Monday, January 12, 2009

BrahMos MRCM Schematics



38 comments:

Anonymous said...

why they are not fitting Scorpene submarine with the underwater version of the Brahmos cruise missiles, which could enhance Indian Navy's strategic firepower capability

i mean three such launchers will double the weapon carrying capabilities

ie 18 Torpedo + 18 Brahmos

arjunfan said...

There have been reports that the army will accept 100 Arjun Tanks. Any idea?

sachin_sathe said...

are those universal launchers built by L&T? The air launched version seems to have a rather small warhead at 200 kg.

Regarding the ciws for a ship, If the naval battle Group(not nessesarily CBG) has a Ka-31 then can't it be used in co-ordinating the ships defence system via the datalink?

Vikas said...

why they are not fitting Scorpene submarine with the underwater version of the Brahmos cruise missiles, which could enhance Indian Navy's strategic firepower capability

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

Because Scorpene subs are 'hunter subs' and fit a profile of sub hunting subs in shallow waters. there will be other subs bought in future for such scenarios.

maire said...

one question prasun,
does the cap on the nose of Brahmos get removed during flight just as in the case of Shourya??

thayoli said...

i thought that brahmos had a combination of a booster+ramjet? but your 2nd pic doesn't provide those details..pls explain.

Raghav said...

I have always felt that the range of Brahmos is inadequate for it to be a lethal anti-ship weapon as it is claimed to be. These days so many ships have radars whose range is greater than 300 km. even maritime recce planes have radars with range > 300 km. so even if we fix brahmos to our frigates, the ship will be detected by enemy radar even at distances greater than 300 km. China has Shkval torpedo with range more than 300 km. Needless to say Pak will soon get reverse-engineered copies of Shkval. So even before we could fire Brahmos, Pak or Chin ship will detect our frigate and fire the Shkval or other cruise missile.

Does Russia have an end user verification system? If not we can just build an elongated Brahmos with more fuel for the ramjet and thereby increase its range.

Abhijoy said...

Guys, check out this link...

http://ibnlive.in.com/news/are-we-battle-ready-submarine-repair-that-takes-forever/82616-3.html

10-years for a mid-life refit of a Kilo Class sub!!! Damn...thats shocking if its true.
Well it may just be the usual exaggeration and fear mongering by the media but scary nonetheless.

Prasun K Sengupta said...

To Arjunfan: The first of two Arjun MBT Regiments will be commissioned into operational service this March.

To Sachin Sathe: The UVLMs have been built by Larsen & Toubro to the Russian design. The Ka-31's primary role is that of airborne early warning and secondary fleet surveillance. It does not have the on-board ESM suite required for detecting and tracking inbound anti-ship cruise missiles. That's why I've been stating that instead of the bulky radar of the Ka-31, it is far better to go for multi-mode helicopter-borne AESA radars like the Seaspray 7000e.

To Maire: Of course, it will have to be, otherwise the nose-mounted air intake for the ramjet will not kick in.

To Thayoli: The air intake in front of the missile is for the ramjet, while the booster is mounted aft. Both are clearly visible.

To Raghav: The ranges you mention for the shipborne radars are valid only for detecting airborne targets like manned aircraft, and not sea-skimming anti-ship missiles or warships. The Earth's curvature dictates that the warship-mounted radar cannot detect sea-level targets beyond 50km. That's why shipborne helicopters and AEW aircraft are employed for extending the radar coverage far beyond that of the warship-mounted radars. The only way to constantly monitor naval task forces (and not individual warships) is from space by utilising ocean recce satellites equipped with synthetic aperture radar. And there's no way at all, until eternity that the existing range of BrahMos can be increased due to Russia's MTCR commitments. Such things cannot be hidden from Russia as NPOM is the industrial partner and it has its personnel embedded within the BIC assembly lines in India. Howewver, the Shourya missile offers very very interesting alternatives.

