Saturday, December 20, 2008

BrahMos MRCM Operational With Indian Navy



The BrahMos supersonic multi-role cruise missile (MRCM) being co-produced by BrahMos Aerospace Ltd, a Russia-India joint venture company, continues to evolve in terms of its versatility and on March 5 this year a ship-to-shore land attack variant of this missile was test-fired (this being the missile’s 15th successful firing) from INS Rajput’s inclined launcher and it scored a direct hit against a designated target located in one of the islands of India’s Andaman & Nicobar Island chain. And on December 18, the Indian Navy’s (IN) second Kashin II-class guided-missile destroyer (DDG) to be equipped with the BrahMos (including four forward-mounted in inclined position and eight stern-mounted vertically-launched missiles) conducted the first successful vertical launch of the MRCM in the Bay of Bengal. Consequently, the BrahMos MRCM is now operational as an anti-ship cruise missile, and well as a land attack missile launched from both warships and ground-based mobile autonomous launchers (MAL).

The Indian Army (IA) on June 21 last year officially received its first Battery of the BrahMos MRCM in the presence of Avul Pakir Jainulabdeen Abdul Kalam, the then President and Commander-in-Chief of India’s armed forces; Defence Minister Arakkaparambil Kurian Antony; and Gen Joginder Jaswant Singh, the then Chief of the Army Staff and Chairman of the Chiefs of Staff Committee. In all, the IA will possess a total of some 250 land-attack variants of the BrahMos MRCMs, including war wastage reserves, by 2017. It was on February 3, 2005 that the Government of India’s Cabinet Committee on National Security had approved the IA’s plans to raise the first of three Regiments of the BrahMos’ MRCM as part of the 40th and 41st Artillery Divisions in the 10th and 11th Five-Year Plan periods (2002-2007 and 2008-2013). Each Battery comprises three Batteries each comprising four MALs, a Mobile Command Post (MCP), a Fixed Command Centre, four replenishment vehicles and three maintenance support vehicles. Each MAL carries three vertically-launched BrahMos missiles, and covers a frontage of 600km. The missile launcher’s launch beam is articulated to make the launch cannisters vertical through a high-pressure hydraulic system controlled by an electronic controller. The COTS-based launcher control system (LCS) functions in coordination with the MCP-mounted fire-control system (FCS) and a mast-mounted millimeter-wave line-of-sight secure communications system. Each MAL has a containerised power supply system consisting of 40kVA diesel generating set and 40kVA PTO alternator, a 2 x 7.5kVA single-phase UPS with integral battery bank for 15 minutes back-up power generation, and a 5kVA single-phase diesel generator.

The IA will use the BrahMos MRCM to decisively shape and influence the deep battlespace. The missile flies at a cruising speed of Mach 2.8 (to be increased in future to Mach 7), has zero circular error probability, is equipped with a long-range imaging infra-red seeker or an optional active radar seeker with built-in electronic counter-countermeasures features, and can take out mobile or stationary targets on land and in the high seas 290km away. It is 9 metres tall, weighs three metric tonnes, and carries a conventional 300kg warhead with 90kg TNT content. It has two stages—a solid propellant booster stage, and a ramjet-powered second stage using liquid propellant. Compared to existing subsonic cruise missiles, the BrahMos is superior by a factor of 3 in terms of velocity, 3 times better in flight range, 4 times better in terms of seeker range, and 9 times superior in terms of kill energy. Billed as a weapon unleashing technological asymmetry in the battlespace, this MRCM is capable of tilting the balance of war in favour of the possessor who can use it imaginatively and decisively. Under its new warfighting doctrine, the IA plans to wage a series of ‘knowledge-based’ deep battles by denying hostile ground forces the ability to employ their forces and assets not yet engaged at the time, place, or in the strength of their choice. Operating in a network-centric environment, the IA will use the BrahMos MRCM to hit the enemy as deep in his own territory as possible. The depth of these strikes will mostly range in excess of 150km from the Forward Edge of Battle Area. In order to fully optimise the BrahMos MRCM’s operational parameters and ensure synchronised battlespace management in a network-centric warfare environment, the Army is now in the process of fielding the indigenous Command-level Battlespace Surveillance System; Corps-level ‘Shakti’ Artillery Command, Control & Communications System; Command Information Decision Support System (CIDSS) and its related Division-level Force Multiplier Command Post (FMCP) and Brigade-level Mobile Communications Terminal (MCT); all of which will be used for target acquisition, designation and engagement under near-real-time conditions by the BrahMos MRCM. The ‘Shakti’, CIDSS and FMCP will all employ secure tactical data links to receive data and imagery from not only medium-altitude long-endurance and high-altitude long-endurance unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV), but also airborne ISTAR aircraft and space-based assets like synthetic aperture radar-equipped imaging satellites. This in turn will enable a single BrahMos Regiment to launch 36 MRCMs to successfully engage critical targets with pinpoint accuracy within a matter of seconds. Each missile can be pre-programmed to fly multiple flight trajectories through up to eight waypoints permitting turns up to 80ยบ, traverse any type of terrain from sea-level to high altitude, and engage targets whether on forward or reverse slopes of mountains and valleys. The IA will consequently possess all the key attributes--knowledge, speed, precision end-game targeting solutions, and lethality—that are required for engaging in full-spectrum, knowledge-based joint warfare in a network-centric battlespace environment.

It was on February 12, 1998 that BrahMos Aerospace, an India-Russia joint venture company, was created for developing a multi-role, supersonic MRCM capable of being launched from principal surface combatants, submarines, ground-based mobile launchers, multi-role combat aircraft and maritime patrol/ASW aircraft, has achieved significant developmental milestones over the past nine years. The first test-flight of the BrahMos MRCM occurred on June 12, 2001 and the second followed on April 28, 2002, both from fixed on-shore launchers. The third test-flight was conducted on February 12, 2003 from
INS Rajput, a Project 61ME Kashin II-class DDG of the (IN), while the fourth took place on October 29, 2003 from a fixed on-shore launcher. The fifth test-firing was conducted on November 9, 2003 from a wheeled, road-mobile launcher. The sixth test-firing on November 23, 2003 was from INS Rajput, and a seventh test-firing took place on June 13, 2004, from a road-mobile launcher. The eighth test was conducted on November 3, 2004, again from INS Rajput.

For series-producing the MRCM, the sprawling BrahMos Integration Complex (BIC) in Hyderabad was commissioned in early 2004. The BIC today contains dedicated facilities such as standby generators; compressed air facility; inward inspection block; storage facilities for mechanical, electrical and electronic systems, bonded stores fuel filling area, magazine storage areas for propulsion systems and explosive devices, ultrasonic testing and sub-system test facilities, machining shop, and precision co-curing/autoclave facilities. BrahMos Aerospace has created a consortium of 20 Indian and 30 Russian industries since 2002 to undertake production of the MRCM’s intricate precision components and subassemblies, which number more than 2,000. The Indian companies include private and public sector companies, such as Larsen & Toubro, Godrej & Boyce, Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd, Bharat Earth Movers Ltd, and Electronics Corp of India Ltd. While the Indian firms are providing the MRCM’s airframe, launch tubes, wheeled MALs and MCPs, digitised inertial navigation and flight control systems, fire-control system, imaging infra-red seeker, secure two-way data links, and mission software, Russian companies like NPO Mashinostroyenia and GRANIT Central Scientific Research Institute are providing the liquid-fuel ramjet engine, and the SGH active radar seeker for the missile’s anti-ship variant. All these components and sub-systems are finally installed and integrated at the BIC. In April 2004, Brahmos Aerospace tied up with Russia’s Rosoboronexport State Corp to globally market the BrahMos family of MRCMs. The agreement on joint export promotion of the BrahMos family of MRCMs missile was inked by Andrey Beliyaninov—the then Director General of Rosoboronexport; Professor Dr Herbert Yefremov, Director-General of NPO Mashinostroyeniya; and Dr A Sivathanu Pillai, CEO and Managing Director of Brahmos Aerospace.

