Friday, February 27, 2009

Project Samyukta Detailed

Project Samyukta, a joint software/integration-intensive R & D programme of the DRDO, the TATA Group and the Indian Army’s Corps of Signals, reached fruition last April and was recently showcased by Bharat Electronics Ltd during Aero India 2009. The project, launched in May 1994, had called for the development and deployment of an integrated EW system covering the 1.5MHz–40GHz bandwidth. The system comprises both communications (com) and non-communications (non-com) segments and encompasses 145 wheeled vehicles for housing sensors for electronic surveillance, interception, monitoring, analysis and jamming of all communications and radar signals. The core system was successfully demonstrated to the Indian Army by late 2002 by the DRDO’s Defence Electronics Research Laboratory. The Army subsequently placed an order with state-owned Bharat Electronics Ltd for the production of three communications control centre (CC) blocks at a total cost of Rs4.25 billion. Two CC blocks with 46 vehicles were delivered in January 2004 to the Army after successful demonstration and user trials in early 2003. Demonstrations of the non-com core system, comprising a CC, electronic support measures sub-suite, and electronic countermeasures-low and high-frequency entities were successfully conducted in 2005, following which Army HQ ordered the first two non-com CC blocks at a cost of Rs5 billion. Work is now underway on a sub-project of Samyukta, called ‘Samrat’, under which the design and development of indigenous communications EW receivers for search, monitoring, direction-finding (single and multi-channel), analysis and decoding in the HF/VHF and UHF frequency ranges along with associated systems control/applications software development is now being undertaken. Thus far, technologies have been developed for compact low-noise, high-dynamic range HF (0.5-30MHz) and V/UHF (20-3,000MHz) search-cum-monitoring receivers for COMINT suites, as well as for new-generation narrow- band signals classifier, and the demodulator and decoder sub-system.

The com segment’s COMINT/ELINT sensors include those for detecting emissions from pulsed airborne synthetic aperture radars (SAR), from the active radars of air-to-surface precision guided-munitions and from radar altimeters, from airborne early warning & control radars, and from terrain-following radars while they are still 150km away. The three types of active jammers employed include those for wide-band jamming of hostile field artillery radio proximity fuzes over an area of 600,000 square metres, and for simultaneous jamming up to eight hostile X-band airborne radars in azimuth and elevation. SAR radars operating up to 80km away can be jammed, while the X-band monopulse pulse-Doppler airborne radars of combat aircraft can be jammed out to a distance of 50km. The efficient emitting power of the jammer is not less than 580kW. The jammers can be deployed in two patterns: 16 as a battalion, and 6 as a company.
Frequency detection sensitivity is 110-123dB/W, while the frequency measurement accuracy is 1MHz. Bearing accuracy is automatically achieved between 1-3 degrees. The measurement accuracy of temporal pulse parameters 0.05 milli-second at a pulsed length of 0-2-70 milli-seconds. The measurement accuracy of the pulsed repetition period is 0.05 milli-second for a minimal pulse duration of 1 milli-second. Measurement accuracy of the pulse string-repetition period is 0.1 second. The system’s internal database contains frequency libraries of up to 2,000 types of radars. Another type of jammer operates in the 13,333-17,554MHz frequency bandwidthand can process incoming signals like simple-pulse, quasi-continuous wave (CW) and CW, pulsed chirp-modulated, and phase code-shift keyed with pseudo-random frequency-tuning signals. The input sensitivity of a receiver fitted with frequency determination and reproduction sensors is minus 90, while the radiated power is 600 Watt. The frequency-accurate interference signals reproduction is +/-0.5MHz. Spectrum-matching of the reproduced interference signal is fully automated. Jamming signals emitted include MP-1, MP-2, MP-1 + noise, MP-2 + noise, quasi-CW noise, spot jamming in frequency and range deception signals. The system can also jam GPS signals out to a distance of 70km, and multi-frequency autodyne radio proximity fuzes.

The non-com component’s COMINT/ELINT suites can operate autonomously and are also available in man-portable versions with GIS and digital moving map overlays. They can undertake panoramic frequency-band surveillance and produce time-and-frequency analysis in three formats: gain-frequency panorama, time-and-frequency panorama, and frequency-intensity panorama. Frequencies are monitored in the 30-18,000MHz bandwidth, and the direction-finding error is not more than 3 degrees. The suites are thus optimised for providing search, intercept, analysis and monitoring capabilities of hostile communications emissions.--Prasun K. Sengupta

66 comments:

jay said...

Looks like an awesome EW platform.
So it also jam counter-battery radars which had devastating consequences for us in Kargil..right? and defeating air-burst 155mm rounds..that would be really cool.

Prasun K Sengupta said...

It can jam only those emitters located in the plains. Not over mountainous terrain due to the laws of physics. Furthermore, it was not the counterbattery radars that had devastating consequences in Kargil. Over mountainous terrain any kind of radar, be it a counterbattery system or even AEW & C, will be absolutely useless. The reason for high battlefield casualties in Kargil was due to the inability to medically evacuate the casualties in time to save them, again due to the nature of the terrain of operations. Field hospitals are always in the rear area and not on the frontline and it was the time taken to transport the casualties to the field hospitals that resulted in several soldiers being declared dead on arrival.