To Abhijoy@5:05AM: There's no exaggeration at all and this casde has been extensively documented by all Indian national dailies, and FRONTLINE magazine. And this is because Hindustan Shipyard and the Navy decided to open up the submarine in the mid-1990s when both did not even have the submarine's design and servicing manuals! While it is easy to rip apart the submarine, putting it all back together is another challenge altogether. This is exactly what happens when one takes the issue of indigenisation out to preposterous levels, instead of placing over-arching emphasis on operational availability of military hardware.

Raghav said...

A Few points :

1. Even if ship mounted radars can't detect objects farther than 50 Km., the maritime recce planes of the enemy can do it with their look down radars and pass on the information to ships or subs in the area. the enemy ships can then launch torpedo or some other cruise missile to attack our frigates even before they come under the firing range of our brahmos missile. My point is shouldn't a lethal anti-ship cruise missile have a range large enough to ensure that we can fire that missile even before the enemy can detect our frigates, i.e. shouldn't the range of brahmos be at least equal to the range of enemy radars.

2. Do you have any idea how much our nuclear warheads weigh? If it is < 300 Kg can it be mounted on the brahmos or has Russia somehow made it impossible to use brahmos with a nuke?

3. I always have this question in my mind whenever i see tanks. the tracks of a tank and its wheels are the least protected. also instruments like the gunner's and commander's sights are also not protected. so even a small round can damage a tank's tracks or wheels. a sniper can aim at the gunner's or commander's sights and destroy them. the tank's barrel has thin walls. so a well aimed shot with an anti-material rifle can punch holes in the barrel. please comment and forgive me if this is a very silly question.

sachin_sathe said...

then integrating such a capability with the extension of IN's Sea King replacement contract would be a good idea.Can u post some details regarding that tender?

Also,There was news of IAF pressing the Tejas into service if so then is it a hasty dicision?if not then what is the status of weapons and radar integration on it?

Regarding the IN's submarine fleet don't u think the budgetary constraints are the primary reason along with polititians meddling around? IN always looks like it works on a lous*y budget.

BENGAL UNDER ATTACK said...

Prasun Da,

The Phalcon has landed and been inducted. This is a force multiplier and a game changer. Please give your analysis on this new scenario. Cheers !!


http://indiatoday.digitaltoday.in/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=25156&sectionid=4&issueid=88&Ite

Prasun K Sengupta said...

To Raghav@12:52AM: Again you're presupposing that warships and LR/MR/ASW aircraft and helicopters all operate in isolation. That is not the case, since in the Indian context warships will always operate around an aircraft carrier-led battle group and carrier-borne combat aircraft and AEW helicopters will without fail sanitise the surrounding airspace out to a distance of 200 nautical miles for a continuous period of up to eight hours to achieve tactical air supremacy.
Regarding the BrahMos, as I've explained several several times before, even the thought of arming the BrahMos with nuclear warheads or extending the range beyond 290km should not be entertained as it will never happen. Russia won't allow it, period, so let us not discuss this point ever again!
Regarding the MBT vulnerability, this exist only in theory and in practice the MBT will never go to the battlefield unescorted. MBTs as a rule will always be accompanied by armoured infantry combat vehicles equipped with 30mm/40mm cannons, anti-armour missiles and automatic grenade launchers that will ensure without fail that hostile infantry forces are not dug in ahead of advancing armoured formations. On top of that, one always employs overwhelming field artillery fire-assaults to clear the pathways for advancing friendly armoured forces.

To Sachin Sathe: The IN tender indeed calls for the new-generation multi-role helicopters to be equipped with multifunction radars and ELINT sensors. Details of these were posted by me last year in this blog.
Regarding the Tejas LCA enters operational service, no one's rushing. It will achieve IOC by 2011 and FOC a year later as a tactical air superiority combat aircraft, hopefully armed with R-73E and Astra AAMs.
Budgetary constraints have NEVER been the problem regarding India's security preparedness. The problem has ALWAYS WITHOUT FAIL been the successive Indian political establishments' inability to appreciate the meaning of military power and total disinclination to even try to rectify the glaring inadequacies such as the absence of the Chief of Defence Staff, all of which have contributed to political indecisiveness since the mid-1990s. It is for this very reason that the present Indian PM said recently that "nobody wants war". Now, going by this statement, I'm unable to understand whether he's just talking only about India's intentions/options, or is he even talking on behalf of Pakistan's armed forces!!! It only leads me to believe that India's political establishment is living in a 'make-believe' world.