The first production version of the land-based surface-to-surface variant of the BrahMos MRCM was successfully test-fired on June 13, 2004 from the Integrated Test Range (ITR) at Chandipur-on-Sea in Orissa State, facing the Bay of Bengal. This was followed by the second launch of the same variant of BrahMos on November 21, 2004 at the Mahajan test range in Pokhran, Rajasthan. The third test-firing of the MRCM—a variant for the Army—took place on November 30, 2005 from the ITR, while the fourth and test-firing (the 14th for the BrahMos) took place from the same site on April 22 last year. BrahMos Aerospace received the required financial allocations in December 2005 to begin R & D work on developing an air-launched variant of the missile. This variant will weigh about 2.5 tonnes, incorporate a smaller rocket booster, and have additional control fins for stability during launch. Meanwhile, an integrated team of experts for doing weapons qualification-related engineering work has been sourced from the Indian Air Force’s (IAF) Bangalore-based Aircraft & Systems Testing Establishment, BrahMos Aerospace, DRDO’s Centre for Military Airworthiness & Certification and the Bangalore-based Defence Avionics Research Establishment, Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd and Sukhoi Experimental Design Bureau to jointly develop the airborne weapons management system and related launch control system required for enabling the Su-30MKI Mk3 heavy multi-role combat aircraft to carry a solitary BrahMos in the centerline belly-mounted pylon plus an additional two missiles—one under each wing. The IAF intends to order 60 air-launched, land-attack/maritime strike BrahMos MRCMs between 2008 and 2013. The IN too intends to arm its yet-to-be-acquired new-generation maritime patrol/ASW aircraft as well as its existing eight Tu-142M long-range MP/ASW platforms with the air-launched BrahMos.

R & D efforts are also underway now to qualify the BrahMos in a modular, vertically launched configuration on board platforms like the Amur 1650 and Type 636 diesel-electric submarines (SSK). The SSKs will be able to carry eight BrahMos missiles contained within a vertical launch system (VLS). IN vessels to be armed in future with the BrahMos MRCM include the three follow-on Project 1135.6 guided-missile frigates (FFG) that were ordered in July 2006 and which will be delivered between 2010 and 2012 by Russia’s Kaliningrad-based Yantar Shipyard JSC (these will each have eight BrahMos MRCMs on a single eight-cell vertical launch system, or VLS), the three Project 15A Kolkata-class DDGs (now being built by Mumbai-based Mazagon Docks Ltd or MDL, for delivery between 2009 and 2012) each of which will have a VLS containing 16 BrahMos MRCMs, and the seven MDL-built Project 17A FFGs each of which will have a 16-cell VLS. In addition, the already concluded development of both inclined quad missile launchers and the modular VLS launch concept by BrahMos Aerospace for naval applications will significantly boost the missile’s export prospects, since a variety of both existing and projected warships will be able to house such launchers with minimal structural modifications. In 2005, the IN made good its promise to be the country’s first of the three armed services to induct the BrahMos into operational service. The induction process began in February 2005, with INS Rajput being the IN’s first warship to be equipped with the BrahMos. By the year’s end, this DDG was retrofitted with another twin 2-tube launchers, resulting in a total of eight BrahMos missiles being carried on board. The IN had by late 2005 placed firm orders for 18 BrahMos MRCMs. On July 27, 2006 the IN formally declared operational the warship-launched BrahMos MRCMs at INS Kalinga, the Navy’s principal naval base at Visakhapatnam. The IN has to date installed BrahMos MRCMs on INS Rajput, (four in canisters inclined at 15° and another eight in vertical launchers fabricated by Larsen & Toubro in the stern adjacent to the helicopter deck), while two more such DDGs--INS Ranvir and INS Ran Vijay--are now being armed with similar inclined and vertical launchers. INS Ranvir was upgraded by December 2006, with INS Ran Vijay following this December. Thus, in all the IN will have 256 BrahMos operational MRCMs by 2015 on board 16 principal surface combatants. The missiles on board are capable of both maritime strike and land attack.

For potential export customers requiring inclined missile launchers, BrahMos Aerospace has developed a modular package comprising the following:

Base Structure, which forms the interface between the launcher structure and the warship’s deck structure and is welded to the ship deck in longitudinal direction at an angle of 4° to the horizontal.

Launcher Structure, a welded lattice structure constructed out of box sections. It has eight support pads bolted permanently to the base structure. This structure has clamping arrangements at three places corresponding to third, fifth and seventh supports of the missile canister. The clamp assemblies are in two halves. The bottom halves are permanently bolted to the launcher structure whereas the top halves are removable. This structure supports two missile cannisters. An optical measuring element has been provided on the structure to measure the alignment of the canister with respect to the warship’s axes.

Thrust Bearing Structure (TBS), which is welded to the top deck of the warship and its base structure with proper alignment. This structure transfers the launching loads to the warship’s deck.

Bottom Resting Unit (BRU), which comprises two parts--cylindrical shell and dish end. The cylindrical shell comprises the cannister with electrical connectors connected to the cannister. The dish end is bolted with the cylindrical shell. The BRU rests against the TBS on the launcher.

Cannister Loading Supports, which are required during the loading of the missile cannister on to the launcher when the sea is having moderate movements. While loading, the cannister is first placed on these loading supports. The assembly is then transferred to the clamp assembly by lowering the loading supports and moving back until the cannister is positioned and the locating pin matches perfectly.

Loading Gear, which comprises two main units--lifting beam and its accessories, and a hydraulic power pack. The lifting beam is designed for tilting the missile cannister in air in any desired angle in the range of 0° to 20°. It handles the cannister by holding it at the handling supports. A hydraulically-driven screw in the lifting beam is used to tilt the missile cannister to the desired angle with the help of hydraulic power pack. The lifting beam is designed to handle the cannister, weighing up to 4.5 tonnes, including the BRU’s weight.--Prasun K. Sengupta

111 comments:

Anonymous said...

Corrrect me if i am wrong

BrahMos MRCM on a HI-LO trajectory, with the BrahMos MRCM cruising to the target area at an altitude of about 14,000 meters (46,000 feet)have a maximum range of about 280-300 kilometers, while on a LO-LO trajectory the maximum range is about 120 kilometers . Maximum speed is about Mach 2.6-2.8 at high altitude and about Mach 1.5 at low altitude.This will make BrahMos MRCM only cruise missile in the world that need to cruise to the target area at an altitude of about 14,000 meters to achieve a range of 300km.

Anonymous said...

Prasun K Sengupta said... The R-Darter, like the Derby, has a range of no more than 40km and is therefore inferior to the Mica-EM.

no thats not true here is link saying that R-dater have a range of 63km

Denel R-Darter has a light weight of 120kg and reported range of 63km.http://www.strategycenter.net/research/pubID.181/pub

Prasun K Sengupta said...But the F-16s now being delivered will be able to fire only AIM-7F Sparrows.

Pakistani F-16 Block15 OCU has an upgraded APG-66 radar are capable of firing both AIM-7 Sparrow and AIM-120C-5 AMRAAM

according to schedule AIM-120C-5 AMRAAM 125 have already been delivered to Pakistan. 125 AIM-120C-5 AMRAAM will be delivered in 2009, 125 in 2010 and the last 125 in 2011

Pakistan Fiza'ya

http://www.f-16.net/f-16_users_article14.html

Modifications
The Pakistan Air Force currently has the Block 15 F-16A/B model in operation, which has an upgraded APG-66 radar that brings it close to the MLU (Mid-life Update) radar technology. The main advantage is the ability to use the AIM-7 Sparrow and AIM-120 AMRAAM missiles if they were ever to be released to the PAF. Furthermore, the radar is capable of sorting out tight formations of aircraft and has a 15%-20% range increase over previous models. All the earlier F-16s were brought up to OCU standards and have received the Falcon UP structural modification package.

Anonymous said...

Is it true that IAF will buy the BrahMos MRCM for its Su-30MKIs???

When In will test submerged BrahMos MRCM from submarine???

Will Scorpion Submarine be able to fire BrahMos MRCM in future??

Anonymous said...

