Friday, February 6, 2009

Super Hornet Flight Evaluation Schedule



For the uninitiated, the above tableaux give a detailed explanation of the forthcoming flight evaluation process and schedules for the F/A-18F Super Hornet Block 2 that is likely to be conducted by the Indian Air Force (IAF) sometime this August over a two-week period. Close to 30 sorties lasting 45 flight-hours are expected to be flown, with half the sorties expected to be devoted to the evaluation of the Raytheon-built APG-79 AESA radar. Of all the six contenders for the IAF's M-MRCA requirement, the Super Hornet, the Rafale F-3 and the MiG-35 are expected to be subjected to the most stringent flight evaluations as only these three contenders are being offered with AESA radars. Of these three, only two--the Super Hornet (with the APG-79) and the Rafale F-3 (with the THALES-built RBE-2)--are in operational service. The JAS-39IN Gripen NG on offer to the IAF is also expected to be fitted with the ELTA Systems-built EL/M-2052 AESA radar by the time the IAF evaluation team proceeds to Sweden. The Block 70 F-16IN Super Viper from Lockheed Martin is being proposed with the Northrop Grumman-built APG-80 AESA radar that is also on board the F-16C/D Block 60 of the UAE Air Force, but in the absence of any such in-house available aircraft for the IAF's flight evaluations, Lockheed Martin will reconfigure one of its F-16 Block 60 flight simulators into the Block 70 configuration for the IAF flight evaluation team, a process similar to what Boeing IDS had done for the P-8I LRMR/ASW platform's evaluation process.--Prasun K. Sengupta

76 comments:

Bobs said...

Nice graphics.....btw, prasun,did u ever do an analysis of the MMRCA contenders? It would be a treat for us.

Prasun K Sengupta said...

To Bobs: Way back in 2005 I did an analysis using a techno-economic matrix. The most critical factor was the financial estimation of the procurement exercise, which accounts for close to 220 M-MRCAs, and not the 126 being harped upon. That being the case, there will be two factors that will influence, if not dictate, the M-MRCA's choice: the commonality of systems like the powerplant and mission avionics with the Tejas LCA, and the secondly the consequent financial impact this would have on the funbds available to the IAF for its force modernisation for the next 20 years. Now, if the F-414-GE-400 turbofan wins the tender competition (if GE wins US Congressional approval for exporting these engines not only for the IAF-destined Tejas LCAs but also for those LCAs destined for export) then the shortlisted M-MRCA candidates will be the JAS-39IN Gripen NG and the Super Hornet Block 2. On the other hand, given EADS' increasing involvement with ADA in terms of reconfiguring the Tejas LCA into a weight-budgeted design, and consequently gaining the upper hand in the powerplant competition by suggesting the Eurojet EJ-200 as a more viable turbofan, the balance could tilt in favour of the Eurofighter EF-2000 Tranche 2. Another point to be considered is the OEM's ability to set up a new licenced-production line for the chosen aircraft and logic here dictates that only those OEMs with aircraft orders running into several hundreds can afford to undertake a horizontal expansion of their global supply chain. In this case, only the Super Hornet and EF-2000 stand out amongst the others. Even from an industrial standpoint I very much doubt if the likes of Dassault Aviation, Gripen International or Lockheed Martin will be able to match the scale and quality of industrial offsets--both direct and indirect--that giants like Boeing and EADS can offer for both the commercial and military aviation spheres of business to India. I'm also led to believe that both IAF HQ and the MoD are in favour of selecting twin-engined aircraft due to the stigma attached to spate of crashes involving single-engined combat aircraft of yesteryears (mainly MiG-21, MiG-23 and MiG-27M), and therefore prefer near-fail safe solutions like the Su-30MKI-type (which has not had any fatal crashes thus far), as politically it will be unacceptable to absorb fatal crashes of a combat aircraft costing more than US$50 million. In conclusion, though, from a technlogical standpoint all the contenders are evenly matched, it will ultimately boil down to achieving a fine balance between dollars-and-cents and the desired operational QRs.

left wing nut job said...

Noticed that there might be a brief on the C-17 given by Boeing. Is the IAF looking at the C-17 as a possible acquisition or is Boeing floating a trial balloon?

Prasun K Sengupta said...

Yup. The C-17A Globemaster 2 is being offered as replacement for the IL-76MD.

A.B, said...

Prasun da,

Can u bring out an article at your convenience on "laser weapons" and India - "foreign partners" collaboration.

Where are we on that platform.

Thanks

A.B.