Prasun K Sengupta said...

My belated Pongal greetings to all of you, especially to all Machas out there. Have fun!

Prasun K Sengupta said...

To BuA Da: The unannounced and yet-to-be-admitted arrival of the first of three PHALCON AEW & C platforms does not automatically mean that the system has been inducted/commissioned into service. There are several more hurdles to be overcome before the PHALCON can achieve full operational capability, and consequently leading to them being commissioned into service as operational assets. Firstly, systems validation of both early warning components of the PHALCON--the EL/M-2075 AESA radar and the ELINT suite--will be required to be done to ensure that there are no unresolved and untoward EMI-related issues. Secondly, the two-way data-linking protocols with the initial 12 ground-based sector operations centres will have to be validated and certified. Thirdly, the PHALCON will be required to conduct several route-proving flights (between the main hub/home base in Agra and up to six alternate basing 'spokes' to ensure the platform's compatibility with the IAF's existing air traffic management protocols. This is highly important since (believe it or not!) there's hardly any free airspace available for either the PHALCON or IL-78MKI-90 aerial refuelling tankers to loiter within India! And this is because the civilian and military ATC systems do not as yet function seamlessly as a single integrated operational entity. Therefore, specific air corridors and airspace volumes have, from now on, to be created and enforced. Fourthly, the PHALCONs will be utilised by the IAF for perfecting the concepts of airborne battlespace management involving far larger airborne aircraft packages (up to 36 at a time and involving air dominance combat aircraft like the Su-30MKIs as well as dedicated air interdiction assets like the Jaguar IS and MiG-27M). All this has never been done before and will thus pose a formidable but welcome challenge. Fifthly, and most importantly, human resources training and operational conversion for up to three sets of mission management aircrew for each PHALCON will now commence in earnest, with each PHALCON logging up to 12 hours a day for up to 25 days per month, a highly intensive training regime in order to achieve FOC within the shortest possible time-frame, which will take 24 months to achieve--both for the PHALCON and the accompanying composite combat aircraft formations for both offensive and defensive flight sorties.

Prasun K Sengupta said...

Am cross-posting a comment that I had made earlier at: http://bengalunderattack.blogspot.com/2009/01/what-will-come-first-islamic-revolution.html