Prasun K Sengupta said... It is believed that the India-Russia joint venture BrahMos Aerospace Ltd is now no longer pursuing the prospect of qualifying the BrahMos on the IAF’s Su-30MKI air dominance combat aircraft. In a way, this portends well for the IAF as its operational requirements never called for acquiring BrahMos-type MRCMs. The IAF’s reasons for acquiring the ADMs and not the BrahMos are primarily two-fold: the BrahMos’s target engagement envelope is limited to 290km and it can armed with only non-nuclear warheads due to Russia’s adherence to MTCR guidelines; and weight-cum- payload carriage limitations that have resulted in the BrahMos having the potential to be flight-qualified only on board the Su-30MKI.


now Prasun K Sengupta says...Su-30MKI Mk3 heavy multi-role combat aircraft to carry a solitary BrahMos in the centerline belly-mounted pylon plus an additional two missiles—one under each wing. The IAF intends to order 60 air-launched, land-attack/maritime strike BrahMos MRCMs between 2008 and 2013.

Which i true statement????

Anonymous said...

BrahMos MRCM Operational With Indian Navy"
BrahMos MRCM has zero circular error probability, is equipped with a long-range imaging infra-red seeker or an optional active radar seeker and can take out mobile or stationary targets on land and in the high seas 290km away.

even APACHE / SCALP / STORM SHADOW / TAURUS KEPD 350 / AGM-158 JASSM have circular error probability (CEP)of around 3 meters, HOW COME BrahMos MRCM have zero CEP???

is BrahMos MRCM tested against mobile targets

do you have any pictue and Brochure of BrahMos MRCM with imaging infra-red seeker

Anonymous said...

prasun, did u take those photos of the manufacturing (or assembly?) line?

it looks even more basic than a plastic factory..

Anonymous said...

why does it look like a cottage industry, prasun?

Anonymous said...

It is not a cottage industry idiot. Missiles of this type are made on a unit production basis, as the entire production run lasts just a few thousand at the max. That kind of a production run wont be able to amortise the huge expenditure towards mass production assembly line. besides what you see is only the final assy facility. You would get a much more hi-tech picture if you could somehow see the component level manufacturing pictures.

Anonymous said...

Sir, How many Agni-1, Agni-2, Agni-3 and Prithvi missiles have been produced to date by type ?

Over 20 Agni-1 and 20 Agni-2 ?

Thanks

Anonymous said...

fuck you bithc, did i ask u that question? i asked prasun. r u prasun you stupid mofo? making a missile takes time. have you seen production facilities for patriot? it looks like a factore not a cottage industry. this is not cruise missile to make one in 5 days. it is quick use missiles, and india needs thousands of them at any time. again i am asking prasun. if u want questions then open ur own blog

Anonymous said...

^^^

i mean this is not a ballictic missile

Anonymous said...

Rituparna Sengupta sister?

Prasun K Sengupta said...

To Anon@10.19PM: The BrahMos cannot be compared with terrain-hugging cruise missiles and therefore will not be adopting a hi-lo-lo flight profile. Secondly, it is highly unlikely that the BrahMos will be launched from the FEBA. Instead, it will be fired from as distance of at least 100km behind friendly lines. Thirdly, the BrahMos is not a strategic missile, but is to be used for tactical interdiction and precision engagement of time-sensitive and high-value ground targets. Therefore, it can be safely assumed that the BrahMos' effective range (the distance from its launch point to its intended target) in terms of engaging its targets will be about 180km only.

To Anon@10:30PM: While giving the ranges of the R-Darter & Derby I was quoting their brochures published by Denel Aerospace and RAFAEL.

To Anon@10:34PM: The IAF is interested in acquiring BrahMos for anti-ship strike only and therefore once it is decided when the Su-30MKIs will replace the existing Jaguar IMs, only then will the IAF order the air-launched BrahMos. Currently there are no plans to equip any operational submarine of the Indian Navy with BrahMos, although ARMARIS has proposed to the Navy that the latter 3 of the Six Scorpenes on order could be equipped with 8 BrahMos VLS cells.

To Anon@11:27PM: As I explained earlier, the IAF is interested in acquiring only the anti-ship strike variant of the BrahMos. For precision air-to-ground strikes the IAF is happy with both the Popete-Lite and the ADM now under development.

To Anon@11:42PM: The land-launched variant of the BrahMos will have a very small diameter airborne data link of the type installed on board the Popeye-Lite and it is due to this capability that the BrahMos' on-board imaging infra-red seeker will be able to transmit in real-time the imagery of the target to the missile controller (who will be sitting inside an airborne command post aircraft equipped with an inverse synthetic aperture radar like the EL/M-2060P). This aircraft can even be a Su-30MKI equipped with the pod-mounted EL/M-2060P and a data link to provide terminal course-correction updates to the BrahMos, after it receives in real-time the imagery of the target as seen from the BrahMos' imaging infra-red seeker. In other words, the Army's BrahMos will have the same kind of target engagement system as the air-launched Popeye-Lite and will therefore not be a fire-and-forget missile like the SCALP/Storm Shadow or KEPD, etc.

To Anon@2:44AM: The photo of the BIC, as the name suggests, is the final assembly line and just one photo is not indicative of the entire production process of the missile. Major sub-assemblies of the BrahMos come from Orenburg, from Godrej & Boyce and Bharat Dynamics Ltd and the BIC in Hyderabad only assembles the final product. In fact, this type of manufacturing process is cost-effective and quicker. That's why a parallel final assembly line has been set up in Kerala (at KELTECH) to cater to the Army's requirement for accelerated deliveries. Therefore, if you can imagine these two separate final assembly lines combined into one, you will get one sprawling facility that you may have been expecting.

To Anon@5:36AM: I reckon about 12 Agni-2s and six Agni-1s. About 180 Prithvi SS-150s have been built thus far, all armed with conventional warheads.

To Anon@8:12AM: No relationship whatsoever with her. Distinctly different family trees.

Anonymous said...

thanks for the answer.

regarding your answer to another question, how about nuke warheads? are they available on a shelf so the in case of nuclear strike we can assemble and launch? are 12 agni 2 enough?

Anonymous said...

^^^^^

[i was the guy who asked why the facility looks like a cottage industry].

Anonymous said...

do ppl think there is only 1 sengupta family in india? sengupta is a popular bengali family name... isnt it?

Anonymous said...

will the ADM be of the same class as AGM-129 ACM

Prasun K Sengupta said...

To Anon@9:14AM: No, the warheads are never kept in a fully assembled state. The plutonium cores are in DAE's custody while the warhead detonation mechanisms and sub-assemblies are in DRDO's custody. Given India's 'no first strike' doctrine, India is in no hurry to launch a retaliatory nuclear strike. It can strike back after six hours, six days or even six weeks. As far as Agni-2 nos go, for nuclear deterrence a minimum but credible force-level is enough, unless one wants to carpet-nuke the enemy, which is not the case. Indian strategic targetting priorities against China will only call for high-value targets like Beijing, Shanghai and Guangzhou.

To Anon@9:18AM: You're right.

Prasun K Sengupta said...

To Anon@9:41AM: No, the ADM will be supersonic and its range will not exceed 1,200km.

Anonymous said...

i noe india is in no hurry but it shd be ready atleast...

Prasun K Sengupta said...

What do you mean India is in no hurry? If you want to get an idea of how huge the backlog is in terms of yet-to-be-implemented projects, kindly read this at: http://www.indianexpress.com/news/security-upgrade-90-of-budget-yet-to-be-spent/400999/

Another point I wish to bring to attention is about my earlier assertion that the ATV project is only an R & D venture (i.e. a technology demonstrator instead of being an operational SSBN). This has been confirmed now by the former CNS Admiral (ret'd) Arun Prakash in the second-last para of his article published at: http://livefist.blogspot.com/2008/12/admiral-arun-prakash-is-future-beneath.html

Anonymous said...

Sir,
There were reports that BDL was to undertake manufacture of Mica, R-73 and R-60 air-to-air missiles and does manufacture components for Derby and Python for Rafael. Are these reports true and does the IAF use the Python and Derby ?
Appreciating your response with thanks.

Prasun K Sengupta said...

No, BDL is not involved in any venture to build components for the R-73E or R-80T or even the Python 5 or Derby. The Python-5 and Derby will be used by the six upgraded Sea Harrier FRS Mk51 V/STOL aircraft, while the IAF's maritime strike Jaguar IMs fitted with EL/M-2032 radar will use the Python-5.

Anonymous said...

