, submarines & MiG-29Ks use the SIGMA-40 RLG-INS & why the IAF’s Su-30MKIs, Tejas Mk1s, MiG-27UPGs, MiG-29UPGs, Mirage 2000UPGs & DARIN-3/Jaguar IS/M all use the SIGMA-95N RLG-INS.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To SS: Distributed APAR arrays are not meant for back-ups. The latest-generation warships of the UK, France, Italy, Germany & The Netherlands all use mast-mounted APAR arrays since in that position, the APAR installation is the safest. Any inbound ASCM will always be attracted most to a warship’s hull or above-deck structures excluding the masts purely due to RCS considerations.

To RAD: The IAF has not yet ordered any aircraft for persistent battlefield surveillance & when it does, chances are that it will stick to the Bombardier 5000 airframe. EL/M-2060P possesses the same capability as JSTARS & ASTOR. In addition, the DRDO is presently developing the necessary algorithms reqd for developing an active phased-array X-band SAR version of the existing S-band L-STAR radar.

To RAW13: M K Bhadrakumar this time is way off the mark in his assessments. Based on recent conversations with Shanghai-based think-tanks as well as Chinese Foreign Ministry officials, it is clearly evident to me that China an Afghanistan with ZERO Taliban presence & Beijing is also getting increasingly irritated with Pakistan’s on-going ding-dong on whether or not to launch counter-insurgency operations in North Waziristan, since several separatist Uighurs, aided by Chechan mercenaries, are already operating from this area & are targetting China’s copper-mining activities that have already commenced in Afghanistan. In fact, Chinese officials have also recently stated that China & India ought to team up to train & equip Afghanistan’s army, navy & air force & I’m told New delhi is seriously examining this option. Iran too today needs India more than anytime before since India is a major customer for Iranian crude exports & India is also the sole financier for making the north-south trade corridor (using roadways & railways) starting from Central Asia all the way up to Chah Bahr a distinct reality. It is therefore now up to Pakistan’s civilian & military elite to decide on whether to join the party as a productive regional stakeholder or remain a spoiltsport. For, history shows us that Pakistan’s decision-makers have traditionally been a magnificently deluded lot, & hence they’ve named their ballistic/cruise missile families after those very Muslim invaders who subsequently went on & mercilessly persecuted fellow Muslims of the previously undivided subcontinent. Had better sense prevailed, then such missiles would have been named as a Bhatti, or a Rana, or a Faheem or a Cheema—traditional Pakistani surnames.

Lastly, here’s a splendid analysis of Pakistan’s WMD-related security:

Anonymous said...

for those who are interested in learning CATIA.

Anonymous said...

Prasun sir,
I read the reply you have given to RAJ and see that you have explained in short the conclusion of Where ROK was right and where India went wrong. Many thanks for the short conclusion. Could you also give a detailed article on it (the conclusion)?
Also, reading previous articles i garner that public sector companies (along with the MOD) are responsible for gross inefficiencies as OEMs. But then, how do similar public sector companies such as BAE systems, EADS, Raytheon turn out to be extremely successful?

raw13 said...

Infact the very first pakistan nukes where not under PA control. This is corroborated by numerous articles by ex CIA, ex USA national security advisors to their president and pakistani authors. They were infact based and stored at Sargodha Air Force base. PAF F-16 were configured to drop them. Even corroborated by USA sources. Off course all these people could be just spreading BS.

One of the reason Pakistan did better than india lately in the nuclear security rating is to do with org SPD/NCA. Pakistan has moved on and evolved its nuclear command.

Why do we name our missiles after muslim kings? Well they are our forefathers and we are proud of them. What we have is because of them, their courage, their daring. As to the killing when one empire replaced another, thats power play!!!! Just to tell you higher percentage of british people were killed in their civil war than in any war ( Should they all hate each other?

raw13 said...


Subcontinent was always divided and always will be just like europe. This is why we have different languages, cultures, history, foods. A benali is as different to a gujrati has a greek is to a swedish. Or as winston churchill said: “India is as much a nation as the Equator”

If you want to generalise, just say we are all human, that all our genes can be traced to 6 females.

Sujoy Majumdar said...

Prasun Da ,

Interesting Read .

Google Moon has located a mysterious object on the Moon . Something that you have already mentioned long ago .

Thanks ,


Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To RAW13: They were indeed spreading BS. The first WMD design on which cold-tests were conducted in `1989 proved to be unwieldy & undeployable & only after this was conclusively established did Pakistan decide to go for the Hatf-4/Shaheen-1/CSS-6/DF-15/M-9, Hatf-6/Shaheen-2/M-18/DF-25, Hatf-2/Abdali//P-12 and Hatf-3/Ghaznavi/M-11/CSS-7 Mod 1/DF-11A from China’s CPMIEC between 1989 and 1999. And as for the late Lord Winston Churchill’s rant about “India is as much a nation as the Equator”, were he to be alive, he would have for sure made a course-correction & would also have stated that “Pakistan should first become a functional state before striving to become an ideological state”. As for India backstabbing Iran, don’t forget that it was Pakistan that invented this art back in 2004 when it was the first to blink by admitting that Dr A Q ‘Bhopali’ Khan’s ‘WMD walmart’ had helped Iran & Libya to secure WMD-related technologies, thereby shattering the myth of so-called global Muslim solidarity. Iran replied back in kind to Pakistan in late 2010 when it helped the CIA to trace OBL back to the Abbottabad compound (as I had explained above) & the icing on the cake came late last year when Iran & the US/EU closed ranks to work closely in Middle East/Central Asian regional security issues. Needless to say, all this, coupled with growing China-India convergence on issues like post-2014 Afghanistan does not bode well at all for the magnificently deluded power-brokers in Islamabad & Rawalpindi.

To LACHIT: The Ghaznavis, Ghoris, Taimurs, Khiljis, Lodhis, Tughlaks & Zahiruddin Babur were NEVER the forefathers of today’s Pakistanis. These invaders were all either Turks or Chugtai Turks or Uzbeks who conversed in Turkish dialects & their method of instruction was through the Persian language. Let’s also not forget that it was Genghis Khan who laid to waste the kingdoms of Baghdad & Istanbul, while the likes of Ahmed Shah Abdali & Nadir Shah (both Muslims) ransacked the Muslim empires along the Indo-Gangetic plain. And contrary to popular the Pakistani folklore claiming that Afghanistan is a country that even Alexander the Great couldn’t conquer, what the self-deluding Pakistani composers/propagators of such folklore don’t realise is that Afghanistan as a nation-state came into being in only 1747 under Ahmed Shah Abdali: prior to that there existed no landmass called Afghanistan. So, yes, RAW13 does at times tend to provide comical relief, albeit of the delusional kind.

Heberian said...

Actually, it appears that more than 1 person is using the raw13 handle. Some with excellent writing and some with writing from a shop in Darra Adam Khel.

The one that writes well also shares very sensible thoughts like most of us here, and the one that writes in a trashy manner in bad English seems to be from the Zaid Hamid school of "thought" (!! thought is the wrong word here.. but you know what I mean !!)

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To HEBERIAN: That does indeed appear to be the case.

raw13 said...

As long as you gents enjoy my comments, that is a pleasure in itself. But these discussions do highlight the gulf that exists at national, political & cultural levels. As soon as you guys realize that we are not going to disappear and more importantly that we will NEVER rollover and let you play the big boy role we will be fine.

Unknown said...

i have seen arjun mk2, and iam confused between mk2 and mk 1, and also plz sir tell me the weight of mk 2.......