I cannot understand how can any 'secular' political party exist in a country whose constitution mandates that the country is an Islamic republic and which is publicly referred to by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia as being "one of the pillars of the Muslim Ummah (brotherhood)". This state of affairs was reinforced by Gens (Ret'd) Pervez Musharraf and Mirza Aslam Beg throughout the 1990s when the Pakistan Army formally embraced India-specific Jihad as being an instrument of state policy. This consequently led to two perfectly rational and undeniable inferences: one, the Jihadis (be they from POK or Pakistan or the international Jihadi diaspora) were from then on an integral part of the Pakistan Army's ORBAT and as such were tasked with rear-area subversive/sabotage operations via sleeper cells (no one knows exactly how many of them have been pre-located inside India to date); and second, this development has made Pakistan and its Army, since the mid-1990s, the world's first official rogue state and rogue Army. Now, turning to the balance of military power in the subcontinent, it will be foolhardy and unwise to indulge in comparisons of military hardware assets or ORBATs for the simple reason that Pakistan has clearly chosen to indulge in assymetirc warfare rather than conventional warfare. Simply put, this means mobilising up to 10,000 Jihadis (by the ISI, which explains what Musharraf said recently when describing the ISI as being the first line of defence [or offense] in case hostilities commence) against the Indian Army in times of hostilities and using them to relentlessly disrupt the lines of communications, and using 'terror weapons' like conventional warhead-carrying ballsitic missiles to attack India's vital economic installations (like South Mumbai and petrochemicals commplexes in Jamnagar). This is exactly what Pakistan Army COAS Gen Kayani was referring to when he stated that if attacked by the IAF, Pakistan would respond in 5 minutes. What tilts the military balance completely against India now are two things: unlike the Pakistan Army which takes ALL decisions pertaining to waging war (and is consequently quicker to make them), the Indian armed forces cannot as they are constrained by political decision-making which is very much slower and often almost indecisive as the political establishment has no idea of or inclination for appreciating or understanding the true virtues or applications of overwhelming military prowess (hence its feet-dragging on matters like the need for a Chief of Defence Staff, Integrated Theatre Commands, and single integrated operational plans); and the absence, thus far, of a credible ballistic missile defence system which is expected to be available for protecting India's vulnerable economic centres of gravity only by 2012. But the greatest hindrance to India's military force modernisation efforts is the compulsive and criminal adherance by the MoD's Dept of Defence Production & Supplies on the policy of procuring the critically required force-multiplier hardware like Gen 3 night vision devices and communications systems from only defence PSUs like BEL, etc. The problem here is that defence PSUs are unable to autonomously raise financial capital from the stock markets in order to finance the expansion of their industrial production capacities and are totally reliant on the MoD's annual budget for such efforts. The result: production capacities are unable to meet the spurts in demand for vitally required hardware. Unless this dysfunctional state of affairs is immediately rectified, all well-intentioned force modernisation plans and long-term perspective projections for force modernisation will be mere paper exercises! Therefore, instead of dwelling on a make-believe world, the MoD without any further delay must undertake financial divestment of entities like BEL, HAL, OFB, all MoD-owned shipyards, and BEML and make them publicly listed industrial entities, with the MoD owning only golden shares in such industrial entities. It is only by undertaking such strategic divestments that will enable these existing DPSUs to quickly forge strategic industrial partnerships with their foreign counterparts and only then will true and genuine direct/indirect industrial offsets begin to proliferate. If anyone expects the existing defence offsets policies to become success stories in the midst of an existing dysfunctional setup that seeks to perpetuate state ownership of India's military-industrial entities, then the concerned persons are only living in a fool's paradise. And the ultimate price will be paid by India's armed forces as their force modernisation goals will never ever be realised in a time-bound manner. That's the writing on the wall. Hope the Hon RM and Hon NSA take note of this inglorious strategic inevitability.

Anonymous said...

JUst a question if you can be of any help
C-602 pakistan is getting are they for Agosta 90b.U-214 or for F-22p?????

Anonymous said...

How effective is the Phalcon in detecting enemy assets on the ground? Can we use the same Phalcon
for both air & ground surveillance.

Anonymous said...

Dear Prasun Sir,

I am writing to say I apologise for the recent protracted spar on Siv Aroor's blog recently. (it was regarding Gulf War air strikes etc).

I didnt realize you were a much senior guy (I am 27)and I think my tone was inapropriate. My mistake, as I didnt know of our age untill I read a casual comment by someone on Aroor's Blog (DRDO AEW post).

I just wanted you to know that I may have differences with you on your views here,but I mean no disrespect. This is important for me.

Prasun K Sengupta said...

To Anon@1:49AM: Relax, no worries. Seniority has nothing to do with the debate at LIVEFIST. Anyone reading your and my answers will easily realise that we both were in essence saying the same things, but from different perspectives.

To Anon@2:20PM: They are for coastal Batteries, i.e. four missiles carried by each wheeled TEL.

To Anon@8:15PM: In theory yes. But in practice there is still much more R & D work to be done in the area of data processing and developing more operating modes for the on-board AESA radar. You can read more about this in various other weblinks relating to the SOSTAR R & D project now underway as a combined EADS/NATO project.

sachin_sathe said...

prasun,
as per news the Grippen NG was eliminated before technical trial.what is ur taks on that?the odds seem to be slowly getting into Americans favour.

Can u elaborate on how much diff the F-16IN is compared to saudi F-16 given that PAF may hvae access to these jets?also,The post Typhoon
in detail if possible.

Can u make post about the Indo-Russian MTA project?