Zorin said...

Prasun: I read that Italy and India have an improving defence cooperation because the Italians provide top class products at a very reasonable cost.So I wonder why has India not considered collaborating on the Aspida and ICVs like the Dardo/Centauro. China was quick to tap into the Aspida and already copied one as Mk1 version.Why is India so slow with grabbing opportunities?Also do you know if the Army ever looked into acquiring PzH2000 for their sph? How does Soltam's Rascal and Slammer compare?

Anonymous said...

Prasunda,there is a report that France is ready to give thecnology for making AESA radar to INDIA if their fighter is selected. Is it real?As for technological advancement which radar will be better if it is compaired between APG 79 & active phase-array radar called IBRIS.

Anonymous said...

Prasun,is it clear that there is a no chance for f-16 to win the IAF's MMRCA race as it fails in many parameters?

Kannan,India said...

Do we just "buy" billions of dollars of equipment based on evaluation of data from "simulators"..jeezzz. They haven't even seen a live P8A and they already signed up for it without actually seen the real thing for what its worth.
I guess that might be the price for getting NSG clearance for n-deal. Can we do the same thing with an AESA data of which they guaranteed that there wont be any ToT at all. I saw reports that USAF is not happy with their AESA in F-16 too..

Anonymous said...

In what may be considered as a fillip for the country’s indigenous production of defence equipment, the first-ever fleet of Indian-made Arjun battle tanks would be inducted into the Army by February end.

A total 45 tanks would form this armoured regiment and the first order of tanks is expected to arrive within next three weeks. In the first phase, 18-20 tanks would be handed over to the Indian Army by the heavy vehicle factory, Avadi, Tamil Nadu. Already, about 85 tanks are in various stages of production.

Notably, the induction is coming almost 36 years after India announced its programme to build own tanks, and the process was laced with glitches and delays.

The tanks would be available at the Armoured Corps Centre and School (ACCS), Ahmednagar, Maharashtra, where training of personnel would be carried out. It would take a few months more before the Arjun is actually deployed in one of the armoured corps on field duties. It is likely that the deployment could be the Indo-Pak border where a majority of the 59 tank regiments of the Army are deployed.

The induction is coming despite stiff opposition from within the armed forces, which tested the tank to the hilt and agreed only after various parameters were met. Defence Minister AK Antony stood his ground and made it clear that the 58-tonne Arjun would be inducted, as it was working fine.

Well-placed sources in the government said the tanks earlier had to be handed over by January end, but the deadline was extended by a month. Sources in Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) confirmed that the tanks were ready for shipment and handing-over to the Army.

Rather, the move implies that the induction would be carried out without waiting for the much-awaited comparative trials of the indigenous Arjun tanks with Russian-made T-90s, as had been desired by the DRDO.

Tejaswy said...

I don't want anyone other than mig 35 winning the contract.

We can surely use the RD 33k engine to power LCA Tejas

Can't it ?

Anonymous said...

MIG-35 also has 360 degree IRST.

Anonymous said...

tejaswy, mig 35 doesn't have enough thrust.

Prasun K Sengupta said...

To Zorin@8:35PM: Are you kidding? Don't you know that all Italian missile R & D activities are now consolidated into MBDA which in turn is now working with DRDO to co-develop the Maitri SL-QRM and Astra BVRAAM? The Aspide is now considered obsolete as is the Spada 2000 and iots Chinese clone, the LY-60E. The Italians are very much in the limelight especially with the Navy as they've bagged the Integrated Aircraft Carrier's propulsion design contract and are most likely to win the contract for designing and co-fabricating the seven Project 17A FFGs. They're also supplying two fleet replenishment tankers to the Navy.

To Anon@9:46PM: My dear Anon, please get real. Do you know how much it will cost India to create a dedicated facility in India for manufacturing an RBE-2 type AESA? Definitely more than the entire amount spent thus far on the Tejas LCA's R & D. No one is claiming to give a licence to anyone for manufacturing any kind of AESA radars. All that the French are proposing is to share the source codes with the IAF to that the IAF can re-programme the RBE-2's electronic threat libraries and software-related customisation of the AESA's various modes of operation. In any case, as far as AESA-related component manufacturing in India goes, the die has already been cast and companies like Astramp, HAL and BEL have already made investments with israeli companies as their strategic industrial partners. It is now too late for anyone to change gears and take on additional licenced-manufacturing burdens from other OEMs.

To Anon@9:59PM: As far as I know, no one to date has claimed that the F-16IN Block 70 has failed to meet any of the performance parameters laid out by the IAF.