Anonymous said...

Can we mount this on an aerial platform like the Il-76 to give EW cover for our fighters in hostile airspace? Can this be deployed on a fighter plane like the USAF's Prowler/Growler?

Anonymous said...

is it necessary to put in public domain so much of confidential info? You should keep somethings as they are!

Bobs said...

prasun,can u provide a similar article on the Project Sangraha?

Anonymous said...

* is this system foolproof and tamper proof?
* what if one/few vehicles in the arrangement gets damaged/destroyed? * also is it possible to quickly relocate to areas needing protection?
* is it possible to deploy such a system in a metro city?

Prasun K Sengupta said...

To Anon@2:06AM: Who says the info is confidential? How do you know the info is confidential? Are you the classifying authority?

To Anon@8:10AM: No system is fool-proof or tamper-proof. The question of such systems being deployed in urban areaa does not arise as the EW threats Samyukta is meant to counter do not dwell in urban areas, but on the battlefield.

Anonymous said...

what about my question? mine is in the third comment from the top.

Prasun K Sengupta said...

Ground-based jammers and airborne jammers are two different systems with different applications. One cannot just load up a ground-based jammer into an aircraft and use it as an airborne jammer or SIGINT/ELINT platform. If that were possible no one would have developed dedicated airborne jamming pods.

Anonymous said...

The way we/you are stripping open LCAs,missiles and other defence equipment in public domain,there is nothing left to be kept secret and confidential. The existance of ELINT/COMINT/ESM itself is a confidential matter. Forget about the specs.Shiv Aroor,yourself and Ajai shukla are taking turns to expose .I appreciate it one way coz DRDO,HAL and MOD cant take the common Man for granted ! But even then so many ghotalas keep happening! Anyways who cares for the damn AAM AADMI! why dont you post something about chinese multimode radar fitted in J-10? why do they gaurd its specs so closely? make it open ! strip open porki JF-17 Bandar!As such i do enjoy reading the amount of info you post, but somewhere it pinches!

Anonymous said...

60 years of secrecy has kept us as a 3rd world nation in military technology

Anonymous said...

don't just looking for f18 load carrying capability but the thrust/weight ratio ,in this regard mig35,rafale,typhoon beat f18

better thrust to weight ratio allows to pull payload faster and higher

say 5 ton combat load is to b carried by mig35,rafale,typhoon,f18e/f

mig,rafale,typhoon can carry that 5 ton load and fly faster than f18e/f

while f18e/f has inferior thrust/weight ratio because of this its energy bleeds off and can't fly faster with that load

and in india hot weather also reduces engines performance and f18e/f already inferior in thrust/weight ratio gets even slower while carrying that 5 ton load

rafale and typhoon beat even mig35 in this regard cuz they have even better thrust/weight ratio than mig35

Kannan,India said...

I just want to ask you something..(sorry to be off-topic)
What's ur take on why Army is so allergic to Arjun tank..they accepted Arjun only when threatened with comparative trials..via-vi T-90.
which could have separated wheat from the chaff..and
just want to know the reason why you called the 155mm artillery system evaluation and testing that happened a while ago as a "farce"..(the contract was cancelled)
I gather you haven't yet provided the answer of "why" you called that so..
thanks in advance..

Anonymous said...

this is what Dr. A.P.J. kalam has to say about Samyukta
"The electronic warfare system is a force multiplier system which needs high level of secrecy for maintaining surprise against adversary actions. In such a situation, it is essential that the system design, architecture and deployment knowledge is generated within the country and maintained as a closely guarded information by the services. This is essential to ensuring tactical and strategic advantage for our armed forces during an operation"

Anonymous said...

CAN YOU PLEASE TELL THE MECHNISM ENVOLVED IN NEUTALISING AN AIR BURST ARTILLARY SHELL USING RADIO WAVE TRANSMITTER FUZE BY AN EW SYSTEM LIKE SAMYUKTA. 2) HOW CAN MOUNTAINOUS TERRAIN NULLIFY THE EFFECT OF SAMYUKTA.

Prasun K Sengupta said...

To Anon@11.18PM: Contrary to what you may have been led to believe, the existence of EW/COMINT/ELINT/SIGINT systems and their capabilities are not secrets at all. What is secret is their employment/applications protocols. Regarding the specs and capabilities of China-made radars and electronic warfare systems, these are all in the open domain and anyone is free to go to the various aerospace expos that China hosts every year and cover those events. As to why India-based journalists do not cover them and instead only choose to gloat over their joyrides on F-16s and F/A-18s and MiG-35s, it really beats me! But no one is stopping them from going to China and Pakistan to cover aerospace and defence expos. I have been covering these expos since the mid-1990s and have published several detailed show reports on them. As for the airborne radars for Pakistani J-10/FC-20 and JF-17 I had already mentioned earlier that the PAF has already zeroed in on the Selex-Galileo-built Vixen 500e AESA radar. In fact, if you read my second posting in this blog (last October) I have given the virtual ORBAT of the PLA’s ground forces deployed along the India-China border. So where’s the secrecy and what’s so confidential about all this? Regarding ‘ghotalas’, I will soon upload a grand list of ‘ghotalas’ the kind of which you all haven’t yet read as none of the hyper-ventilating news networks have even bothered to investigate them. But this I guarantee: after you’ve read them you will spend sleepless nights.

