Friday, October 31, 2008

Upgrades For Sea King Mk42B & Ka-28PL




To provide its new-generation principal surface combatants with extended precision warfare capabilities for both ASW missions and anti-ship strike operations via over-the-horizon targetting, the Indian Navy (IN) has initiated a two-pronged approach: procuring the initial 16 of a projected 60 new-generation shipborne 10-tonne multi-role helicopters; and upgrading the mission sensor suite of 18 of its AgustaWestland-built Sea King Mk42B multi-role, medium-lift, shipborne helicopters and 28 Kamov Ka-28PL ASW helicopters. Navy HQ has already issued restricted RFPs to AgustaWestland, Sikorsky Aircraft and NH Industries (part of EADS) calling for the off-the-shelf supply of an initial 16 helicopters. Contenders for fulfilling this requirement include AgustaWestland’s AW101, NH Industries’ NH-90, and Sikorsky’s CH-148 Cyclone.

For the existing Sea King Mk42Bs and Ka-28PLs to be upgraded at a cost of Rs6 billion and Rs8.5 billion, respectively, the only ultra low-frequency dipping sonar being offered for the selected helicopter is L-3 Communications’ Ocean Systems Division’s HELRAS DS-100, while low-frequency sonars being offered are THALESRaytheon’s FLASH and the DRDO-developed/BEL-built Mihir. Tactical anti-ship strike missiles being proposed include MBDA’s AM-40 Block 3 Exocet and Kongsberg Marine’s NSM. The belly-mounted search radar is widely expected to be the ELTA Electronics-built EL/M-2022H(A)3, while an ELTA-built optronic turret is favoured as a chin-mounted installation. The mission management suite likely to be selected is Galileo Avionica’s (part of Finmeccanica) ATOS-LW, which will also function as an acoustic signals processor. The 18 Sea King Mk42Bs will each have an all-glass cockpit similar to the one on board the Dhruv ALH, and its mission sensor/weapons suite will be the same as that on board the 16 to-be-acquired shipborne helicopters. Each of the 16 new shipborne helicopters will cost as much as Rs1.1 billion, and will be required to carry 15 combat-ready soldiers or two medium-range anti-ship cruise missiles.

The specified new enhancements for the Sea King Mk42Bs and Ka-28PLs include new composite main rotor blades, five AMLCD cockpit displays (two primary flight displays and three multi-function displays), an automatic flight control system (AFCS), twin AHRS for providing aircraft attitude and heading information to the cockpit display and AFCS. The AMLCDs will serve as replacements for a majority of the older style ‘steam gauges’ and provide the aircrew with a wealth of versatility and selectability in presentation of aircraft flight, navigation, and engine system information and monitoring. The AFCS will be of the 3-axis type with duplex architecture, comprising two AFCS computers and two AHRS. The duplex feature will give the AFCS a fail-passive and fail-operational capability after any first failure. The AFCS will also provide for attitude retention and automatic heading hold in a hover. For cruise flight modes the pilot will be able to opt for basic attitude retention or select to couple to heading or GPS, and altitude or airspeed for true hands-off flight. These new digital, solid-state units now allow for elimination of the older and sometimes shortlived spinning mass vertical gyros and directional gyros and their associated sensors.

The IN is also going in for five more Kamov Ka-31 airborne early-warning (AEW) helicopters worth Rs2.75 billion each, to add to the nine Ka-31s already inducted in 2003-2004.—Prasun K. Sengupta

27 comments:

Anonymous said...

better buy aw-101 or nh-90
both r operational and proven

than cyclone helo which is new and costly and need to b poven for some years

aw-101 matches more closely with sea king cuz its same company and with commonality some parts in both helos

Anonymous said...

in latest news AESA for GRIPEN NG will come from thales or it will b scaled version of RBE2 AESA

cuz there is some problem from US about aesa tech and to protect its tech going in other hands

so now just think will they give us aesa tech and while other r catching up very fast and soon

Anonymous said...

only canada is going to buy ch148 as of now both aw 101 and nh90 r well proven n operational

for ch 148 it is new will take couple of years to fully operational

aw-101 seems to b much closer to sea king and front runner and there can b commonality between seaking and aw101 ,so navy may prefer aw101

Prasun K Sengupta said...