To Kannan: Perhaps you're not aware that flight or mission management simulators are as real as the flying platform itself. Therefore, for both the A319MPA and P-8I, the Indian Navy evaluation team was exposed to only the simulators, since the main item to be evaluated was only the mission management system, and not the aircraft itself as both the A319 and the B.737-800 are already well-proven platforms and are fully certified. It would have been imperative to test-fly the platform had it existed only in prototype form. But in this case it was not. In any case, if one were to follow your line of argument then the IAF would also be ill-advised to go for the MRTA and FGFA as none of them are flying as yet, or for that matter the Su-30MKI should not have been ordered because when the order was placed in 1998 the aircraft or its flight/mission simulator didn't even exist.

To Tejaswy: I don't see how exactly the MiG-35 can even be a frontrunner as even the Russian Air Force is disinclined to order it, choosing instead to go with the Su-34 and Su-35 as its frontline combat aircraft. And the RD-33MK's technology is way below what is being offered by the likes of Snecma Moteurs, GE, Pratt & Whtiney and Eurojet. A simple comparison of the respective TTSLs and TBOs of the engines proves my point. On the other hand, I would highly recommend the RD-33MK for the JF-17 Thunder. Let 'em have as much as they want.

Zorin said...

Thanks P.I read that from Italy-India defence webpages when I searched for various countries/India defence cooperation.I also happen to email various foreign ministries with regards to helping Pakistan militarily to get their opinion e.g. Germany and S Korea.Just curious about their political slant.Thank you for the updates. By the way do you live in India or an ex-pat?

Zorin said...

Prasun I also asked about the pzh2000, Slammer and Rascal.Would like some info on them seeing Bhim is either dead or in a coma.I notice that Ukraine has placed an offer for AN-74.After giving the Pakis T-80UD and T-84 I doubt India will entertain any Ukrainskie offer.I went to the UAC website but they mention nothing about MiG or IL aircrafts which were meant to be produced under UAC. Any comment on that please?

Anonymous said...

Prasunda what is the difference betwee an AESA radar & active phased arry radar?

Anonymous said...

Breaking News:
THE V-22 OSPREY IS ARRIVING TODAY FOR THE AIRSHOW.

Anonymous said...

Prasunda,please mathameticlly explain the thrust/weight problem of LCA after integration of GE 404-in-20 engine.

Zorin said...

To Anonymous@3:36:An Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA), also known as active phased array radar is a type of radar whose transmitter and receiver functions are composed of numerous small transmit/receive (T/R) modules. AESA radars feature short to instantaneous (millisecond) scanning rates and have a desirable low probability of intercept.(Wikipedia).So APAR and AESA are same thing.

Anonymous said...

Does the IAF need a relatively inexpensive, low maintainence, light weight single engined fighter or does it need a twin engined heavyweight in the league of Su30 MKI?

arjunfan said...

Are these powerpiont presentations sir from Boeing for India, similar to the Chinook ones Shiv presented? They should have done a comparison

Prasun K Sengupta said...

To Zorin: Actually, the days of tracked 155mm/52-cal howitzers are long over. They're bulky and can't be air-transported. That's their main handicap. Both at Indian Army HQ and at CLAWS there's a convergence of opinion now that what is needed are not towed or tracked self-propelled howitzers, but truck-mounted motorised 155mm/52-cal howitzers like the Caesar, which are capable of operating in all types of terrain and can even be transported by C-130J-30s. The Borors Arthur on the other hand is far too heavy and cannot be air-transported. Therefore, the majority of armies that have ordered motorised howitzers to date have selected the Caesar, except Myanmar which selected the Serbian NORA. And oh..by the way, Italy's Finmeccanica has also won the contract for upgrading the ENTIRE ATC/ATM network of the IAF.

To Anon@5:46PM: There are no mathematical equations involved. It's quite simple, really. This is exactly what happens when scientists, and not engineers, are entrusted with the task of developing a new-generation aircraft, be it the Tejas LCA or the Saras. Both are overweight and therefore require a higher-thrust engines. The Tejas LCA is overweight by 1.5 tonnes. There's nothing wrong with the existing GE-built turbofan. The problem is the lack of weight-budgeting of the airframe, accessories and undercarriage. And mind you, other items like aerial refuelling probe, IRST sensor and defensive aids suite have yet to be installed on board any of the prototypes thus far!!! If the aircraft's weight is reduced then there's no need whatsoever to source for more powerful turbofans, and service induction will be much faster. I had pointed out this unpardonable state of affairs way back in 1998 and let us all hope that the FGFA project does not suffer a similar fate and this time there is proper synergy between the DRDO and HAL.