To Anon@6:15AM: What you’ve rambled about is not the way M-MRCAs are evaluated by anyone. If one went by your logic then I too can argue that all the M-MRCAs you’ve mentioned are outperformed by the Su-30MKI which is a Gen 4++ combat aircraft. So why go ahead with procuring another type of Gen 4++ combat aircraft when the Gen 5 FGFA will be available from 2015 and the Su-30MKI and tejas LCA too will be upgraded with Gen 5 avionics starting 2012?

To Kannan: Army HQ is allergic to inducting the Arjun Mk1 in large numbers simply because it all boils down to money. In today’s world one just can’t have two types of state-of-the-art MBTs in one’s armoured vehicles inventory as it is a cost-prohibitive exercise. Introduction of a new MBT into one’s ORBAT is a huge deal, and involves the acquisition several other types of support vehicles like AVLBs, ARVs, field repair vehicles, customized wheeled trailers and tow trucks as well as railway wagons, just to name a few. In addition, introduction of a new MBT must always be accompanied by the introduction of a new tracked infantry combat vehicle. In this case the Indian Army is already well behind schedule (a classic ‘ghotala’) as only the T-90S MBT has been procured to date, and not the accompanying BMP-3 ICVs or BMP-T Terminators, which will be ordered in the near future. In case of the Arjun Mk1, the accompanying ICV was meant to be the Abhay ICV, but till now this ICV has not even undergone user-evaluations! Therefore, the Army HQ prefers to acquire T-90M MBTs in greater nos and concurrently acquire the BMP-3 or BMP-T Terminators in large numbers as they are readily available. Consequently, there’s no more funds left for procuring the Arjun MBT. It is all an issue about money and what procurements can be expedited with the limited funds available within a certain time-frame. And it is at this stage that most of the ‘ghotalas’ start happening.
The reason why I labelled the four rounds of field evaluations of towed 155mm/52-cal howitzers a farce is because of the farcical methodology employed for the trials. No other country will conduct more than a single round of field trials on a no-cost no-commitment basis. And if the Indian Army wants the world to believe that even after four rounds of firepower/mobility field trials there are no clear winners then it is only destroying its own reputation. And all this even after OP Vijay it was proven beyond doubt that the operational requirements for fighting future wars would call for procuring motorised 155mm/52-cal howitzers that are self-propelled (instead of towed guns) in all types of terrain and are also air-transportable by C-130 and IL-76 transport aircraft. Instead of planning to procure three different types of field howitzers there should be a requirement of only one type—the lightweight air-transportable motorised howitzer. During OP Vijay in 1999 Army HQ had drafted a GSQR for 290+ howitzers of this type and two years ago a revised GSQR called for procuring up to 800 units. God only knows why this requirement has not yet been taken to its logical conclusion, and at the same time the civilian and military decision-makers cannot make up their mind about the type of towed 155mm/52-cal howitzers to be procured. It is not just a ‘farce’ but gigantic ghotala! And just look at the pace at which the PLA and Pakistan Army are inducting into service the NORINCO-built SH-1 155mm/52-cal howitzers.

To Anon@8:15AM: If you go to the website of FIRES, the magazine of the US Army’s Field Artillery Regiment, at: http://sill-www.army.mil/firesbulletin/2008/Oct_Dec_2008/main.asp , you will be able to get the answers you want.

Anonymous said...

to prasun

u got me wrong about MRCA,i just wanted to say that payload carrying capacity doesn't count wheather a fighter is able to carry more payload than other fighter
like f18 can carry 8 tons
rafale can carry 9.5 tons
typhoon and mig35 carry 6 tons

so one might just look at strike capability by just looking at payload carried by fighter and thats wrong ,but must look at the thrust/weight ratio of a fighter so

rafale and f18 beat typhoon and mig35 according to payload capability

but on the other hand rafale,typhoon,mig35 beat f18 in thrust /weight ratio and thats why
rafale,typhoon,mig35 can pull say 6tons of payload faster and higher than f18e/f

thats what i wanted to say

Anonymous said...

will it be inducted mr. prasun?

Abhinaba said...

Prasunda, exact internal fuel capacity of LCA is very much speculated.In BR they say it is 2400kg. where as in ADA's site it is 3000kg.What is right figure?

Kannan,India said...

Thanks for the clarification..

Anonymous said...

Abhinaba,

BR doesn't design / manufacture LCA; so you have to believe what ADA says. This is not new; we call this-sort of things as "common sense". Any more questions ?

Prasun K Sengupta said...

To Abhinaba: If it is any consolation, the total internal fuel capacity of the Tejas LCA will be known only after all the avionics LRUs are fully accounted for (the IRST and ODL data link are still missing), and the actuated in-flight refuelling probe and actuated cockpit canopy mechanism is installed as well. And if the EJ-200 turbofan is installed, then there's the option of incorporating thrust-vectoring nozzles as well (that was shown at Aero India'09). However, one thing is sure: the LCA does presently require twin external fuel tanks for appreciable endurance and this is something the IAF is not happy about and it therefore wants technologically feasible solutions like conformal fuel tanks to be carried by the LCA. Whether the internal fuel capacity is 2.5 tonnes or 3 tonnes is immaterial now as those figures pertain to an era of air combat that is now in the distant past. One now has to figure out solutions to make the LCA viable for future air combat missions.