Prasun, is india planning to buy any dedicated bomber aircraft to your knowledge? apparently India was negotiating for some Tu22 Backfires; do you know the status? thanx

Prasun K Sengupta said...

No, there are no plans to acquire dedicated manned bombers as precision long-range strikes, even of a strategic nature, can easily be fulfilled by ballistic and cruise missiles, in the Indian context. Hence, the only inter-continental range weapon system desired by the Strategic Forces Command is the 8,500km-range SLBM.

Viki said...

Sir,wats the status of LCH?

Anonymous said...

Viki, you are really a no brainer who always asks the silliest questions in the world. For LCH please visit http://ajaishukla.blogspot.com and scroll down. All info is there. Now are you going to ask 'sir, wats LCH stand for' or 'sir, wats LCH'?

Prasun, stop laughing your ass out. when are you gonna update this site? are you going to sit on this Brahmos MRCM Operational tieh Navy thing till new year? and then for new year 'Brahmos MRCM operational with Army'? come on, lift your lazy ass and start moving.

Anonymous said...

oh, and silly viki, dont leave any replies in Ajai Shukla blog as Prasun has swallowed him for the time being.

Anonymous said...

mr.pks, does indian air force have the capability to carry out surgical strikes on pakistani LeT targets? what sort of Laser guided bombs does india use (if any)? It should have some considering it has litening Pods?

wouldnt its AS-30L and KH-29L missiles suffice?

Please brief me on this.

I am asking based on this report http://www.thenews.com.pk/top_story_detail.asp?Id=18960 that says india doesnt have the capability for surgical strikes.

thanks and best regards

Anonymous said...

will the 8500km slbm be mirv?

Anonymous said...

Macha, any idea of potential export customers? and you said earlier IAF is not interested in Brahmos but prefers ADM? Now which is which?

jack said...

Hi, its the first time I'm on your blog. U did not mention all the classes of ships that will be armed with the Brahmos so just wanted to finish the long list.
Frigate: 6 talwar(2 are already armed), all shivalik, all brahmaputra and all godavari hopefully by 2010.
Destroyers: All Rajput(3 are already armed), all kolkata and all delhi.
Corvette:tarantul(all) and Khukri(all)
Subs: 6 sindu are already armed with Klubs and should be armed with the brahmos very soon by 2010. Brahmos already tested from static underwater stand in Russia.

I guess we are now up to date. U seem to not like Indian defence authorities a lot and always talk about our failures and delays. Nothing wrong but compared to Chinese and pakis we criticize our governments a lot. Just had one quesion, whats the new ASW you mentioned? is it the upgraded Il-38SD. I dont think Nirbhay is an ADM

Anonymous said...

jack, nirbhay is not an adm, its a target uav according to prasun. http://trishulgroup.blogspot.com/2008/11/nirbhay-uav-detailed.html

when it comes to chinese most of their projects are rev. eng ones and rarely comes to light before it is fully developed (spare some instances). in pakistans case, once india tests a missile, the start off with bravado a 'development program'. within 3 yrs it will be complete and ready because its usually off the shelf tech frm china/ukraine/morth korea, while in indias case (drdo) most developments are fully homegrown. so the hiccups are always there.

Anonymous said...

a similar article came on livefist (by pks also) http://livefist.blogspot.com/2007/08/more-on-nirbhay.html

and most of the people (commentors) were throwing potshots at him. anyway it shd be tested early next yr and we will see the end result as to who's word prevailed.

Prasun K Sengupta said...

To Anon@4:44AM: Yes, the SLBM will have MIRVs, at least three of them.

To Anon@4:06AM: The report in THE NEWS is erroneous on several counts, but the term surgical air strike refers to an air campaign with limited specific objectives that is not part of an all-out war on a sustained basis. Can such air strikes be mounted by the IAF? Definitely yes, and you don;t need precision-guided munitions (PGM) for this, even gravity bombs can be used for such strikes. But will they achieve anything? No, they will just be punitive, that's all. Now, talking about PGMs, India definitely has the upper hand as its inventory of LGBs, LGMs and PGMs using optronic target acquisition systems (like the Popeye-Lite) is much bigger than what the PAF has. I can perfectly understand why Pakistan's armed forces are on the edge and that is because, unlike its Indian counterparts, it does not have access to strategic surveillance/intelligence-gathering tools like overhead recce satellites or MALE UAVs. In terms of the air force, the IAF today, thanks to aerial refuelling capability, can activate a strike package deep within India's interior, with its final destination being a target deep inside Pakistan. And all this is done without giving any indication whatsoever of an impending air attack since PAF air defence/early warning radars cannot look deep within Indian airspace. Therefore, the IAF can launch an offensive air campaign with virtually no warning (leave alone 4 hours or 2 days as is being said in the media). The IAF has had enough time since November 26 to activate its already wargamed contingency strike plans and this is what is now giving the PAF endless headaches. Therefore, due to all of the above, the PAF is only engaging in second-guessing the IAF's intent and capabilities, and this is what we called 'estimates-based warfare', whereas the IAF, thanks to its superior early warning-cum-battlefield surveillance systems, is ideally placed to wage 'knowledge-based warfare'.

Prasun K Sengupta said...

Machaa, neither the BrahMos (land-launched, air-launched, ship-launched or sub-launched) nor the ADM (both the air-launched and submarine-launched) will be exported. The IAF will eventually acquire the air-launched anti-ship variant of BrahMos. But don't confuse it with the ADM as the ADM will carry a nuclear warhead, and not a BrahMos-type conventional warhead. You must also understand that BrahMos, when compared to the MM-40 Block 2, Harpoon-2 Block L, 3M54E1 or 3M14E, and the C-602, is terribly more expensive. Each BrahMos missile alone costs US$6 million and on top of it you have to invest in over-the-horizon surveillance and targetting systems the kind of which only five or six countries worldwide can afford to have, and none of these countries want to induct a Russia-desdigned weapon system. It's that simple. So, no exports of BrahMos, period.

To Jack: When talking about Indian naval principal surface combatants being or to be armed with BrahMos, I only mentioned those platforms that have already been officially identified by Navy HQ as carriers of the BrahMos. These include 3 Kashin 2-class DDGs, three Project 1135.6 Improved Krivak-class FFGs, three Project 15A Kolkata-class DDGs, three Project 15B DDGs that are projected for acquisition, and the 7 Project 17A FFGs. Therefore, I have no idea from where you heard the following:
* That six Talwar-class FFGs will have BrahMos.
* That the three (not 6) Project 17 Shivalik-class FFGs will have BrahMos. The 3 Shivalik-class FFGs will, like the three Talwar-class FFGs, will have Club-M on board.
* That all 3 Project 16A Brahmaputra-class & 3 Project 16 Godavari-class FFGs along with all Tarantul-1 and Project 25 Kukri-class corvettes will have BrahMos.
* That the Type 877EKM Kilo-class submarines will have BrahMos.

As to whether or not I like Indian defence authorities is of no consequence to anyone and I frankly don't know how you may have reached this conclusion, since I tend to, as far as possible, stick to factual reportage of events and avoid giving facts mixed with opinions. But I do question several of the decisions taken by some 'authorities'. Perhaps, you could be more specific.

Anonymous said...

ok prasun i posted ur comment in bengal under attack blog (bengalunderattack.blogspot.com) as i read this thing from that blog. just open the comment form in the latest topic and see. hopefully u dont mind me copy paste ur opinion.

Prasun K Sengupta said...

Thanks. I don't mind at all.

Anonymous said...

Mr Sengupta,
Why doesn't India reverse engineer any of it's air-to-air missiles to ensure it can manufacture the type in a contingency ?
In 2005, Mr. Mohandas of BDL announced that the Igla and all future R-73 requirements would be manufactured by BDL.
Does BDL have any plans to make air-to-air missiles or is it just waiting on the Astra AAM ?

Prasun K Sengupta said...

Well, a direct question indeed deserves a direct answer. Therefore, if you compare the Matra (now MBDA) Super 530D AAM's airframe with that of the Astra AAM, you will get your answer. As for the active radar seeker, these can be bought in bulk off-the-shelf from Russia's Vympel JSC. The question of manufacturing them or any other weapon system during any contingency does not arise as the production order includes more than adequate quantities that are then stored in warehouses as 'war wastage reserves'. Regarding the Astra, BDL will handle final assembly, while BEL and HAL will be principal sub-contractors.