To Anon@4:54AM: What the IAF needs are just enough manned aircraft to replace the MiG-21bis, MiG-23BNs and MiG-23MFs, and MiG-27Ms and early-build Jaguar IS aircraft that have to be decommissioned as they've reached the end of their technical service lives. That's the requirement. Now, if this can be done by inducting additional Su-30MKIs then so be it. Also, scrap the MiG-29B-12 fleet, don't upgrade them and instead go for up to 80 MiG-35s (which are almost identical to the MiG-29Ks in terms of mission avionics and have the added advantage of on-board Zhuk-AE AESA). Hell, let the MiG-35s even come with the EL/M-2052 AESA on board. The Ruskies are perfectly willing to accommodate it and to ensure AESA radar commnality with the Tejas LCA. And stop this crazy spending on the M-MRCA and instead allocate all available in-country human resource talent and financial resources into making the FGFA as a true M-MRCA. That's my personal recipe.

To Anon@7:29AM: The PowerPoint presentations were from a Southeast Asian air force that had evaluated the Super Hornet last year. The presentations showing the CH-47F pitted against the Mi-26T are of minimal value, since the Mi-26T is in a different league altogether and is not being considered by the IAF. The IAF's requirement calls for a common helicopter airframe that can perform both heavylift and CSAR OVER mountainous terrain (i.e. for the Army's proposed mountain warfare strike corps). Based on this requirement, it emerges that only two platforms: Boeing's CH-47F/HH-47 and the Bell-Boeing MV-22 Osprey tilt-rotor, fit the IAF's QRs. Wait and see till this October when the IAF will firm up its plans for evaluating both these platforms ONLY.

Anonymous said...

'What the IAF needs are just enough manned aircraft to replace the MiG-21bis, MiG-23BNs and MiG-23MFs, and MiG-27Ms and early-build Jaguar IS aircraft that have to be decommissioned as they've reached the end of their technical service lives.'
Well I appreciate your personal opinion. But I had asked the question w.r.t. the IAF's MMRCA tender. Its not clear what the IAF has in mind. The Gripen & F16 are in a different class regarding price and capabilities compared to the other 4 contenders.

Prasun K Sengupta said...

What do you mean by...."The Gripen & F16 are in a different class regarding price and capabilities compared to the other 4 contenders."?

Anonymous said...

So,IAF will acquire about 600 fighter( 230 SU 30 MKI,126 or 190 MMRCA & nearly 200 LCA) of 4.5 generation.Prasunda please inform us about the modernization plan of PLAAF & PAF.

A.B. said...

What is the source of budgeting now in PAF after the collapse of the economy?

Are aquisition plans on line of shelved?

Role of China in fulfilling the gaps, and on what terms.

Thanks

left wing nut job said...

Ajai, what is your opinion on the fit and finish of the Dhruvs compared to the Mi-17s, NH-90s, etc?

left wing nut job said...

Of course the above note was written in the wrong blog... o.0

Prasun K Sengupta said...

The Dhruv definitely has less rivetting than the Mi-17V-5 but the NH-90 is definitely of superior finishings. Also, the per unit price of US$7 million is suggestive of the fact that these Ecuadorian Dhruvs have conventional on-board cockpit instrumentation and not the glass cockpit. All in all, there's a lot of handcrafted work done on the fuselage, hence the poor finishing touches.

left wing nut job said...

So, the Dhruv line still depends on handcrafting body panels? That's a real big disappointment considering how far technology has come since teh 70s.

Prasun K Sengupta said...

In my reckoning the airframe of the Tejas LCA will sport a better finish as the majority of the airframe skin will comprise pre-fabricated composite panels with greatly reduced rivetting. This will not only result in weight savings, but also reduced aerodynamics drag. It is also interesting as to why HAL has not yet released any photos to date of the final assembly lines for the Dhruv ALH and Su-30MKI, showing the aircraft in various stages of assembly. I guess only when such photos are released will one realise how capital-intensive or manpower-intensive the assembly lines really are.

left wing nut job said...

I remember reading an article a year back or so back that stated that the tidal effects of the moon were messing up some of the tolerance calibrations for the EuroFighter assembly jig.