It looks as if two pylons are being merged to carry the BrahMos.
As regards the Phalcon what is the no of phalcons IAF has ordered is has IAF given the follow-on order on them?

sachin_sathe said...

also if possible post about what the Tejas mk2 is going to be like performance wise

Prasun K Sengupta said...

Am cross-posting a comment that I had made earlier at LIVEFIST: The EMB-145 was originally developed as a regional airliner and the AEW & C system (including the Ericsson-built Erieye AESA radar) was originally developed to first go on board the Saab 340 twin-turboprop (ordered by Sweden and Thailand), and later the Saab 2000 twin-turboprop, which Pakistan will begin receiving this August. The same AEW & C package was then modified to go on board the EMB-145 for Brazil & Greece. The Erieye radar (and the LRDE-developed AESA), unlike the EL/M-2075 radar (of the PHALCON) cannot undertake 360-degree surveillance and airborne battle management. On the other hand, if the LRDE-developed AESA radar had a triangular array n(on either a B,737NG or Airbus A320 as the IAF had stated as being its preferred platform choice) then 360-degree capability can be achieved. But it seems developing this type of triangular antenna-configuration is beyond the means of CABS. Therefore, the CABS opted for a less riskier path and chose to develop the same type of antenna configuration.mounting as that on the EMB-145 AEW & C platform. But kindly note that this is CABS' decision, not the IAF's. The IAF has only given to CABS its desired performance parameters and CABS is obligated to develop only a single AEW & CS technology demonstrator. Only after CABS convinces the IAF that its AEW & CS solution is functional and viable, will the IAF HQ issue its definitive ASQRs. So far, the IAF has not allocated any funding from its development/capital expenditure basket to CABS to place any firm orders for the AEW & CS. And why should it? Afterall it has got exactly what it wanted from Israel (the A-50E PHALCON) and will get four more in future. In my view, the CABS will be well-advised not to re-invcent the wheel and instead focus on developing something for which there is a pressing operational reqmt. By that I mean mulling a possible risk-sharing industrial JV with Bell-Boeing to develop an AEW & C variant (sporting a triangular AESA antenna array) of the MV-22 Osprey tilt-rotor, which will be the ideal AEW & C platform for operating out of the Indian Navy's two future STOBAR-type aircraft carriers. In terms of endurance, service ceiling and mission effectiveness this will fill in a critical gap in the Indian Navy's ORBAT, since the Ka-31 AEW helicopters cannot stay airborne at standoff distances for more than 2.5 hours.

Prasun K Sengupta said...

To Sachin Sathe: FYI the most comprehensive tech-transfer offer was presented by Gripen Int'l for the JAS-39IN Gripen NG, followed by Boeing IDS wth F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, followed by EADS with its Typhoon. As of now, the Gripen is the one most favoured by the IAF, followed by the Super Hornet. The final shortlisting will most likely include these two models only, as only these two have maximum commonality with the Tejas LCA in terms of mission avionics, weapon systems and powerplant. It is now a known fact that since the Tejas LCA's airframe was designed AROUND the GE F404F2J3 turbofan, only GE Aero Engines has the requisite knowledge to suggest practical modifications required for mounting the F414 turbofan on the Tejas Mk2. This is the most cost-effective and least risky and achievable task that will enable the fully ASQR-compliant Tejas Mk2 to enter service ASAP. And now as it seems most likely that the Tejas Mk2 will be powered by the F414, it makes all the more sense to induct an M-MRCA powered by the same F414 turbofan. Based on this logic alone, it will be either the Gripen or Super Hornet that will be the final M-MRCA contenders. In terms of performance parameters, the Tejas Mk2 will will be in the same league as the Gripen NG, almost identical.

Anonymous said...

pongal vaazhthukal 2 u too macha... u celebrate????

ok macha about the newly arrived phalcon how about training? has IAF men already trained in israel or will training begin now only with this first delivery, and then only induction??

Prasun K Sengupta said...