Abhinaba said...

How much a SAM's performance is affected in rear hemisphere?

Afterburner said...

Quite often the discussion that happens on this blog is not what the post is about. While it is good to discuss various issues when we get the chance, it can also be treated as an indicator to post new stories/information at regular intervals rather to wait to see the post to be completely morphed into a different discussion altogether.

~AB

Prasun K Sengupta said...

Am cross-posting one of my replies originally posed in BROADSWORD: The single photo of INS Shivalik illustrates several capabilities. The Shtil-1, for instance. Also note the stealthy turret housing the OTOBreda 76/62 main gun and its target illuminator over the bridge, this being the very same STGR system employed for the Barak-1. The twin ASW mortar launchers built by L & T are also visible. Also note the ELBIT-made Tinmex Mk2 ESM sensors on each side of the bridge, along with the Desceaver Mk2 offboard countermeasures launchers. In front of the STGR is the Garpun-BAL engagement radar for the Club-M ASCM. Up to five target illuminators for the Shtil-1 are on board. The main mast is carrying the Rashmi navigation radars and the Fregat-M2EM radar, but the aft mast is empty as is also the case with the three Project 1135.6 Talwar-class FFGs. This mast will eventually host the Revathi air-surface search radar on both the three Talwar-class FFGs and the three Project 17 FFGs. But let us wait and see if the photo of the CIC is released here (I got one). By the way, the Project 17 FFGs will be the first warships of the Indian Navy to have a dedicated CIC. All previous warships, including the Delhi-class DDGs and Talwar-class FFGs, do not have CICs, instead they have up to five 'citadels' on board, housing systems like the EMCCA. The Project 17 FFG, on the other hand, has only one citadel, which is the CIC, and is called EMDINA. Now, does anyone know what is EMCCA and EMDINA? Well, originally, while they were being developed by the WESSE and BEL, their project codenames were MECCA and MEDINA. But this was not found to be 'politically' acceptable and therefore the names were changed. Anyone from WESSE can confirm this.

Prasun K Sengupta said...

The sentence (13th from the bottom) should read as: "the three Project 17 Talwar-class FFGs, and three existing Project 1135.6 FFGs plus the three more being fitted out at Yantar JSC in Kaliningrad".

Abhinaba said...

What is difference between 1st generation & 2nd generation ASW morter?

Anonymous said...

Prasun K Sengupta said... As for the airborne radars for Pakistani J-10/FC-20 and JF-17 I had already mentioned earlier that the PAF has already zeroed in on the Selex-Galileo-built Vixen 500e AESA radar

1. So Both Jf-17 and Fc-20 will have AESA radar in future?

2.Any details about the weapons especially WVRAAM and BVRAAM?

3.Can you provide few details out of your magical zembil?

4.why Vixen 500e AESA radar and why not they opted for Vixen 750e AESA radar?

Abhinaba said...

What type of towed sonar is present in Shivalik class fregate?

Prasun K Sengupta said...

To Anon@6:55AM: Answer to No1 is yes. Answer to No2 is PL-9C WVRAAM and PL-12 BVRAAM. Don;t know what you are insinuating in No3. As to No4 you will have to direct that question to PAF HQ via ISPR.

To Abhinaba: The specified VDS is an ultra low-frequency active/passive sonar of the type that has to be imported as NPOL has not yet mastered this technology. The Nagan developed by NPOL is a low-frequency system, not an ULTRA low-frequency sonar. Even the Project 28 ASW corvettes and Abhay-class ASW corvettes will have imported ultra low-frequency VDS for which global bids have yet to be called.

Anonymous said...

to prasun

india bought just 6 c130j aircrat for one billion dollars and canda bought 17 c130j for $ 1.4 billion

cost of a new c130j is $ 70 million but india paid $ 166.67 million per c130j

lockheed sold f16blk60 to UAE at
$ 80 million but don't know how much they will ask from india

and if c130j is being sold at sky high prices

only god know how much boeing will change for c17,apache

as apache was sold at $ 33 million per pice to s.korea and that was 60 % less than actual price

Prasun K Sengupta said...

To Anon@8:32AM: I'm asking for the umpteenth time now, kindly refrain from chewing off your financial figures because THEY ARE FLAWED and without foundation. For instance, how would you know what's the unit price of a C-130J? Have you got any price and availability data from Lockheed Martin or the US Air Force? Do you know the methodology applied for calculating the unit price for each C-130J? When any existing operator of the C-130 like Australia or Canada or South Korea or Japan or Singapore etc buys the C-130J the unit price will be much lower simply because the operator already has in place the required intermediate-level and depot-level maintenance/repair/overhaul infrastructure in place, along with flight simulators and other training aids. In India's case, the C-130 is being acquired for the first time and therefore the total contract value will include the cost of putting in place all the above-mentioned capabilities for the very first time. That's why the contract value for the second tranche of six C-130Js (to be ordered in future) will be much lower than that for the first tranche of six C-130Js. The reason why the AH-64D Longbow Apache costs less for South Korea and Japan is because the US Army has already had these helicopters and their support MRO/training infrastructure located in these countries, which will be made use of by the host countries as well. On the other hand, the cost of procuring the Apache by Taiwan will be a lot higher as the entire support infrastructure will have to be established from scratch. Whenever any country inducts into service a first-of-type aircraft or helicopter the contract value is much higher than subsequent orders for the same aircraft type. Therefore a country buying IL-78MKI-90 aerial refuelling tankers for thr first time will have to pay much more than what India will if it orders a follow-on batch of IL-78MKI-90s.
I hope you draw the correct conclusions from the above-mentioned explanation and refrain from mentioning any kind of financial figures in future. Because if confinue to do so, I will have no option but to delete your posts as they're not only ill-informed and descredited, but also serve to spread lies, instead of dealing with facts.