Even the penny pinching Euros thought it necessary to have incredibly tight tolerances for fighter aircraft assembly knowing the high prices involved. Hopefully, with the transfer of manufacturing tech via the MMRCA contract, HAL will be able to get its hands on some state of the art tech that can then trickle down to the Tejas and Dhruv lines.

The LCA assembly does look cleaner than the Dhruv's but there's a panel just behind the canopy that has a huge gap between itself and the rest of the frame. Looks to be a major source of drag...

Prasun K Sengupta said...

The panel actually houses a bulkhead for avionics LRUs as there wasn't enough space in the nose compartment. Items that have yet to be accommodated into the forward fuselage include the actuated aerial refuelling probe, IRST, and the operational data link LRU, and inside the cockpit the IR sensors associated with the Dash 3 HMDS have yet to be installed. I therefore don't understand how claims are being made about the aircraft being weaponised with R-73E AAMs whe the helmet-mounted cueing system has not yet been installed. All that's been proven thus far is the R-73E's carriage and launch mechanisms/procedures. The same also goes for the Litening-2 LDP.

Anonymous said...

u said no latino american country bought dhruv??

left wing nut job said...

Actuated aerial refueling probe? All the Tejas models show it with a static IFR probe.

Prasun K Sengupta said...

To Anon@12:08PM: No I never ever said that. All I said was that I'll believe all claims made by HAL or the MoD about the Dhruv ALH having won export contracts ONLY AFTER an official announcement is made regarding contract signature by either HAL, the MoD or the customer entity. The proof of the pudding lies in its eating.

Well, it has now been changed to an actuated probe, similar to what is on the Jaguar IS. Even some of the Hawk Mk132s for the IAF and Navy will have them, the supplier being COBHAM of UK, whose Type 754 buddy-buddy aerial refuelling pod is operational with the Su-30MKI and Su-30MKM.

Anonymous said...

prasunda, whats the difference in the roles between IRST ball on the nose of the SU-30MKI and the Litening Pod hung on its pylon?
also does the F-16IN or the UAE block 60 hav IRST on nose(there's a small ball seen on the nose) or is it fitted on the intake , as some pics suggest?

Anonymous said...

Prasunda, what type of IRST & radar will be fitted on LCA?

Raghav said...

Recently, there have been many questions raised about our missile program in our press. It says that only our Prithvi-1 missile is a proven missile system. All our other missiles are not proven systems and are not reliable not even the Agni.
The press was praising the Brahmos sky high. but after the one failure last month, the Brahmos has been declared a big failure. what's your take on this.

Anonymous said...

hey prasun ks youre blogging? wow good luck. sorry i am late but i used to follow your writeups in Force.

a suggestion - why chose this islamic paki green as a background color?

Anonymous said...

Arent all MiG-23s decom already? they're really superb planes and IAF should conider using them on for some time. As for Jaguar it is a perfect deep ground strike.

Anonymous said...

To anon@1:40 am some mig 23s of IAF are improved to mig 27.Prasunda please give the exact number of mig 23s which were improved to mig 27.Prasunda another question from me:what is the difference between top plate 3d radar & half plate 3d radar?

Anonymous said...

to prasun

if rd33 engine tech is way below compared to its western counterparts then indian navy will operate mig29k and iaf will fly mig29 with rd33-3 engines and

but u did not mentioned one thing that price of new rd33-3 engine is 1/3 times lower than westerns engines.

it is foolish to replace il76 after just 20 years of service and but hell costly c17 because il76 sitll have 20 years of more life

Anonymous said...

russian airforce is not inducting mig35 because their airforce is already too big and even if they don't induct and just upgrade their exixting aircrafts it will still b very effective.

u c how many su34 till now have been inducted and how many su35bm will b inducted.

Anonymous said...

isn't it better to upgrade exixting il76 with PS90A engines and then they can carry upto 60 tons of payload than buying c17

A.B. said...

Prasun,

I had a qs for u in the BuA blog - latest article.

WIll love to have your critique.

Thanks.

Prasun K Sengupta said...

To Anon@4:48PM: The IRST on the Su-30MKI's nose is for air-to-air engagements only, while the Litening-2/3 laser designator/targetting pods is for acquiring and engaging ground targets with laser-guided or TV-guided air-to-surface missiles like the Popeye Lite and Kh-59ME. The UAE Air Force's Block 60 F-16E/F Desert Falcons do have a nose-mounted IRST. The sensor mounted on the air intake's portside is the AN/AAQ-32 IFTS pod similar to the Litening. Even the Super Hornet is being offered with a pod-mounted IRST.