Anonymous said...

Appreciating all of your points. Still cannot understand the claim of R-73 and Igla manufacture by BDL. No reason to deceive !

Are the War Wastage Reserves of air-to-air missiles adequate to cater for Pakistan's apparent manufacture of the Darter ?

Also, doesn't the R-73M have the same range as the Darter ?

The Astra looks like a much aerodynamically improved, longer ranged Super 530D. Slimmed down.

What of the prospective procurement of Mica for the upgraded Mirage 2000s ?

Thanking you again

BENGAL UNDER ATTACK said...

Prasun Da,

Eibaare amar blog e eshe ekta comment kore jao - this is a topic you will be very familiar with.

http://bengalunderattack.blogspot.com/2008/12/with-limited-military-options-what-can.html

Thanks

BuA

Viki said...

to anon 3:34...dude i know wat an LCH is...I was just askin about its present status & wen itz going 2 b inducted...if my questions r a source of problems 2 u then accept my apologies!!!!

Anonymous said...

i already copy pasted prasuns comment in that blog

Anonymous said...

Hey Prasun,

You are a dude! so much detail about so much stuff..... havent worked all day after finding your blog... (I will curse you If I am fired)
I know what I am doing in the next few holidays...

BTW is there a way to access the archives before september?

Keep up the good work sir.

Max said...

@Anon - 6:12:00 AM

He only started this blog sometime in September.

@Prasun

Why don't you think the BrahMos would qualify for any export orders? You can't really compare it to the other 4 missiles you quoted (Exocet, Harpoon, C802 and Klub). The BrahMos has nearly the maximum range of 300km permitted under the MCTR, and travells at nearly twice the speed of the others. And how about the all the reports that BrahMos corp is eyeing exports? Surely they won't be eyeing the impossible! Please clarify.

Prasun K Sengupta said...

Max, in a way, you've answered your own question. How? Firstly, in terms of costs, the BrahMos at more than US$6 million per piece, is far more expensive than the Exocet or Harpoon or NSM, etc. This in turn means that when the operator launches the BrahMos, he must be 500% sure that the target being engaged is positively and credibly identified and profiled as hostile (and not some merchant vessel or saipan). And this in turn can only be done by navies that have a true network-centric war-waging capability and have access to maritime surveillance assets like space-based SAR satellites (for ocean recce) and LRMR/ASW platforms. Now, how many navies in the world have such capabilities? That answer alone will tell you what exactly are the export prospects of the naval anti-ship strike variant of the BrahMos.
As to reports about those eyeing export orders for BrahMos, I can only guess that such 'reports' have been emanating from those inspired few who would like to cling on to their govt jobs and secure a security of tenure. Nothing beyond that. In conclusion, it is not an issue of obtaining a state-of-the-art weapon, but having the necessary technological asets in place to optimally exploit the capabilities of weapons like the BrahMos. Just having a launch platform (warship or aircraft) isn't going to solve the problem.

Max said...

@Prasun

Is the case the same for the ground-to-ground variant?

Anonymous said...

Prasun,
does India have the capabilities reqd for launching Brahmos without wasting it ? We don't have SAR.

Prasun K Sengupta said...

Yes Max, the same applies for the BrahMos' land-launched variant.

To Anon@10:28AM: Who says India doesn't have SAR or ISAR capability? Check out one of my earlier posts last October for the Su-30MKI's belly-mounted EL/M-2060P ISAR system. In future, probably next year, ISRO will launch the Radarsat ocean recce satellite with SAR antenna, similar to the Israeli TecSAR.

Anonymous said...

hi, wats the status of clgm missile?

is it confirmed that india is seeking cbu105 cluster bombs from us or just press speculation? india produces its own cb. why buy from us? rather buy a jdam kit and attach it. in fact india makes its own missiles but cant make a laser guided strap kit?

regards

Anonymous said...

not to forget merry christmas

Prasun K Sengupta said...

Here's wishing you all a very merry and joyous X'mas.

The Bharat Dynamics Ltd-assembled CLGM is nothing but the Lahat from Israel Aerospace Industries. Its induction is tied to the parallel induction of Arjun Mk1 MBTs. Regarding the Textron CBU-105, it ain't just a clustur bomb, it is a sensor-fuzed cluster munition which means unlike the conventional cluster bomblets that explode upon impact, the CBU-105's BLU-108 cluster sub-munitions each containing a Skeet warhead that is equipped with dual-mode passive infra-red and active laser sensors. If a Skeet warhead does not detect a valid target over its lofted trajectory, one of its three safety modes will
activate. The first 2 modes enable the Skeet to self destruct after 8 seconds from launch or within a 50feet altitude above the ground. The Skeet’s third feature is a time out device that will yield the warhead inert minutes after hitting the ground. The built-in redundant self-destruct logic and time-out features are key elements that distinguish the CBU-105 from traditional CBUs and ensure a clean battlefield. The low-drag cluster bombs built by India's OFB do not contain such Skeet warheads, but rather they explode only upon impact. Regarding the laser-guided strap-on kit for dumb bombs, the DRDO has already developed it and this is called the Sudarshan. It was recently flight-tested at the ITR in Chandipur.

Anonymous said...

I am not sure whether the army is genuinely finding fault with the Arjun MBT or is it nit-picking?Is the Arjun really a dud?The features seem to suggest it to be a great weapon and yet it seems the Army thinks it is a failes project.Anyone got the truth on this matter?

BENGAL UNDER ATTACK said...

Thank you for dropping in - your comments are supremely valuable.

Amio ashbi tomar site e but comment kori naa as "hardware" is a weak area and I come here to gain knowledge.

Thanks

BuA

Anonymous said...

can you give few details about Brazilian MAR-1

BENGAL UNDER ATTACK said...

Merry X-mas Prasun.

Some of the commentators have asked a couple of qs in my blog. Pls come and comment / reply to them.

Thanks

BuA

Anonymous said...

y do you remove comments?

Prasun K Sengupta said...

They're removed for the simple reason that they keep on asking questions that have already been answered, & I get pissed off with such retards.

Anonymous said...

juz ignore in future. deleting is not healthy.

George J said...

prasun,somebody mentioned here about blackjacks...what's ur view on it?
I hav also heard about it from a frnd ,couple of years ago...it was apparently spotted by some ATC guy (civilian),who later on, dismissed it as rumour.
dal mein jaroor kuch kala hai.

Prasun K Sengupta said...

I haven't come across any such info thus far.

Anonymous said...

Prasun K Sengupta said... Hatf-4/Shaheen-1/M-9/CSS-6/DF-15 (with a CEP of 50 metres.

Prasun K Sengupta said... Hatf-2/Abdali/P-12 precision-guided tactical missiles each with a 180km-range, CEP of 15 metres

How Shaheen-1 gets only 50m CEP while CEP of Shaheen-2 is 300m and Gaznavi is 250m?
How Abdali ballistic missile can have a CEP of only 15 meters when I have no terminal guidance ?

Prasun K Sengupta said...

For CEP figures I quoted the figures as mentioned and displayed on the information posters of the respective missiles during successive IDEAS expos. As for definitive info on CEP figures you will have to contact NESCOM or CPMIEC directly and ask them to share those figures with you, as I don;t have them.

Anonymous said...

Hi Prasun Sengupta.

feedback: can you please come up with articles showcasing 'whats next' in the indian defence scene as part of your line up? The ADM, ATV, Nirbhay was superb and was in that direction, but hopefully you come up with more, especially relating to the upcoming Anti-armor Pinaka-based missile and the anti-radiation Aastra based missile that you spoke about earlier in a topic.

I would also like to put forward the following question: Barak SAM has a maximum altitude of 5.5 km while SPYDER's is no more than 9 km. In fact Akash itself is only 18 km maximum altitude. How would this suffice against modern fighterplanes that have a far higher ceiling altitude? F-15 for example has a ceiling over 20 km.

Prasun K Sengupta said...