To Anon@5:26AM: It seems almost everyone is nowadays using buzzwords like 'transfer of technology' or ToT without exactly defining what exactly it stands for. To me even if someone teaches me how to apply lubrication to mechanical components or change engine oil seals or spark-plugs means that the OEM is transferring some technologies. So what exactly does ToT mean with regard to AESA radars, that everyone keeps harping about, including the Indian Minister of Defence? Does he even realise that despite TATRA Trucks transferring manufacturing technology to BEML in the mid-1980s, everytime you see such trucks being paraded during Republic Day, they are all left-hand drives? So what kind of ToT took place between TATRA and BEML? At the opposite end of the spectrum, how come a country that took more than 15 years to develop PESA radars like the Rajendra BLR/WLR, can suddently develop AESA-based radars like the LRTR in less than six years? Where did such ToTs come from and at what cost? To me these are some of the questions crying out loud for convincing answers.

Anonymous said...

At the opposite end of the spectrum, how come a country that took more than 15 years to develop PESA radars like the Rajendra BLR/WLR, can suddently develop AESA-based radars like the LRTR in less than six years?

do you even know the commonalities b/w esa's & when the aesa program was launched? answer is 96-97 my freind. it took 10+ years to master aesa technology. and ur mistaken in thinking it all came via TOT. no, drdo worked out its own receiover, exciter, MPM, digital sources and signal processing.

i would suggest getting hold of radar professional and picking his brain, you will have your answers. drdo's radar progress is very accumulative & example of learning curve. same as in electronic warfare systems.

Anonymous said...

prasun ur right,

no country transfers its tech to other country

at most for MRCA v will get only tech for airframe thats all,no one will transfer FLY BY WIRE TECH
no one will transfer RADAR TECH
no one will transfer ENGINE TECH
NO ONE TRANSFER MISSILE SEEKER TECH


like OUR MRCA v want TOT to make planes at home so that our people can get jobs,but it doesn't means that TOT is our tech but it is developed by someone else,v r just producing license product

v can fully exploit TOT only if v have years of experience in making defence product and have success in developing them on our own from scratch but v have none of above

but like russia which has experience in all defence products if they have access to foreign tech by other means like spying or etc so they r much more capable to fully exploit that info than us

Anonymous said...

prasun,

TOT looks good only on paper,but in actual no country transfer tech

if that was the case japan (a developed country)has TOT for f15 and F2 can it make its own fighter,can it make its own engines,can it makes own armament

if TOT was the case is china able to make its own al31,rd33 engines
r they able to make their own radars,standoff weopans,

chinese only make airframe of sukhois and other sub systems like ours

russia refused to transfer al31 engine tech even for lots of money


v have TOT for su30 where v can use that in LCA doesn't seem so
so y v need TOT for MRCA where v can use that

v have TOT for type209 can v make our own subs ,now v want more subs with TOT

Anonymous said...

kamov helicopters r unique because of contra rotating blades

ka 25,28,31 r smaall enough for navy cuz thet don't have rear rotor this saves lots of room on ship

and same for ka 50,52 they r compact than other attack helicopters and cheaper too

Anonymous said...

is mi35 still in production
not sure


check out this video of mi35 with glass cockpit

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WM7eJmHfBes&feature=related

Prasun K Sengupta said...

To Anon@10:50AM: Please give me a break! Despite all the big talk and claims about DRDO-developed integrated EW systems, we all have seen on board the Project 16 and Project 16A FFGs (during the recently concluded Ex Malabar 2008) what exactly those EW systems were and from where they were sourced! No matter what claims anyone may make, it is simply not possible for an Indian defence electronics OEM to fabricate a state-of-the-art AESA-based LRTR from scratch based on just laboratory-level R & D work done by the DRDO. Developing such test-modules is one matter and mastering the industry-level production engineering technologies and setting up series production facilities is a wholly different and far more challenging undertaking and no defence PSU will take the risk of undertaking concurrent R & D/production engineering and no one has done so far. And that is precisely why no one, not even BEL, has as yet revealed a production-level Rajendra BLR or its WLR clone. Therefore, claiming the LRTR to be a wholly indigenous product instead of it being the EL/M-2080 Green Pine is foolhardy, to say the least. Glorifying lab-level R & D achievements in DRDO newsletters does not automatically translate into a successful industrial production effort.