To Anon@5:41PM: The Tejas LCA's radar will be the HAL-built MMR incorporating the front end of the EL/M-2052 AESA. As for the IRST I will be identifying them in my following blog entry.

To Raghav: There's nothing wrong with any of the missiles you've mentioned. The BrahMos 1A version for the Army incorporates an imaging infra-red seeker using digital scene-matching technology. That was what was used for the lasr BrahMos test-firing and everything went well expect for an error in the digital scene co-relation algorithm, resulting in a 2-decond lag in target lock-on. That's all, nothing serious. The fire-control system of the BrahMos (when employing both the IIR sensor or the SGH active radar) and does not require any updates from an GPS constellation (US or Russian). However, in the maritime strike version of BrahMos the SGH radar gets final targetting updates via data link from an over-the-horizon target extraction system mounted on board a LRMR/ASW aircraft like the Tu-142M or P-8I.

To Anon@1:38AM: Green is green, not Paki or Indian or Chinese. It is pleasant to the eye and that's why I guess even mother nature has ample green in it. Nothing Paki about it.

To Anon@5AM: There were two types of MiG-23s acquired by the IAF, the MiG-23MF air superiority version that has been decommissioned, and the MiG-23BN close air support aircraft that is now being decommissioned. The MiG-27M is not entirely the same as the MiG-23BN. Out of the 200 MiG-27Ms procured, only 40 have been upgraded so far with a new DARIN-2 navigation/attack system, and another 40 will be upgraded as well, along with a second batch of 40 Jaguars IS. The first batch of 40 Jaguar IS were upgraded through the incorporation of the DARIN-2 nav-attack system and the follow-on 40 Jaguar IS to be upgraded will have the DASRIN-3 nav-attack system. The second batch of 40 upgraded MiG-27Ms too will have the DARIN-3 nav-attack system. The MiG-23MFs and MiG-23BNs have to be decommissioned as they've reached the end of their technical service lives and to maintain them in airworthy status is cost-prohibitive.

To Anon@8:52AM" I'm all for upgrading the existing IL-76MDs to the MF standard by retrofitting them with new PS-90A-76 turbofans, new glass cockpit avionics like that on the Beriev Be-200, and incorporating a fueslage plug to increase its length. The basic airframe is still good to fly for another 20 years, easily.

Anonymous said...

prasun da,thanks for ur reply on IRST and pod of F16 & mki...one more doubt,why does the pod mounted on the intake of f-16 have its eye facing upwards ? ...i mean isn't it supposed to look down to engage ground targets? can it be rotated down in flight something like the Apache's sensors?

Prasun K Sengupta said...

The pod contains a gimballed and steerable sensor head.

fighterclass said...

prasun , just check shiv's blog ....its says that the dhruvs for Ecuador have glass cockpits,quite contrary to what you said couple of days ago

A.B. said...

Prasun,

Good answer on the green - wondered how you'd respond to that.

Green is not Paki and Saffron is not Hindu. These are colors and be used as such. No one has or should have monopoly on colors.

Nuts !!

Sontu said...

Prasun da,
Nomoskar...anek din pore.
Are you planninng to come to Aero India Show ?
will you be there on 14th Feb...would like to meet you..if you are free.

Regards,

asege said...

this was posted for u in BUA blog in response to your comment in this blog why india is not attacking pakistan:

===================================================

Things to make you stew a bit more. India did not attack Pakistan because it could not. SIMPLE.

The parliamentary standing committee on defense said in its 2008 report that 13 billion rupees remained unspent in 2005-06, 30 billion rupees in 2003-04 and 90 billion rupees in 2002-03. These were funds which were supposed to modernize India's armed forces. In total, 210 billion rupees has remained unspent in the five years (2003-7), as deals were scrapped or delayed due to controversy and kickback allegations. The slippages led to a year-end surrender of funds in 2007.(BUA - armaments were rusting)

India did not launch a military strike against Pakistan following the Pakistan-linked Mumbai terror attacks last November because army commanders told New Delhi the country lacked enough artillery to defend its territory. Last month the army made a fast-track order of 4,100 French-origin Milan-2T anti-tank guided missiles (ATGMs), as the indigenous Nag missile is yet to be operational. The 6 billion rupee order for the Milan ATGMs has been on hold for a while, like other military orders. (BUA - India did not have the FIREPOWER)

India's defense expenditure for 2008-2009 dipped below 2% of gross domestic product for the first time in decades, an amount less than the global average of around 2.5%, and which lags behind America's 4.1% and Pakistan's 3.5% (BUA - Where is the will?)