Anonymous said...

to prasun

my figures r true and neither i spread lies but u have close ur eyes

australia bought c17 for $ 780 million US dollars and paid $ 80 million for sustainment of those aircraft and they also bought it for the first time had no previous infrastructure for c17s

so according to this c130j is much less capable than c17 and cost of 6 c130j should be much less than 4 c17s and sustainment cost of those 6 c130j should be
less or equal to $ 80 million

Prasun K Sengupta said...

Under the category of 'Sustainment Costs', what are the items that you've included? Can you give me an itemised breakdown? And for how many years are these sustainment costs allocated for? I ask this because 'sustainment costs' in US parlance refers only to human resources training packages (for aircrew and ground/maintenance crew) and the assured supplies of rotables/consumables and other spares for a finite period based on a certain amount of flight hours being logged in every month.

Anonymous said...

just talking about aircraft price

as australia bought 4 c17s for
$ 780 million US dollars

so price of 6 c130j should be much less as it is much less capable than c17 and its price should be less than the price of 4 c17s which is $ 780 million dollars.

but our govt has paid over a billion dollars for just 6
c130j and i don't think spares costs as much as the price of
6 c130j aircraft itself

Nava said...

I wouldn't want to hijack the discussion, but I have an unrelated query...
What are the chances that India will acquire the Spike missile of Rafael, that was showcased at AI? It seems it is in the market for ATGMs, and it is my understanding that spike is top notch as far as those go. And what about the Nimrod by IAI?

Anonymous said...

so if consider per c130j aircraft price $ 70 million US

then 6*$70 million =$ 420 million for 6 c130js

our govt paid a billion dollars

only 4 rolls royce turbines and some electronics r extra

but if u say that training and those rolls royce turbines and spares cost $ 580 million US dollars and thats not justified as these costs more thaqn the price of aircraft itself

as there is no sign that for how many years aircraft's spare support is covered inn $ 580 million dollars

more justified price for training and those rolls royce turbines and spares should be $ 200 million

so extra $ 580 million US is totally unjustified

Prasun K Sengupta said...

Like I explained before, unless you give me the breakdown of how you've calculated the per unit cost of any aircraft, one will not be able to do a proper comparison. For instance, what's the annual maintenance cost of the C-17? Will the RAAF outsource it, thereby not setting up its own MRO facilities in-country? Is it buying its own C-17 flight simulators, or will it send its aircrew and ground crew to the US for training? Has it ordered a two-year, three-year or five-year 'sustainment costs' package? Will the RAAF be required to build new hangars to accommodate the C-17s or will existing infrastructure suffice? Will the RAAF establish its own repair labs for avionics and instrumentation found on-board the C-17s or will all such repair work be outsourced? These are the variable factors that have to be considered and calculated when trying to attach a unit price to any aircraft. For the C-130J deal for the IAF, all the above-mentioned variables must be included as part of the total contract value. Also, the contract value for the first six C-130Js clearly implies that a follow-on contract for six additional C-130Js will be inked within the next three years. By the way, the total through-life product support costs for any aircraft is three times more than the total value of procuring the aircraft.

Prasun K Sengupta said...

To Nava: The Spike ATGM is available in three versions, short-range, medium-range and long-range. The short-range shoulder-launched version with a range of 600 metres is being procured by the Indian Army and the manportable medium-range is being proposed for the Para (SF)and MARCOS Battalions. The long-range version is being proposed for the to-be-selected attack helicopters of the IAF, and this missile is also capable of being launched by the Heron TP UAVs. By the way, two companies--RAFAEL of Israel and Singapore's ST Kinetics--are offering the Spike ATGM to India. The Nimrod is not under consideration as the ARDE and IAI are already cooperating to develop a laser-guided air-launched long-range (25km+) anti-armour version of the 214mm rocket originally developed for the Pinaka MBRL.

Nava said...

Thank you for your reply.
(The spike also has an ER version of 8 KM)

Has the Heron TP been purchased by India? If so, do you know (and can you say obviously) how many units were purchased?

Prasun K Sengupta said...