Many thanks macha. I celebrate anything and everything that's worth celebrating. Regarding the A-50E PHALCON, all aircrew and flight engineers were trained in both Russia and Israel for a three-month period, while the mission management crew and avionics engineers/technicians were trained in Israel. That's how the IAF personnel undertook the ferry-flight from Israel. The avionics repair workshops in Agra too are up and running after being performance audited by IAI/ELTA. Therefore, the AEW & C system is flight-certified. But it is not yet integrated with the IAF's integrated air command, control and communications system and a lot more work needs to be done (read my earlier comment).

Anonymous said...

Tejas Mk2 will will be in the same league as the Gripen NG

Tejas is LCA and Gripen is supposed to be a MCA. Is the Indian need for MRCA diluted ??

I thought that Rafale is the more rational decision.

Is Tejas Mk2 a new name for India MCA ??

sachin_sathe said...

thx for the info prasun.

If the superhornet is indeed selected then does,t it mean that a large array of american weapons(Bloody Impressive though) has to be bought.Can the Indian(i.e Astra AAM and sudarshan LGB)& Isaraeli weapons(popeye lite,python 5 etc) be integrated in to it?

also,will these hornets lose their carrier capability?Can they take off with normal(2.5-3 tons) of strike ordinance from a ski-jump?
(the hornet looks like the most likeky winner considering the IAF butted the french out on the core issue of Kaveri).

Regarding the shaurya missile, is it a tactical or a strategic missile?Will it replase the ageing prithvi srbm?

Prasun K Sengupta said...

The Tejas Mk2 will be required to carry the same type or odrnance payload as the Gripen NG. Hence the need for a more powerful powerplant now. The on-going competitive bidding process is for the M-MRCA, and not just MRCA. The Rafale is the least economical and financial viable proposition for meeting the M-MRCA reqmt.

To Sachin Sathe: Any kind of weapon system from anywhere can be integrated with the Super Hornet's weapon management system as the aircraft has an open-architecture avionics suite. Of course these Super Hornets will come equipped with deck arrester hooks and can take off from the Indian Navy's STOBAR decks (but not from INS Viraat). But the Navy will NOT order such aircraft as it is already committed to the MiG-29K. The Shourya is a tactical surface-to-surface missile in terms of range, but will have strategic employment options. The Prithvi SRBM is in a different league altogether (like the BrahMos) and it is not ageing at all.

Prasun K Sengupta said...

Am cross-posting a reply I sent earlier to LIVEFIST: There are a number of reasons why the A330MRTT is the principal contender, notwithstanding its multi-role capability. As much as the IAF would like to acquire the IL-78MKI-90 for obvious reasons, the main problem is the on-going spat between Uzbekistan and Russia regarding the aircraft's co-production status and unless Russia is able to commission its alternate aircraft production facility in Voronezh in the very near future, one can bid a definite goodbye to follow-on IL-78MKI-90 orders from India. Let us not forget that a deal struck between Russia and China more than three years ago for 38 IL-76MFs and four IL-78MKKs has yet to be fulfilled. Now, coming back to the A330MRTT, what needs to be outlined or revealed is why exactly is it being favoured? Is it because it has both types of on-board aerial refuelling systems (boom, & probe-and-drogue) and therefore will be compatible with all existing and PROJECTED combat aircraft inventories of the IAF? And as a consequence of this, can one automatically assume that the the to-be-selected M-MRCA will have an aerial refuelling system compatible with the A330MRTT's aerial refuelling probe? If that's the case, then one can safely assume that the Super Hornet and F-16IN Block 60 are the only two shortlisted contenders? Of course, it can also be argued that by procuring the A330MRTT the IAF can safely preclude the need for deploying dedicated air transportation aircraft (like the IL-76MD) during expeditionary air exercises like the RED FLAG series, with the A330MRTTs acting as both aerial refuelling platforms as well as providing aerial logistics support. Finally, the unavailability of new-build IL-78MKI-90 airframes from Russia poses another interesting question: which platform will be selected for meeting the IAF's follow-on requirement for four PHALCON AEW & C systems? Will it be ex-Russian Air Force IL-76MD airframes that will be re-lifed and re-engined, or will it be Boeing's E-767s (like the ones in service with Japan) which, again, can be refuelled in mid-air only by probes of the type found on board the A330MRTT or Boeing B.767-300ER?
A final clarification: The IL-78MKI-90s in service with the IAF are of the QC-type, meaning they can be quickly converted into air transportation aircraft if required, as their twin on-board fuel tanks can be 'slid-out', or can retain one single fuel tank, while taking out the other tank and using the space available for aerial logistics. In addition, unlike the A330MRTT, the IL-78MKI-90 has a rear-loading/unloading bay, which is far more beneficial than a side-mounted cargo bay door.