Those new products that you mentioned will be detailed in the January 2009 issue of FORCE, along with a similar explanation detailing the improvements carried out on the T-90M MBT, 347 of which are being acquired by the Indian Army. Now, as for the service ceilings of combat aircraft one must bear in mind that no matter how high they may be able to fly, they must descend to an altitude of 40,000 feet ASL to launch their precision-guided munitions since the current generation of targetting pods like Sniper, Litening-3 etc are operable only below 44,000 feet altitude. Also, do note that the Indian Air Force will also be acquiring a 120km-range variant of the Barak-2 LR-SAM. I already have the photos of this LR-SAM and its VL cells and AESA engagement radar (EL/M-2084 MRR) and will be detailing them with illustrations in the February 09 issue of FORCE.

Prasun K Sengupta said...

Machaa, do take note of the above & keep your sponge on standby (LOL)!

Anonymous said...

Thanks Prasun. I do not have access to Force magazine. Once its published would you be in a position to put up a scanned copy of the article here on your blog?

Prasun K Sengupta said...

No problems.

Anonymous said...

Prasun, regarding service ceilings, it's not just about dropping PGMs. A nation's air defence system should be capable of downing ANY ariel threat. For example reconaisance planes will not swoop down to drop munitions but will fly at its max altitude. How are systems like Barak 2 and SPYDER that India plans to acquire gonna counter such threats? I know the Barak 2 has a max range of 120 km (distabce) but I'm talking about ceiling not range. From what I have read Barak-2's maximum altitude is only around 18,000 - 19,000 m. This is not even enough to down an F-15 / MiG-25 that's flying at max altitude. How are such systems gonna form a credible air defence system when it cannot down 1970s age planes flying at max altitude. IMO for long range air defence India should modify the AAD missile into S-300 type of system since the AAD has a maximum altitude of 30km. Please share your views on this.

Regarding the Barak-2, is it co-developed by India and Israel or is it completely an Israeli project that India is acquiring OTS? Because if it's an Indo-Israeli project it is uncanny to have an Israeli name for it (in contrast with BrahMos, Maitri etc).

Thanks.

Prasun K Sengupta said...

While it indeed desirable to counter any kind of aerial threat, there are clear limits, i.e. is the primary threat emanating from the likes of B-2Bs and F/A-22s and if not then what is the justification for deploying an air defence network for countering a threat that will never arise? The question of countering the likes of U-2/T-1 and/or SR-71 does not arise as overhead recce satellites especially like the TECSAR have taken over such strategic recce roles. In terms of service ceilings of aircraft, the max service ceilings achieved by aircraft like the F-15 or MiG-25, the altitude records were created when such aircraft were flying in clean configuration, not in a weaponised state. The fact remains that in order to launch PGMs or air combat missiles the launch aircraft has to descend and cannot continue cruising at max altitude ceiling. There is no recorded combat operation thus far showing fully armed F-15s or MiG-25s downing their opponents while cruising at their service ceilings.
Regarding the Barak-8, any kind of performance figure being touted around is still premature and definitive figures will only be known after conclusion of the test-firings. The 120km-range version of the Barak-8 meant for the IAF will be superior to the S-300 in terms of performance parameters. The R & D component of the Barak-8 is a joint effort, with the Indian side responsible for developing the propulsion system while IAI is developing the navigation and guidance/engagement systems.

Anonymous said...

Ok Prasun, basing on the figures you gave, Barak-1 (which is currently deployed on several of IN warships) can down targets at a maximum altitude of only 6 km (~19,700 ft). You said the altitube minimum to carryout PGM strikes is 40,000 ft. So how does the Barak 1 stand up to the threat? In fact even SPYDER doesn't have a maximum altitude of 40,000 ft. I have tried doing my own search for sometime but have not been able to find out what makes Barak-1 and SPYDER so effective. Yes I know it tops in terms of accuracy and reaction time, but with a ceiling of only 6000 m, even an old MiG-21 would be able to comfortably swoop down to 30,000 ft, launch its attack and ascend untouched. I look forward to your say on this.

Prasun K Sengupta said...

The Barak-1 is not strictly an anti-aircraft missile. Its primary role is to shoot down sea-skimming inbound anti-ship cruise missiles. That's why the Barak-1 is supplemented by the Shtil-1 M-SAM system on board most Indian Navy warships containing the Barak-1. Regarding the Spyder E-SHORADS you must appreciate how and when it is employed, i.e. it will be fired only when the airborne target is within its engagement envelope. And that happens when the target is forced to descend to low-level altitudes by M-SAMs. And this happens when the target enters the M-SAM's envelope thanks to prior engagements by LR-SAMs. The Spyder will never be employed or used in a standalone manner. Rather, it will be part of a hierarchical air defence system. For air defnce of VAs and VPs it will always be a combination of LR-SAM, M-SAM, E-SHORADS and MANPADS that will be COLLECTIVELY deployed. The same goes for the Navy as well.

Anonymous said...

Hi Prasun, happy new year to you. Based on what I know the only 2 'real' long range SAMs (able to engage targets over 20,000m) are the MIM-104 and the S-300 / newer S-400. Can you provide me an example of long range SAMs that are mounted on IN surface ships? I dont think there are any.

Prasun K Sengupta said...

A very happy, prosperous and joyous 2009 to you all as well. The first LR-SAM for naval applications for India will be the 70km-range Barak-8 and its 120km-range variant. Like the MBDA's Aster 15/30, both variants of the Barak-8 will have ATBM interception capabilities.

Anonymous said...

Thanks. So does it mean at present there is none (LR SAM) on our warships?

Prasun K Sengupta said...

That's right. There are none.

Anonymous said...

ok thanks buddy. now you can go enjoy a new year booze

RAJ said...

Re Prasun

What is the approx weight of Barak-2/8/NG/LR-SAM missile? this will give us a good idea of its flight characterestics

Max said...

Happy 09!

BENGAL UNDER ATTACK said...

Wishing you a superb 2009.

Anonymous said...

why wont barak 8 have an Indian name? will india has operational / production sovereignity over it?

Prasun K Sengupta said...

To BUA & Max: Happy '09 to you all as well.
To RAJ: None of the definitive design/performance figures have been officially released as yet and will be disclosed only after the first test-firings are carried out to validate the design/performance characteristics.

Prasun K Sengupta said...

To Anon@8:21AM: What's in a name? Call it whatever you will, but it has no relevance whatsoever. Of course India will have operational & production sovereignty over it, just like it has over the BrahMos. But don't expect the Barak-8 to be a 100% made-in-India product. Production of sub-systems and components will be shared between India and Israel, just as is the case with BrahMos between India and Russia.

Anonymous said...

why because if india has shared efforts and development costs it should have an indian name / half indian name. like brahmos [as you compared]. barak is fully an israeli name so its not fair.

Prasun K Sengupta said...

It ain't an israeli name, its Jewish. Nothing wrong with that as some of the lost Jewish tribes have been in India for more than 1,000 years. They're part of India's rich heritage and culture.

Anonymous said...

prasun,why is that you keep on saying Barak "8".....i only heard abt barak 1 & 2...wat abt others?

Prasun K Sengupta said...

I call it Barak-8 because that's what Israel Aerospace Industries calls it. Go to the IAI website and download the Barak-8's brochure. That will convince you, hopefully.

Anonymous said...

but they arent part of native indian culture. jews were guests and we treated them well. but judaism isnt our culture. barak means 'ray of light' - and alsoan israeli warrior. but that doesnt make it indian culture. then does muslims names, christian names etc become indian culture? would u name your som barak or olmert?

Anonymous said...

IAI website says nothing about indian participation in the B8 programme

Prasun K Sengupta said...

To Anon@10:38AM: How exactly would you define 'native' Indian culture? What and how is a native and not? I never said Judaism was Indian culture, but it forms part of India's composite cultural heritage, just like all other major religious theocracies of the world. Talking about Muslim/Islamic names, what is Rustam/Rustom (the name of the UAV being developed by the DRDO? And why should DRDO projects/products carry only names or designations derived from Sanskrit or from 'Hindu' religious/mythology texts? Who made such rules? Why can't the DRDO use names like Sohrab, Razia, Akbar, Jehangir, Jaanbaaz, etc,,etc? Why can't any Sikh names/terms be used? I know of many Christians who don't shirk from using names like Barrack (the present US President-elect included). Even the Jerusalem-based priests of Greek and Armenian Orthodox Christian churches use names like Suleiman or Bashir, as do Arabic Christians (like Tariq Aziz, the former Iraqi Foreign Minister). Even the Indian Air Force has used 'Muslim/Islamic' terms in the past, like Shamsheer, Baaz, Akbar and Bahadur to name its frontline combat aircraft and attack helicopters. It is therefore high time the DRDO mandarins began adopting a similar practice.