The long-range version of the Spike is the Spike ER. The Heron TPs are on order (an initial 12) because the existing Heron 2s and Searcher Mk2s are underpowered when it comes to cruising at medium altitudes over desert and mountainous terrain. A slight cross-wind of 10 Knots throws these UAVs off course. The Heron TP overcomes this limitation in the Indian context. It is because of this reason that even in Afghanistan several UAVs (those of the Canadians and French, apart from those of the US) have crashed thus far. That's also why I'm surprised that the Rustom UAV's model unveilled at Aero India 2009 shows it powered by twin Rotax engines. It should be powered by a single turboprop instead. Initially the US was even opposed to India acquiring the Heron 2 as it was technically in contravension of the MTCR guidelines that Israel, like India, adheres to. But post-9/11, the US withdrew its objections with regard to such Indian imports. Only then could India order the Heron 2 and Heron TP. Likewise, importing a suitable turboprop engine for the Rustom UAV should not be a problem now. But it will still be worthwhile for the GTRE to explore the option of developing a homegrown turboprop engine.

Nava said...

Wait, Heron 2 isn't Heron TP?

Prasun K Sengupta said...

That's right. They are two different UAVs.

Kannan,India said...

Wow Eitan with Spike..can't believe they are selling these stuff to us.I thought Eitan was an 'internal' hi-tech project for shooting down ballistic missiles with a drone based platform..yummy..
Thanks Prasunji..i think it would be awesome if you put some of your long comments(as clarification to questions) to main blog..otherwise some of us will miss it. Like a FAQ section..which you can update from time to time..
So that 'stupid' questions are not asked by mistake time and again..

Between,if you may..is your source about the Eitan..open sources or your contacts..
i hope its not a personal question..if its from an open net source..i would love to get a link to dig a bit more on that..

Nava said...

Well, I've often seen them being referred to as the same UAV, for example (from a site called "Israeli weapons"): Heron 2/Mahatz 2/Heron TP/Eitan. Anyway, after that beast was revealed there were insinuations about all sorts of tailor made payloads and unique abilities, I wonder how "generous" Israel's air force was with those.

Prasun K Sengupta said...

Am cross-posting yet another comment I made earlier in BROADSWORD: Project MECCA was about developing what the Navy calls command-and-control decision support system, which is not centralised, but rather broken up into three (in case of FFGs) or five (in case of DDGs) distinct physical modules each of which is located within a 'citadel'. This was the classical Soviet way of designing a combat management system for a warship or submarine. You will find the same arrangement on board the Type 877EKM Kilo-class SSKs, Project 1135.6 Talwar-class FFGs, Kashin 2-class DDGs and Tarantul-1 corvettes. On India-made warships this concept of multiple citadels can be found on board the Project 16 Godavari-class and Project 16A Brahmaputra-class FFGs, Project 25 and Project 25A corvettes, and Project 15 Delhi-class destroyers. In contrast, the Western concept of housing the centralised combat management system (CMS) on a single citadel, like the one found on board the Class 209/Type 1500 SSKs (the ISUS-90 CMS suite) and the Scorpene SSK (the SUBTICS), has also been adopted for the Project 17 FFGs, Project 15A Kolkata-class DDGs and Project 28 corvettes and for the IAC. This centralised CMS housed in one single citadel was developed under Project MEDINA. In fact, during Aero India 2009 I obtained from BEL the brochures of both the EMCCA and EMDINA (my data and sources of info on this issue are all from OEMs/industry and not from the Indian Navy). But the real network-centric revolution is the LINK-2 data link, which will be fully optimised once the tri-services defence communications satellite is launched later this year. The Link 2 enables Navy HQ's Ops Room to maintain a real-time picture of the actual dynamic disposition of every naval warship, submarine, aircraft, and UAV. It is virtually identical in terms of performance to the portable server-based CENTRIX system that is always used by the US Navy while having multinational naval exercises. The Navy along with TATA Electric Co even employed professional hackers to develop the Link 2's firewalls so that the data-linked network will not be vulnerable to virus attacks mounted by China-based hackers. In fact, at Aero India, the visiting Chinese delegation showed great interest in the Link-2 exhibit at BEL's booth.

Prasun K Sengupta said...

To Kannan: The Heron TP procurement news was broken at the MAKS 2007 expo. The Russian Show dailies highlighted this info. I also wrote about it subsequently as part of my show report for FORCE magazine. But kindly note that although the Heron TP can and has been armed with ATGMs and LGBs, for the Indian Army the Heron TPs will be used for standoff recce and signals repeater platforms over mountainous terrain. The IAF on the other hand is evaluating various UCAS options. That's why BAE Systems brought in its Mantis UCAS demonstrator at Aero India 2009. As for sources of info, one just has to talk to the right project manager from the OEM company and receive background briefings.

Nava said...

If India is looking for a dedicated UCAS, it should look no further than Israel, whose abilities in the field are well known. The Europeans are still lagging behind, quick to announce grandiose projects but still relying quite heavily on Israel and the US. I think India should form a JV with Israel if they want a dedicated UCAV (it might be unofficial, as Israel is averse to publicly admit its use of them), though the Heron TP itself is quite formidable and has probably been used for quite serious combat ops.

Kannan said...

Prasunji,
What's your take on Goroshkov blackmailing? Is it a mere cost escalation or Russia wants the carrier for itself? Or is it just rubbing it in for our cozying up to US or a signaling to sway M-MRCA their way?If the deal is cancelled, will they be compensating us for $400 million(?) or so that we already coughed up? To me it seems like they are recklessly trying to kill their golden duck.The flip-flops on T-90 ToT are also worrying.Have we reached end of the road regarding Russia? Russians are usually very intelligent and pragmatic people, but their carelessness w.r.t India baffles me.