Anonymous said...

Seeing China supplies logistics and weapons to every rogue state wonder why they are not categorised under the sponsor of global terrorism tag?Sabre rattling from Pakistan would have long ceased if the US and China didn't make Pakistan what it is today - militarily.Indians need tougher approach and instead of playing chess - i.e. their move, our move, go ahead and attain equipment which the pakis and their general assfuck keyani will never be able to obtain or reproduce!

Prasun K Sengupta said...

No one can categorise China like that because it is one of the P-5s at the UN Security Council! Its that simple. You're right in saying India needs to adopt a tougher approach but I personally would like this approach to be economic and diplomatic in character and content, while will be far more stifling and hurting than any kind of military offensive (limited war or all-out war). That's what is scaring Islamabad these days as what they need most now is the debt rescheduling and financial bailouts. Believe me, today no one wants to be part of a politically and economically failed state, including POK and the Northern Areas. I have no doubt that if a fair and transparent plebicite is held tomorrow in these areas as well as in J & K State, the overwhelming verdict will be in favour of being an integral part of India. Bottom line: Pakistan can try as hard as it can to bleed India but that's exactly what it will achieve: bleeding only, and not mortally wounding or balkanising India as the very size of India ensures that she is impregnable & indestructible.

Anonymous said...

"verdict will be in favour of being an integral part".

Not sure whether this is the case because Pak has migrated its own citizens over there and they are kept in good condition than the natives. If POK has only natives, there is no doubt that they will be interested to be part of the indian union.

Anonymous said...

To Prasun:I agree with you. Just wish China was dislodged from its status at the UN.I have replied in detail mistakenly re: this subject on Livefist!So hope you read it.What annoys me is that the Indian leadership lacks a global vision otherwise how it is all of its neighbours are anti-India. One would think Bangladesh,Burma,Srilanka would have Indian bases instead of Chinese.Also how the west is hypocritical in its policy: they isolate Cuba because it is communist, they reward China, worse than Cuba because it is bigger;they destroy the USSR because it was a threat and now those little covert anti-social gangs they created to achieve their objectives have grown into a horrible monster and gone out of hand to destabilise the entire world!

sachin_sathe said...

the navy does't need to i am mearly suggesting a temporary formation of a USMC like force drawing units from IA,IAF ,IN during war for amphibius warfare.In such cases this ability of superhornet can be very handy.

Frontier India said...

Mr. PSG,

Can you pls sent me an email on frontierindia [at] gmail dot com.

Best
Chacko Joseph

xerses said...

Hi Prasun
Could you explain to me the hypothetical feasibility of fitting the Arjun/Bheeshma with an uprated Shakti gas turbine developed for
the Dhruv? That powerplant currently develops around 1200hp and seems quite compact. Doesn't such an arrangement bring about synergies in inventory and logistics management? Is it true that the M1 Abrams MBT is powered by a helo powerplant from Allison?

Could you also explain the relative payoffs/penalties of a gas turbine vis a vis a diesel engine such as the MTU 838 Ka-501 diesel producing 1400 hp?

Awaiting your reply!

Prasun K Sengupta said...

The answer is very simply: hypothetically everything is possible, but realistically it will be extremely time-consuming as not only the propulsion will have to be developed (engine, transmission gearbox, torque convertor etc) but the entire on-board electrical system will have to be designed and developed from scratch. As for which option is better, the answer lies in the figures you gave for the power ratings of the gas turbine and the diesel engine. The one with greater power rating is obviously much better and desirable. All thisd applies to the Arjun MBT. As for the T-90S/M we need not bother as the Russians will never allow India to tinker with their MBT designs.