Prasun K Sengupta said...

To Anon@10:50AM: No radar professional worth his/her salt will be able to explain what took the DRDO so long to develop a WLR clone of the Rajendra BLR. You don't have to be rocket scientist to figure out that a PESA target engagement radar can also be employed (with customised applications software) as a WLR. Yet why was the WLR project taken up only in 2002 instead of being introduced into service way back earlier in the mid-1990s? Let's face it: the DRDO got some clues about WLR operations and performance parameters only AFTER the first TPQ-37 Firefinder radars were received by the Indian Army. Until then the DRDO was absolutely clueless about what exactly constituted a WLR. And we all know now what were the consequences of this technology lag during Kargil. I have yet to see a more haphazard R & D effort than that of the Rajendra BLR and its WLR clone.

Prasun K Sengupta said...

To Anon@11:34AM: The Mi-35 is very much in production for Venezuela and Indonesia.

Anonymous said...

what is cost per piece of mi35 now

and y not upgrade existing mi35 buy additional mi35 with new avionics

boeing left the indian helicopter competion for its apache helicopter cuz our contract was just of $ 500 million,but

boeing sold 24 apache helicopter to s.korea for
$811 million and that was 60% less than the actual factory price and in this way each helicopter cost 33million

now just think what will b the actual price after adding that 60%

this was tha main reason that our tender is worth 500million for 22 combat helicopters and boeing knows that it can't sell apaches at this low price thats y they left the competion

Anonymous said...

To Anon@10:50AM: No radar professional worth his/her salt will be able to explain what took the DRDO so long to develop a WLR clone of the Rajendra BLR. You don't have to be rocket scientist to figure out that a PESA target engagement radar can also be employed (with customised applications software) as a WLR. Yet why was the WLR project taken up only in 2002 instead of being introduced into service way back earlier in the mid-1990s? Let's face it: the DRDO got some clues about WLR operations and performance parameters only AFTER the first TPQ-37 Firefinder radars were received by the Indian Army. Until then the DRDO was absolutely clueless about what exactly constituted a WLR. And we all know now what were the consequences of this technology lag during Kargil. I have yet to see a more haphazard R & D effort than that of the Rajendra BLR and its WLR clone.

dear prasun, you are clearly NOT a radar professional, so please ditch the abrasive tone. it is not conducive to a professional discussion, if ur interested in one.

first, the WLR clone of the Rajendra was developed ONLY after the basic rajendra was developed to the satisfaction of the user. the DRDO does not have infinite teams working on 100 projects. they have to prioritise, and the akash project took priority. the WLR project was only cleared AFTER the basic rajendra met user clearance.

second. the WLR is NO clone of the Rajendra. it is a highly customised system, with both scan, and dwelling optimised for detecting, and tracking low RCS targets at high elevation that means dedicated signal processing for the unique swerling combinations of target configurations

third it is extremly presumptuos of you to state that DRDO had no clue of WLR before the US radars arrived. as stated before, it was a matter of priorities. only after the basic AD Rajendra was proven was the go ahead for a wlr sought. please not claims in media about WLR project existing for decades are wrong. Kalamsir only mentioned that the Rajendra had the potential to be used as a WLR, and so it is. but the current design is absolutely different from the rajendra of the 80's. technology has evolved, lrde has practical experience, and that has been incorporated in the system this includes a large GIS database for the same

finally, by declaring the Rajendra development as haphazard, one can only say you need to talk to the developers in question to understand the intricacies of the task. this is where you sadly are very mistaken about what the rajendra means. there are few analogues of the rajendra worldwide even in advanced nations like russia which depended on multiple radars for the tasks which rajendra can handle on its own

unlike many radars -AD network systems worldwide, the rajendra is a unique MFCR, which performs volume search, area search, precision tracking, fire control and integrates it with its own c3i. all in all, its a very complex unit, with capabilities that dwarf much less complicated units.

To Anon@10:50AM: Please give me a break! Despite all the big talk and claims about DRDO-developed integrated EW systems, we all have seen on board the Project 16 and Project 16A FFGs (during the recently concluded Ex Malabar 2008) what exactly those EW systems were and from where they were sourced!

dear prasun, you can visit DRDL and see the systems first hand, and get user feedback as well.