DPP (Defence Procurement Procedure) had been revised for the fourth time in 2008 and it still requires further refining," said Sashi Kant Sharma, the director of General Acquisitions at the Defense Ministry. (BuA- Red tape will kill India before Pakistan can).

HARDWARE:
The army has been looking to import 400 artillery guns from abroad and manufacture another 1,100 domestically, without success.

Several experts' reports, including at least one by the independent Comptroller and Auditor (CAG), have highlighted the inadequacies in India's main battle tank (MBT) fleet - the main strike force of any army. Almost all of India's MBT fleet are of Russian origin.

The CAG report focused on India's deficiency vis-a-vis Pakistan, as the more immediate threat, but also deficiencies with regard to China are too glaring to even be addressed. It clearly pointed at tank, upgrades and technology transfer issues with Russia.

Russia had been delaying technology transfer on the T-90s, which has in turn pushed back production in India. India purchased 310 of these tanks in 2001 and in 2007, and signed a contract for another 347.

Pakistan has a crack fleet of about 1,300 Chinese and Ukrainian tanks.

Experts have also highlighted India's inadequacies in missile attack capability when compared to Pakistan's China- and North Korea-backed program. India's efforts to test a nuclear-enabled BrahMos cruise missile failed last month. ’ Among India's ballistic missiles, only the short-range (150-350 kilometers) Prithvi is battle-ready. Though India has successfully tested the longer range (700-2,000 kilometer) Agni missiles, they are yet to be fully operational and are still being tested.

The truth is that India can only use airforce to deliver nukes, India has no missile platform for the same. While Pakistan has both the options (if the nukes are with them and not the Chinese).

PRASUN - You are free to evaluate this and prove me wrong.

Prasun K Sengupta said...

To fighterclass@2:33PM: If you read my earlier comments I for one never said that the Ecuadorian Dhruv ALH is devoid of a glass cockpit. In fact, I myself saw it two days ago equipped with MFD-55 AMLCDs supplied by THALES-Samtel Display Systems.

To Sontuda: Nomoshkar. Will be departing Bangalore on the night of the 13th. Got to go to Shanghai on the 15th on a business trip. Alas...

To asege@2:31AM: I think you've misread my earlier comments on this topic. It is not a question of IF India is equipped enought to go to war, but WHAT will one achieve if a war takes place. Also, what kind of war will be fought in future, a limited war with defined objectives or an all-out war. The CAG report does reveal several chinks in India's armour, but I very much doubt if Pakistan is in a better situation. In fact, the situation is more dire, financially, economically and militarily. Therefore, all in all, the two opponents are more or less evenly matched, but at the operational level Pakistan is severely inferior at this stage, given a full-blown second front that is ablaze along its western borders. Mind you, I'm only talking about the Pakistan Army here, for the Pakistan Navy and Air Force are totally outgunned, outmanned out-resourced and outmatched as of now.

Anonymous said...

Prasun Can PAF Saab-2000AEW&C do IFR with their IL-78 AAR?

When theu will be delivered?I have heared few on internet saying that thay saw a Saab-2000AEW&C in islambad last week

Anonymous said...

Prasun Can you give any insite about the IJT crash this week?

Prasun K Sengupta said...

To Anon@5:38AM: The first of four Saab 2000 AEW & Cs will arrive in Pakistan only this August. They will not have any aerial refuelling capability. The IL-78 AAR tankers will be used for refuelling the four ZDK-03 AEW & Cs, JF-17 Thunder & FC-20 (J-10). The RDC-1 probe and drogue pods for the IL-78s are also coming from China.

To Anon@5:40AM: At this Aero India, I've come across four sad stories: the mismanagement of the Tejas LCA R & D effort, the mismanagement of the LCH R & D effort, the mismanagement of the HJT-36 IJT R & D effort, and the mismanagement of the 3-tonne single-engined LUH derivative of the Dhruv ALH. And it is all due to the neolithic efficiency of the workings of the MoD. It's not the DRDO's fault, it's not the fault of all the scientists and engineers involved in all these efforts. The fault lies entirely with the decision-making mandarins of the MoD. And another great crisis is brewing: now that the Hawk Mk132 LIFTs are being inducted there's an urgent requirement for a basic turboprop trainer (BTT) to replace the piston-engined HPT-32s. Here again, the MoD in the early 1990s torpedoed a proposal by HAL to develop the HTT-35 BTT. Now, to arrest a pathetic state of affairs, up to 60 Embraer-built Tucanos will be imported off-the-shelf to replace the HPT-32s and some HJT-16 Kiran Mk1s. I'm working on detailed reports on all these and will upload them by tomorrow. Rather than being an enabler, the MoD and its DDPS have really ducked up India's indigenpous aerospace industry big time, sad to say.