Anonymous said...

well,CEO of sevmesh himself said that it much easier to build a new carrier rather than converting old ship to aircraft carrier

both russians and indians didn't know that it will take this long as their intial assessment was wrong but the work on gorky came out to be as much as building 60% of new carrier as sevmesh putting all new systems in gorky

but india has not paid a single penny since nov 2007,and dont worry india going to pay whatever russians ask

first they had to remove old stuff missiles etc,then plan to build ski jump and then again put new systems in gorky which r also required in new carrier and then sea trials which will take 2-2.5 years and thats not bad if the price of gorky is settled down to
$ 2 billion cuz new ship will cost over $ 5 billion

if a scorpene being built in india takes 7 years then gorky is much bigger task

u will c how long IAC being built takes to operationalize,the dry dock in cochin shipyard is shallow and it will be flooded when ship is 20000 tons if everything goes according to time schedule in 18 to 20 months

after that ship will again put to deeper dry dock in which right now viraat is,and complete rest of construction and that will again take 2-2.5 years if everything goes according to time schedule

then again it will take 2-3 years for sea trials and will be inducted in 2015 if evedrything goes according to time schedule

but if WW2 era vraat can be operated till now gorky can easily b operated for 40 years cuz ship will have all new systems except hull and even hull is not old cuz gorky was in sea for only 5 years fron 1986-1991 in soviet service and after that russia didn't have money to operate it and they put gorky in dry dock in 1991.

MDL in mumbai takes upto 10 years to build a single frigate or p15 destroyer

Prasun K Sengupta said...

To Cdr (Ret'd) Sarkar: If you indeed claim who you are you will clearly remember the briefing given on board INS Delhi on December 4, 1997 by the then CO of the DDG Vice Admiral (then Capt) Anoop Singh to the visiting Chief of Navy, RSN, and it was during that briefing that I saw for myself the CIC/AIC. Furthermore, I never said that the Godavaris and Brahmaputras and Delhis don't have the CIC, rather I was highlighting the absence of the centralised CMS. You obviously haven't seen what's being handed out by BEL with regard to the EMCCA and EMDINA, nor have you seen FSUE Salyut SMP's data package regarding the two radars meant for the Project 1135.6 FFG: H-band Fregat-MAE-4K on the aft mast and the E-band Fregat-M2EM on the main mast. I will of course be uploading brochures of these two radars, along with those of the EMCCA and EDDINA CMS suites in my blog, but your total ignorance of these issues makes me highly suspicious of your professional credentials. Wrongful impersonation can have terrible consequences, so you have been warned. Hope this will stop impersonators like you presenting factually incorrect data.

Anonymous said...

recklessly trying to kill their golden duck.The flip-flops on T-90 ToT are also worrying.Have we reached end of the road regarding Russia? Russians are usually very intelligent and pragmatic people, but their carelessness w.r.t India baffles me.
----------------------------------------------------
US is also careless when it comes to TOT even with its allies who never oppose US for anything

US is also careless for spares for military hardware when it sees countries opposing it.

Prasun K Sengupta said...

To Kannan & Anons Above: I had explained this before and objectively speaking, it is India that screwed up. There's a total of US$2.5 billion still available from the final account settling of the Ruppee-Rouble trading arrangement from the days of the erstwhile USSR. Therefore, rather than pay the money to India in cash, the Ruskies in the mid-1990s suggested that they would like to pay back in kind. India said yes and this is how two projects were born: to dry-lease two Akula-2 SSGNs and to acquire the refurbished aircraft carrier Admiral Gorshkov and its complement of on-board aircraft. Now that India wants to dry-lease only 1 Akula 2 (instead of two) the Ruskies are in a bind as they need the cash and therefore the best way for them to get it is to suggest to India that the Ruppee-Rouble debt adjustment chapter be closed earlier and have consequently proposed that instead of the money pledged by India for the 2nd Akula-2 SSGN, that money now be spent on the aircraft carrier project. But mind you, when talking about the total amount for procuring the INS Vikramaditya, one should deduct the amount that goes for procuring the MiG-29K/KUBs, Ka-31s and Ka-28PLs under a separate package. Consequently, the cost of procuring the aircraft carrier comes to about US$2.1 billion, which is what any other foreign shipyard like Fincantieri or Navantia would charge. But having said that, non-Russian shipyards would have delivered such an aircraft carrier within four years of contract signature. But the genesis of the present state of affairs is India's last-minute refusal to accept the 2 Akula-2s, giving the excuse that no Indian Navy base is equipped with the nuclear safety-related infrastructure to accommodate 2 nuclear-powered submarines at the same time.

Anonymous said...

chinese also have kiev class cruisers ,and a kuznetsov carrier but they were not able to convert them in aircraft carriers

although a vyrag carrier chinese have is a complete hull and a never used carrier. they could not refit it and make it usable carrier.

so its shows that it is not very easy even refitting a already completed vyrag,if chinese had capability they had done it but they couldn't.

and people shouting for gorshkov getting late

Anonymous said...