FYI, ALL elements of project sangraha are in production. the israeli sourced systems were interim fits before BEL launched Ellora production. india is no longer importing any EW systems for the navy bar integrated suites which come preapplied to a platform and for which it is too much pain to remove and integrate.

please be aware of the depth and competence in india in both radars and EW systems. you can determine both from visiting professional establishments & user interface opportunities. unfortunately, you are also used to the lay media and keep believing india relies on TOT and what not. and you delete comments which you dont like.

Anonymous said...

No matter what claims anyone may make, it is simply not possible for an Indian defence electronics OEM to fabricate a state-of-the-art AESA-based LRTR from scratch based on just laboratory-level R & D work done by the DRDO. Developing such test-modules is one matter and mastering the industry-level production engineering technologies and setting up series production facilities is a wholly different and far more challenging undertaking and no defence PSU will take the risk of undertaking concurrent R & D/production engineering and no one has done so far.

i can only express my surprise at how mistaken you are. there are production tx/rx modules from different batches both at BEL and drdo partner orgs in india.

And that is precisely why no one, not even BEL, has as yet revealed a production-level Rajendra BLR or its WLR clone.

there are several batches of production WLR already on bel shopfloor, with concurrent engineering applying latest feedback from user. rajendra 2 is already validated and production 3, so is rajendra 1. after user trials for army, raj 3 will be cleared for production as well.

Prasun K Sengupta said...

To Anon@1:11PM: With due respect it is you that's being presumptous by ASSUMING that I haven't stepped inside any DRDL lab or into BEL's production facilities. The Rajendra's full-scale functional mockup was ready by 1991 and I have yet to see any official confirmation of any firm orders being placed by the MoD for the Rajendra BLR-3 even as I write (it is 2008, mind you!). Even if one takes the examples of Taiwan and South Korea and their experiences in developing, producing and deploying radars like the Rajendra, it has been all been achieved within an 8-year period. In case of the Rajendra work began way back in 1984 and the first production unit has yet to roll out! No matter what you claim and persist upon, I prefer to go by the 'officially declared' results/accomplishments and they clearly reveal that the Rajendra BLR-3 hasn't yet emerged from BEL's production line. I would also like to point out that one needn't be a radar prtofessional to figure out the across-the-board applications of certain core technological competencies. It is more than obvious that a PESA-based target engagement radar can also be reconfigured to work as a WLR. The US, Russians, Chinese and Israelis have all done it before. So why the delay till 2002 to launch the WLR project? For your information such PESA-based WLRs are already been replaced by AESA-based radars like the Cobra and EL/M-2084 and by the time the BEL-built WLR is offered the end-user will definitely and rightly ditch it in favour of AESA-based WLRs. If as you claim the DRDO does not have enough resources and must prioritise, here again you are being presumptous as money has never been a problem with the DRDO. The problem has been the inability of successive DRDO Secretaries to adopt the policy of 'define and confine' so as to ensure the timely service induction of DRDO-developed weapon systems. Clear examples are the HUMSA-NG and Mihir low-frequency sonar systems, which are being produced at a time when the global norm is for ultra-low frequency sonars. Clearly the DRDO is behind one generation in sonar technologies and one wonders if the DRDO has even applied for an industrial patent for its futuristic ultra-low frequency sonars, or has it already been denied such patents because the likes of L-3 Ocean Systems, THALES and ATLAS Elektronik have already beaten the DRDO to it.

Regarding the multiplicity of radars employed by Russian SAM systems, you may be referring to the Kvadrat or S-300PMU-1s. If you study the Buk-M2E or S-400 Triumf, you will clearly see what the current world standards are.

Lastly, thanks for confirming my earlier assertions that the Indian Navy does continue to import integrated EW suites. Rest assured that just as the Project 16A Brahmaputra-class FFGs have now been shwon equipped with RAFAEL/ELBIT-built EW suites, very soon photographic evidence will emerge of the Project 17 FFGs and Project 15A DDGs (and the refitted INS Viraat as well) too being equipped with imported integrated EW suites. Until then I would caution you against overestimating the capabilities of the DRDO or BEL.

Anonymous said...

drdo yet to produce its first land based aesa radar

y navy has imported EW systems,israeli radars ,israeli SAM because DRDO HAS failed to meet navy requirements

DRDO produced EW system for navy but y there is imported EW system on naval ships,israeli radars

Pritam said...