Prasun K Sengupta said...

To Anon@10:45AM: Also go to RAFAEL's website and check out the Iron Dome brochure. Barak-8 & Iron Dome are one and the same system, but marketed under different names.

Anonymous said...

native indian culture is culture that originated in whats today known as India. Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism and Sikhism all originated from India and hence it is native Indian culture. Muslims and Christians on the other hand came to India to loot and plunder, so we don't need theirs. Jews came to trade and to be fair they were peaceful people, but yet their culture is not Indian culture. We have our own syncretic one. Hence Indian projects / JVs should have Indian names to it stemming from native Indian culture like I explained above. Much like how your name is an Indian native name (not a arab name like muhamad or ali) and this blogs name is Trishul which is Shiva's trident spear. And this is the way it is everywhere (don't talk about America - they aint got a culture). eg. All Chinese systems (even imported ones) get rechristined into Chinese names (Peng Dou, Bai Dou, Dou Bai whatever) . Simililarly all Indian contibutied defence systems should have Indian native names.

Prasun K Sengupta said...

As you've defined India's territorial boundaries as being what is India today (i.e. post-independence), I would like to highlight the following:
1) Buddhism originated in what is today called Nepal and therefore as per your definition of India does not qualify as a religion born in India.
2) The four Vedas, the bedrock of Hinduism, were written in what is today known as Tajikistan and therefore as per your definition of India does not qualify as a religion born in India.
3) The name of my blog TRISHUL comes from Sanskrit, written in Devnagri script which, before entering India (as territorially defined by you) was prevalent in what is today called Central Asia. Consequently, going by your logic, TRISHUL is a Central Asian term, and not a term originally used by any native Indian language.
Lastly, you mist learn to differentiate between religion and culture. Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism and Sikhism are theocracy-based religions or ways of life, and have nothing to do with present-day India's composite cultural heritage, which has been heavily influenced by Islam as well (coming from both the Arabian peninsula as well as from Persia and Central Asia).

Namachi said...

Prasun K Sengupta wrote:Those new products that you mentioned will be detailed in the January 2009 issue of FORCE, along with a similar explanation detailing the improvements carried out on the T-90M MBT, 347 of which are being acquired by the Indian Army. Now, as for the service ceilings of combat aircraft one must bear in mind that no matter how high they may be able to fly, they must descend to an altitude of 40,000 feet ASL to launch their precision-guided munitions since the current generation of targetting pods like Sniper, Litening-3 etc are operable only below 44,000 feet altitude. Also, do note that the Indian Air Force will also be acquiring a 120km-range variant of the Barak-2 LR-SAM. I already have the photos of this LR-SAM and its VL cells and AESA engagement radar (EL/M-2084 MRR) and will be detailing them with illustrations in the February 09 issue of FORCE.

---------------

la, Wish you a happy new year. Is that I see Prasun openly vouching for Arjun tank making way for T-90.

It may be right the fighter descends to release bombs, w/o interceptor missiles operating at high altitutdes, the fighters can go scot free by reaching higher altitudes after releasing the bombs/missiles.

http://defense-update.com/products/b/barak8.htm

The link refers airforce version of Barak 8 (Barak NG) as *MR-SAM* (Medium range SAM) quoted as having 120 km range. Is that means there will be options open for LR SAM. DRDO touts AAD missile as multipurpose missile. Will IAF adopt it as LR SAM ?

Prasun K Sengupta said...

No, I'm not saying that the T-90M is a replacement for the Arjun Mk1. Between the two I still believe the Arjun Mk1 to be superior. With regard to the Barak-8, the 70km-range variant from IAI (the same as the Iron Dome from RAFAEL) is the MR-SAM, while the 120km-range variant is the LR-SAM. Both the PAD and AAD are designs optimised for intercepting medium-range and intermediate-range ballistic missiles, and not manned aircraft. Based on the cost-benefit ratios, it is better to have target-specific SAMs, just like the Patriot being optimised for anti-aircraft engagements, and the THAAD and Standard SM-3/4 being optimised for anti-ballistic missile defence.

Namachi said...

la, DRDO officals openly claiming anti cruise missile role for AAD missile. If that to be, why not it can't be for anti-aircraft ?

The links i posted says:

Naval version: Barak 8(Barak NG) as 70 KM.
Airforce version: MR-SAM as 120 KM.

Any further updates on AAD/PAD ? When is the two-tier test planned ? The dates keep skipping. There are new missiles like AD1, AD2. You could share any information ? Thanks for the reply. This turnout to be nice blog with full of details much better than reading FORCE magz.

Prasun K Sengupta said...

The dynamics behind interceptions of aircraft and unmanned cruise missiles are totally different. Cruise missiles do not carry jamming pods and are also not escorted by aircraft equipped with airborne jammers. Therefore, it is much more easier to intercept cruise misiles provided they are detected and tracked and engaged way before they make it to their terminal phases of flight. For cruise missile defence, the DRDO will not be able to master the engagement tactics until the arrival of the Nirbhay cruise missile simulating UAV, which is still two to three years away. Add to that another three years to develop the AAD's anti-cruise missile variant. The two-tier test involving PAD-2 and AAD-2 is planned for sometime this month.

Anonymous said...

1. Siddharta Gauthama (Buddha) was born in Lumbini (Nepal) but acquired the 'truth' and attained enlightenment in Bodh Gaya, India. buddha gave his first discourse on Buddhism in Sarnath, India.
The 2 earliest and most important sects of Buddhism (Mahayana and Theravada) were both born in India. The very essence of Buddhism itself is from Hinduism (eg. Dharma, Karma, Moksha etc.)

2. The Vedas most probably originated along the missing Saraswati River, which according to the Vedas is in between the Yamuna (source in Uttarakhand) and the Shatadru (aka Sutlej - source in Mount Kailash, Tibet) - both of which flow into India proper. In fact modern day archaeologists claim that the Saraswati (which got dried up several thousand years back) is the Ghaggar river which originates in India (as one of the many theories) and flows largely within India proper (Haryana and Punjab). The sage who rearranged / compiled the Vedas and divided the into 4 books based on relevance to the 4 Yugas (epochs) with declining virtues was Vyasa, who was born and lived his life in Kalpi (Uttar Pradesh).

3. Trishul comes from Trishula (three spear) in Sanskrit. The exact origins of Sanskrit language is bleak because of lack of archaeological evidence, although it is almost certain that a writing system for Sanskrit was only introduced long after the language was created. Where exactly the language originated is still unknown because of varying theories (eg. Aryan eastward migration theory, Aryan out of India theory, Aryan ice-age south ward migration theory etc.) and the fact that the Indus Civilization inscriptions have still not been deciphered by archaeologists (there are 4 theories about its origins, and only one of the theories point that it came from outside). These are all theories and are not based on any decisive archaeological finds. However the earliest decisive traces of Sanskrit in writing form was in Brahmi script.

Devanagari script is an evolution of the older Brahmi script. The oldest archeological evidence of Brahmi writings come from the Telugu speaking region in South India from 300 BCE. In fact several letters in Brahmi script bear a striking similarity to Telugu script, which apparently itself is closely linked to Ancient Tamil, a designated classical language that has one of the oldest inscriptions in all of South Asia (dating to over 400 BCE).

I know the difference between religion and culture, however Indian culture is undoubtedly closely linked to religion. For example Trishul simply means spear - but when viewed from a religious point of view, it explicitly means Shiva's trident. Arjun (tank) is a common Indian name, but from a religious point of view, it is a warrior from the Mahabaratha.

Indian culture has been influenced by elements of other religions: Christianity, Judaism and Islam - with the culture of their spreaders (Mughals, Europeans etc), but you have to understand that the Indian culture, after assimilation still stands unique.