Consequently, the cost of procuring the aircraft carrier comes to about US$2.1 billion, which is what any other foreign shipyard like Fincantieri or Navantia would charge
----------------------------------bullshit,

prasun just c how long itatilan cavor took 7 years to build and that was 27000 tons and building 37500 tons of carrier would take upto 9 years

and i have already said that rebuiding old cruiser to aircraft carrier is much harder than building neew one

intial cost of building in cochin shipyard is set $ 3 billion and it will definitelly will increase and u must know that cost of labour and other systems r much cheaper than italy

if a carrier of 37500tons in india cost intially minimum of $ 3 billion then building same in italy will be no less than $ 5 billion and that also takes upto 9 years

Anonymous said...

to prasun

and italian cavor still in trials and being fitted out and will only be operational by end of 2009

and ur daydreaming building a 37500tons carrier in just 4 years

Anonymous said...

to prasun

french navantia charging australia $ 8 billion for building three aegis destroyers read this----->

world class ships at indian prices


the three 6,250-tonne destroyers, fitted with the hot-selling Aegis radar and fire control system, will set Australia back by Rs 32,000 crore (US $8 billion). At about Rs 11,000 crore per destroyer, that is almost three times the cost India is paying for its Kolkata-class destroyers
---------------------------------
so whats wrong with gorshkov and mig29k and helicopters in 2.9 billion US dollars
what else can be cheaper than this

Prasun K Sengupta said...

To Anon Above: The time-frame for building aircraft carriers whether in Italy or Russia or India depends on several factors but if the design is frozen then it is possible for the hull to be built and launched inside two years, as the South Koreans and Japanese have already demonstrated. The Cavour's delayed launch was not due to hull construction problems or complexities, but more due to the non-availability of the specified on-board weapon systems. That is not the case with INS Vikramaditya as all the on-board weapon/sensor systems have already been specified and ordered.

Prasun K Sengupta said...

To Anon Above: I never said or claimed that somethg's wrong with the Gorshkov deal. Kindly read my above posts carefully.

Anonymous said...

to prasun

the main problem on gorky was removing old stuff and building ski jump and its a much more complex procedure than availability or non-availability of the specified on-board weapon systems

most of time was taken by building ski jump and hull strenghtening and only after this all other systems can b applied but now ship is getting ready for sea trials

refitting gorky is as much as 60% of building new carrier as all other systems r new

while building a new carrier except hull all these thing ---->
gas turbines,generators,air conditioning and heating systems ,boilers,radars and weapons,electrical and wiring systems ,residential and medical facility,communication systems,arresting wires,water systems and pumps r also needed

and all these things i mentioned r also being applied to gorky again as well and older systems have been removed and thats where it took time

Anonymous said...

italian cavor class

21,160 tons unloaded

22,290 tons standard

27,500 tons full load

30,000 tons expected at the end of service life

and if a carrier of empty weight 21160tons takes 7 years then just imagine a carrier with empty weight of 37500 tons will take

Prasun K Sengupta said...

The structural modifications including the ski ramp fabrication were never the main construction challenges. The real challenge was the extent of rewiring required, which is always the most time-consuming work activity. This work will be completed only by 2011 if funds are made available on schedule. Only after completion of electrical wiring wrks will it be possible to install on-board sensors and weapons, something which should be done by 2012, followed by about 16 months of sea trials. I have no problems with all that. My only reservation is about the way in which the previous management of SEVMASH failed to correctly appreciate the extent of work to be done in order to convert the vessel into the specified aircraft carrier. As the OEM, SEVMASH was expected to do an honest job but clearly the shipyard's previous management failed to do so and was consequently sacked by the Kremlin, something that should have been at least five years ago. I'm sure India will not shy away from paying up what is rightfully due for the work to be done, but any customer, India or not, will definitely find it very strange if, after contract signature, the OEM comes back asking for the contract to be redrawn only because the required prior homework was not done. Russia in this case has created a dangerous precedent that will have negative repercussions in future in terms of honouring contractual commitments with foreign export customers. That's what worries me.

Prasun K Sengupta said...

To Anon@9:39AM: I agree with your pessimism. I for one believe that when the IAC will be launched in 2011 (if that's the case) it will only be 45% complete, with the rest of the vessel's construction taking place while the vessel is afloat. Sea trials are therefore unlikely to get underway before 2013 and commissioning will be possible only by 2015.

Anonymous said...

its true intial assesment was wrong by sevmesh but indian team must have seen the ship's condition
and their assesment was also wrong that ship can b delivered in 4 years

i think both sides were wrong in their assesment

its not just about new wiring in the ship thats takes this long

all other systems r obslete or non functional as ship was in dock left for rusting for 10 years and those can't be used again

so sevmesh is equipping ship with new radars and combat systems,communication system,electrical motors,generators,clean water
systems,control systems,gas turbines,air conditioning and heating systems,arresting wires,

and wiring for a system is always done in parallel with that system being applied to ship,nobody does wiring in advance in one go and then apply systems

as ship is equipped with different systems one by one so wiring is done in parallel with each system is being applied

Anonymous said...

prasun 2015 commissioning date is when everything goes according to time and schedule

but as usual nothing happens on time and in budget so more probably it will be late 2016-or early 17

Anonymous said...

Sir your article was very knowledgeable can you tell me how long have be working on this project...