Mr. Sengupta please post some recent pics of P-28 and P-17 ships underconstruction with details.

If possible Light Combat Helicopter (LCH) and Nirbhay cruise missile also.

Thank you.

Anonymous said...

talwar class also has 8 vertical launch cells but no sure they r fro brahmos or for SAM

trisha said...

PRITAM sir,

For those ship detalis and LCH, please visit ajai shuklas blog. just google ajai shukla blog and you ll find the results.

for nirbhay prasun says that it is actually a tech-demo uav and not a cruise missile. ask him for more details.

prasun sengupta,

why did not malaysia upgrade their sea kings?

Prasun K Sengupta said...

To Anon@6:24AM: The eight-cell VLS on the first three Talwar-class FFGs are for the Club-M. On the three Shivalik-class P-17 FFGs the eight-cell VLS is for the BrahMos. On the follow-on three Project 1135.6 FFGs being built at Yantar Shipyard's Kaliningrad-based shipyard the eight-cell VLS is for the BrahMos.

To Trisha: The Nirbhay is not a tech-demo UAV, but a UAV to simulate the terrain-hugging flight profile of a cruise missile like the Babur/DH-10A LACM. As for Malaysia upgrading its S-51A-4 Nuri helicopters here's the update: On November 28, 2006, Heli-One, an operating subsidiary of Canada’s CHC Helicopter Corporation said that it had commenced work on a new contract to install auto-hover systems in six RMAF S-61-A4s. Heli-One was awarded the CDN$13.3 million contract by Airod Sdn Bhd. Heli-One has since integrated the Smiths SN-502 auto-hover system Airod is providing engineering support and installing the systems in-country.

Anonymous said...

o Anon@1:11PM: With due respect it is you that's being presumptous by ASSUMING that I haven't stepped inside any DRDL lab or into BEL's production facilities.

when was the last time you visited one? if you had been there even 3 years back you would have seen the 2nd batch of production unit of sangraha systems. if ur in east asia how are you gonna know these thigns


The Rajendra's full-scale functional mockup was ready by 1991 and I have yet to see any official confirmation of any firm orders being placed by the MoD for the Rajendra BLR-3 even as I write (it is 2008, mind you!).


mock up is not the real thing. mock up is done for giving engineers an idea of volume vs design and it can change drastically
in real purpose the mockup you saw will have no relation to actual one today because need change, items change performance change technology changes


Even if one takes the examples of Taiwan and South Korea and their experiences in developing, producing and deploying radars like the Rajendra, it has been all been achieved within an 8-year period.


taiwan has no indigenous radar of rajendra class it has one large system for its home missile system and it is actually an us design made by them
this is common knowledge in industry
in fact janes issue @ 1981 has detaols on it
south korea also makes no radar of its own design to level of rajendra
it also does technology from thales and produces locally at samsung thales techwin to needs of ADD



In case of the Rajendra work began way back in 1984 and the first production unit has yet to roll out!


i dont know what you are seriously talking about
first production unit of raj 1 and raj 2 came out long back
then user came and said we want more stuff
so fine, raj 3 came and yes, concurrent engineering means blr 3 is available


No matter what you claim and persist upon, I prefer to go by the 'officially declared' results/accomplishments and they clearly reveal that the Rajendra BLR-3 hasn't yet emerged from BEL's production line. I would also like to point out that one needn't be a radar prtofessional to figure out the across-the-board applications of certain core technological competencies.


you need to be a radar professional to understand what i am talking aboit
you are talking x while i am saying y and if i start saying z i dont know whether you will understand me
will you still like it if i taklk to u about swerling targets about rcs glnt about receiver/exciter detail about signal processing and similar achievement of drdo which r first in asia?
wthout getting into technology this debate is going nowehere
in fact you take offense if i point out such things


It is more than obvious that a PESA-based target engagement radar can also be reconfigured to work as a WLR.


boss, 90% of wlr till now r are purpose desined wlr. ask raytheon or others. chinese wlr is also ripped off from architecture of an series
rajendra is not a joke or simply u take 2 modules out and say vpila this is WLR
u have to reconfigure entire antenna assembly, receiver side design and also transmitter characteristics and then only you get to signal processing side which means doing software for rdp also when it comes to tracking
now from drdo point of view why do all this when your developing blr first clear akash tests (2002-3 with blr-2) then u start wlr
if drdo takes project and misses deadlines its called name
if u dont take project its problem so u take it when u have adequate personnel