I also agree, much of Indian culture was from what is today not a part of India (eg. Gandhara etc.) - but yet it is undeniably of Indian origin. The greater Indian region has been known by that name (India) even before the days of Alexander. Israel / Judaism however don't come under this connection. Hebrew has had no influence on Indian languages, neither did Jew culture have ours. So just because handful of Jews have settled in India, Jewish culture doesn't become Indian culture. Hence Indians should christen the new weapon with a name of unique Indian culture (name with its roots in indigenous Indian mythology / language / culture)

Anonymous said...

Regarding Arjun tank, I have nothing against it except that it looks awfully outdated. The gun is so boxy instead of the contemporary looking sharp shaped guns that adorn most 21st century battletanks. It's so easy for the enemy tank to aim on the gun (being a perfect cuboid) and hit it with less probability of missing. Apart from that its wheels / tracks are not sheilede even a bit. Obviously these are some of the reasons why army isn't happy with Mk.1 and want incorporated in Mk.2

Anonymous said...

Prasun I am the same person (11:44 & 11.48). Could you please write an article about India's ballistic missile defence system? The blog is due for updating and hope you can have this up. Before that just a question: 3 Elta Green-Pine tracking radars were procured from Israel (2 in CKD configuration) before the US axed the sale of Arrows to India. Would these Green Pines be reverse engineered for Indian derivatives or is India just going to be happy with those 3 and use them; or is India negotiating for more? There are conflicting reports. Hope to hear from you.

Anonymous said...

Macha yes i have taken note of everything above. thanks.. sorry i was down for these past few days so couldnt pop in. y isnt there anything new for so long? oh ya happy new yr to u! looking forward to the latest products update you wrote for FORCE.

Raghav said...

i have a few questions:
1. In all these joint devpt. projects with Israel, will DRDO receive a share in profits if Israel sells that product to some other country.
2. How do missiles like Barak, AAD compare with the SM-3 in the Aegis combat system.
3. How advanced is our radar devpt. efforts. I heard that the AAD uses a radar with range nearly equal to 700 kms. Do we have the tech to build radars like the radars in the PAVEPAWS system.

And finally, why do you always keep reporting only on weapon systems like tanks, planes, subs etc.
I heard the army is planning a overhaul of the infantryman's combat gear. there are plans, i believe, to induct a new generation assault rifle, improve personal gear, issue hand-held computers to jawans, etc.

Prasun K Sengupta said...

To Anon@11:48AM: In operational terms, there's no need at all to compare the silhouette of the Arjun Mk1 with that of the Leopard 2A6 or Challenger 2 or M-1A2 Abrams. The fact remains that if the Arjun Mk1 is to be employed in combat in the direct fire mode, its terrain of operations (the farmlands in Punjab and undulating terrain in the Thar Desert) will dictate that the Arjun Mk1 is able to acquire its target at a distance not exceeding 1km. This was the case in 1965 and 1971 and will also be the case in future. Therefore, having a lower silhouette will have no advantage whatsoever. In fact, a highter silhouette will be much more advantageous. The only area where the Arjun Mk1 needs an upgrade is the turret traverse/turret stabilisation system. Currently it has an electro-hydraulic system (like the Al Khalid, Al Zarrar, T-72M1, T-90M and T-90S) and if this is replaced by an all-electric drive then it will result in the Arjun Mk1's fire-control system acquiring greatly increased lethality and ensuring high first-round hit probability.

To Anon@12:09PM: The LRTR which the LRDE claims to be an indigenous product is nothing but the ELM-2080 Green Pine. The licence from IAI calls for an initial 12 LRTRs being licence-built in India.

To Raghav: The versions of the Barak-8 that will enter service with both Israel and India (the 70km-range MR-SAM and 120km-range LR-SAM) will be jointly marketed by IAI & Bharat Dynamics Ltd. The Iron Dome version will be independently marketed by RAFAEL. Eventually, for deploying a continental ATBM system, there will be need for a Pave Paws-type of early warning radar network as well, and to this end the US and India already have an agreement in place for eventually deploying one such sea-based radar off the Andaman & Nicobar islands. The agreement was inked two years ago.

Anonymous said...

in short range cobat, isn't having a lower silhouette of greater advantage? its just not about tanks. how about long range ATGM like Pakistans HJ-8 which has a range of up to 3km? it is ridiculously easy for any tank to fire on the Arjun's turret and destroy it. the boxy, cuboid turret will receive the full impact of any blow leading to destruction of the main gun. T90 types of tanks however have a sharp pointed shaped turret that will cause max damage to the projectile on its pointed bulge-line alone, diverting the energy of the explosion to the circumferance of the bulge-line along the entire turret, sparing the vital parts. in fact almost every contemporary MBT has these kinds of designs. And how about shielded wheels / tracks? Arjun doesnt have them. Any direct fire on the wheels will simply cripple the tank as there are no armour plates protecting the wheels / tracks. Isnt this a disadvantage in close combat where hostile tanks will have a better tendency of a perfect hit?

Prasun K Sengupta said...

You're thinking of armoured combat in flat terrain like the ones once envisaged by NATO & the Warsaw Pact. The situation in South Asia is totally different & that's why the taller Indian Army Shermans in 1965 were able to pick up the Pakistani M-47s and M-48s well in advance in the farmlands of Punjab. Actually, the average distances over which armoured warfare took place in 1965 and 1971 was only 700 metres! That means a MBT was visually acquired only at that distance and beyond that there were physical obstacles (like standing crops). In that situation the MBTs with lower silhouettes very virtually blind and were spotted well in advance by the Shermans.It is for these reasons that even HJ-8 ATGMs will not be able to engage any MBT over a 3km distance in the India-Pakistan context. Additionally, the question of HJ-8 ATGMs mounted on M-113s or Land Rover Defenders enghaging MBTs does not arise at all because the Arjun MBT will always be accompanied by BMP-2s armed with Konkurs-M/Kornet-Es. No MBT ever goes out into hostile territory on its own. It is always accompanied by ATGM-equipped AIFVs. The HJ-8/Baktar Shikan is not exactly a dedicated anti-MBT missile, rather it is an anti-armour guided-missile employed more for neutralising APCs and AIFVs during infantry-led combined arms operations. As far as NERA-based side-skirts/plates and add-on amour platings go, these have already been developed for the Arjun Mk1 and are usually fitted on board while in their staging areas. They do exist for the Arjun, although the DRDO has yet to release such photos. By the way, the 347 T-90Ms on order will have DRDO-developed composite laminate armour and NERA-based armour plates, and not Russia-developed armour. Only the Kontakt-5 ERA tiles will come from Russia. This is very very significant.

Namachi said...

Prasun K Sengupta said...
The dynamics behind interceptions of aircraft and unmanned cruise missiles are totally different. Cruise missiles do not carry jamming pods and are also not escorted by aircraft equipped with airborne jammers. Therefore, it is much more easier to intercept cruise misiles provided they are detected and tracked and engaged way before they make it to their terminal phases of flight.

---------

Good point, la.

You are saying, the new Barak LR SAM will be much superior to the dreaded S 300. Could you explain a bit more on this ? When you are saying S 300 is it SA-10 or SA-12 or SA-20 ? which one ?

Prasun K Sengupta said...

I was referring to the S-300PMU2. The Barak-8's LR-SAM variant will be similar to the S-400 Triumf in terms of performance. But its engagement radar will be AESA, not not the PESA-type used by the S-400.

Namachi said...

Thanks la. May I bother you with one more question ?

S-400 is a combo of 400/120 KM range missiles. Barak IAF version could be a combo of 120/70 KM range missiles. How you are saying both are similar in performance ?

Prasun K Sengupta said...

The S-400 is an attempt by Russia to develop a combined ATBM and anti-aircraft air defence system and as such will have a far greater deployment footprint on the ground. The Barak-8's primary role is that of anti-aircraft air defence and therefore will be easier and quicker to deploy as its ground deployment will be much smaller. India, unlike Russia, is developing mission-specific air defence systems under which the PAD/AAD combination will be the primary ATBM system. Adoption of this approach prevents design/performance compromises. Afterall, it is no use deploying an ATBM system in an area that is more likely to be targetted by manned combat aircraft.

Anonymous said...

i was juz wondering segupta..... why pay so much and develop a nirbhay t simulate cruise missile when we can use klubs w/ dummy warheads warheads for the same job?