The US, Russians, Chinese and Israelis have all done it before.

sorry no they havent they have purpose designed WLR most of which r worse than what wlr will be capable of
in fact ask us marine in iraq what wlr performance was and u will het true answer
indian wlr will overcome these shortcoming because it is taken care of in design stage




So why the delay till 2002 to launch the WLR project? For your information such PESA-based WLRs are already been replaced by AESA-based radars like the Cobra and EL/M-2084 and by the time the BEL-built WLR is offered the end-user will definitely and rightly ditch it in favour of AESA-based WLRs.


i dont know what ur fascination with aesa is
fyi end user is fully committed to pesa WLR because it offers mich of benefit of AESA at lower cost
rajendra production is already full swing on shopfloor
that is why i asked u to visit bel instead of keeping on getting angry @ people for giving u informaion (1st time in my life i am seeing this)
aesa based wlr will come IF user ask for it till date they have not
and WLR production committment has been obtained from user and that is what you will see on shopfloor


If as you claim the DRDO does not have enough resources and must prioritise, here again you are being presumptous as money has never been a problem with the DRDO.


are you making joke prasun? surenly not here are u aware of how bad situation was? just because money is flowing now does not mean drdo has been rolling in money
also resource doesnt mean money
u dont put 100 engineers on project and they will deliver
drdo like all top agencie has limited top personel who need to manage such project hands on
they are freed only when some are available
actually trishul cancellation was big boon for drdo for example cozx highly trained team wasted on chasing mirage requirements became available

The problem has been the inability of successive DRDO Secretaries to adopt the policy of 'define and confine' so as to ensure the timely service induction of DRDO-developed weapon systems.

are yeh sab bakwaas hain yaar blown up by media
if drdo sa to rm defines, he is reinventing wheel
if he keeps silent he is not dynamic
one way or other he will get names


Clear examples are the HUMSA-NG and Mihir low-frequency sonar systems, which are being produced at a time when the global norm is for ultra-low frequency sonars.


u do what the user wants
in this case navy signed off on sonars after seeing performance
and fyi based on results, first sonar is clearly equal to imported analoguies


Clearly the DRDO is behind one generation in sonar technologies and one wonders if the DRDO has even applied for an industrial patent for its futuristic ultra-low frequency sonars, or has it already been denied such patents because the likes of L-3 Ocean Systems, THALES and ATLAS Elektronik have already beaten the DRDO to it.


sorry drdo is not behind its peers in HMnaval sonar, u can ask user for details about operational performance achieved
in towed sonar, drdo is doing ok, but is behind in dippling sonar because frankly drdo never worked on airborne system till "idea came" of navalising drhuv

coming to patents:
boss u dont patent what u r developing in defence all the time unless ur a commercial organization
drdo patents ppl outside know what it has done and not
if u want to block competitive research u patent
in fact rite now, drdo is not out for patents
its different story for civil like csir

Regarding the multiplicity of radars employed by Russian SAM systems, you may be referring to the Kvadrat or S-300PMU-1s. If you study the Buk-M2E or S-400 Triumf, you will clearly see what the current world standards are.

buk m2e also uses multiple radars, see that small radar on telar and u will know its limiation incluiding burn thru range
s-400 is yet to achive full status of what expected to do and also relies on multiplicity of radars in full deployment config
there is one advantage of multiple radar = redundancy
but for country like india which have money limiation u need to put more in one

Lastly, thanks for confirming my earlier assertions that the Indian Navy does continue to import integrated EW suites.

i told clearly that navy placed orders for these fewe years back when ellora was still to be productionied now no more impoorts

Rest assured that just as the Project 16A Brahmaputra-class FFGs have now been shwon equipped with RAFAEL/ELBIT-built EW suites, very soon photographic evidence will emerge of the Project 17 FFGs and Project 15A DDGs (and the refitted INS Viraat as well) too being equipped with imported integrated EW suites. Until then I would caution you against overestimating the capabilities of the DRDO or BEL.

nope. i will not talk of number of suites imported but u can come to india and find out the reality

fyi if production starts @ 2006 it is for ships fitting out in 2009

i am not overestimating, ur underestimating
which is why i said u need to come to india and visit all labs
with ur access as defence journo u should do it if ajai could why not u

Anonymous said...

drdo yet to produce its first land based aesa radar

stupid comment

several land based AESA radar exist and there r pics of them
search and u will find

y navy has imported EW systems,israeli radars ,israeli SAM because DRDO HAS failed to meet navy requirements

more stupid comments
most naval ships have ajanta system
navy asked for ellora (brand new sststem developed under sangraha) and imported israeli system in meanwhile
no israeli radar replaced drdo radar
one drdoradar project for navy was sanctioned and it is on trial ship already
sam system is joint development between drdo and navy and israel

DRDO produced EW system for navy but y there is imported EW system on naval ships,israeli radars

read above

there r drdo ew system on ships, subs and planes
for large battleship class/frigate class ellora stysem was in trials so navy with drdo clearnace ordered rafael system

Prasun K Sengupta said...

To Anon@1:12PM: You are absolutely right regarding you talking about X and me talking about Y. That's why your answers are not clarifications as such, but merely denials. But I'm not interested in convincing you or anyone else. But this I can say with certainty that clearly you have not been following the radar R & D scenes inTaiwan (with CSIST) and South Korea (with the ADD) and maybe you haven't yet visited aerospace/defence expos in these countries. Hence your poor grasp of the facts. Lastly, you also obviously also have no idea of whether I'm a regular visitor to India or DRDO HQ or to any BEL facility. Hence your ill-informed statement of me being unaware of radar-based R & D issues within India just because I'm based in East Asia. It is answers like these that tend to shatter all and whatever credibility that you claim to possess. Lastly, do check up with ELTA and EUROArt and ask them why they have developed AESA-based WLRs instead of PESA-based systems. Their answers alone will tell you whether I'm right or wrong about the obsolescence of the DRDO's PESA-based WLR.

Prasun K Sengupta said...

To Anon@1:12PM: Contrary to your assertions, what I've heard from more than 10 different officials from IN HQ is that the operational requirement is for ULTRA-LOW Frequency sonars (HMS, dunking & towed-array), whereas the DRDO can only offer low-frequency systems. By remaining silent on this critical issue you've clearly exposed your ignorance on this topic and its relationship to the issue of obtaining industrial design patents. It is clear you have no direct link to the scientists at NPOL and therefore you are totally unaware of the design handicaps the NPOL is facing and it is primarily due to this that the IN wants ULTRA-LOW Frequency sonars of FOREIGN origin. Ask any NPOL official or foreign sonar OEM taking part in Aero India or DEFEXPO exhibition and the truth will come out pretty fast.

Anonymous said...

pls open the star today and there is a letter saying that not necessary to buy EC helicopters. please blast that guy.

Anonymous said...

To Anon@1:12PM: You are absolutely right regarding you talking about X and me talking about Y. That's why your answers are not clarifications as such, but merely denials. But I'm not interested in convincing you or anyone else. But this I can say with certainty that clearly you have not been following the radar R & D scenes inTaiwan (with CSIST) and South Korea (with the ADD) and maybe you haven't yet visited aerospace/defence expos in these countries. Hence your poor grasp of the facts. Lastly, you also obviously also have no idea of whether I'm a regular visitor to India or DRDO HQ or to any BEL facility. Hence your ill-informed statement of me being unaware of radar-based R & D issues within India just because I'm based in East Asia. It is answers like these that tend to shatter all and whatever credibility that you claim to possess. Lastly, do check up with ELTA and EUROArt and ask them why they have developed AESA-based WLRs instead of PESA-based systems. Their answers alone will tell you whether I'm right or wrong about the obsolescence of the DRDO's PESA-based WLR.


i actually know every little bit about the technology including the x bit phase shifters. if i talk about it, you will keep yelling more. about obscolesnce and stuff please dont make me laugh, ELTA officials actually were enterested in the DBSM of indian wlrs and SP solutions employed. my credibility is well known, and all ur insults will not take it away. in fact all u do is cheapen yourself by falling to this level. and i frankly dont care about u or ur blog anymore. ur behaviour towards who were ur otherwise well wishers is shameful. call everyone all the names u want and be happy.