Bobs said...

prasun, can u describe the motive behind the exihibtion of G550 based CAEW system by Israel,at the Aero India? whom are they targeting ;is it the Navy or the Airforce?

Prasun K Sengupta said...

To Bobs: The 'Eitam' G-550/EL/W-2085 CAEWS is clearly aimed at the Indian Navy's requirement for six such shore-based platforms. The Indian Navy has had such a requirement since 2003 and this system is directly competing against the Northrop Grumman E-2D Hawkeye 2000. However, in almost all operating and performance parameters, the 'Eitam' outsmarts the Hawkeye 2000.

Anonymous said...

Northrop Grumman E-2D Hawkeye have 360 deg performance while 'Eitam' G-550 AEW&C will have reduced performance in front and back sector

Anonymous said...

Anon@5:38AM
thanks man you are always helpfull

Vikas said...

>> However, in almost all operating and performance parameters, the 'Eitam' outsmarts the Hawkeye 2000

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

Hawkene is career capable too.

Bobs said...

@ vikas
but for that you need a carrier having catapult launch facility...the hawkeye is tied along with kitty hawk...if we r not interested in kitty hawk,then whats the use of operating a carrier specific a/c from the shore?

Sontu said...

Prasun da,

Mone hochhe aro ekta sontu utponno hoe gache...bhoutik bapar na sonjog janina.
Jai hok asa korchilam show te dakha hobe...dekha jak next time.

Nomoskar,

Prasun K Sengupta said...

To Anon@3:23PM: How exactly does the performance reduction take place in the frontal and rear sectors of the 'Eitam' CAEW?

To Vikas: Bobs is right. The E-2D Hawekeye 2000s being proposed for the Indian Navy will not be carrier-based. This was clarified by the Indian Navy way back during Aero India 2003.

To Sontuda: Nomoshkar. Enjoy the exhibition. Transportation to and fro the show site is as shoddy as ever as are the arrangements for reaching the show site from the car-parks, thanks to the excessive and unnecessary security measures that serve as classic examples of how not to devise security measures for an expo of this nature. The past two weeks have been quite hectic as I had to draft more than 35 articles/reports/features for the magazine (FORCE) and Show Dailies. Will try to upload my initial impressions of the expo within the next few days.

Anonymous said...

Hey Prasun,

Just read a column in India Today about the Indian Army's unpreparedness for war. They have described that the main reason for India not being able to go on the offensive was simply that Indian army is not prepared enough. What is your take on the topic?

Vikas said...

Just read a column in India Today about the Indian Army's unpreparedness for war. They have described that the main reason for India not being able to go on the offensive was simply that Indian army is not prepared enough. What is your take on the topic?

-------------------------
Read his reply here (just above ur question)
http://trishulgroup.blogspot.com/2009/02/super-hornet-flight-evaluation-schedule.html?showComment=1234354140000#c6120997601977255204

Kannan,India said...

hi everybody,
Your people may have noticed that "The Hindu" commies have reported that AWACS will only arrive by March..So all the media frenzy on Phalcon was a false alarm or was it?
Any comments?

Zorin said...

For those of you who didn't know, here's the latest from Ria Novosti, "Russia is ready to provide India with a total of 320 military helicopters and hopes to expand cooperation, an executive of a Russian helicopter making plant said on Friday.

"We have presented to the Indian Defense Ministry, as well as to other government agencies, our line of new models and modernized helicopters," said Igor Pshenichny, deputy general director of the Helicopters of Russia holding.

Speaking at the Aero India 2009 show, he added that his company, in conjunction with Russia's state-controlled arms exporter, Rosoboronexport, was participating in a number of tenders, in particular involving the Ka-226T multirole helicopter and the Mi-28H Night Hunter helicopter gunship". I thought Mi-28N was the night hunter and isn't the Kamov Ka-52 a better option seeing India is not getting the Apache?

Prasun K Sengupta said...

Who said emphatically that India is not getting the Apache? Even the RFPs haven't been issued yet for attack helicopters by the IAF, so the question of who's in and who's out doesn't arise at all.

AkI said...

Dear Prasun Da,

I had posted comment about MiG 29s for IN in your blog "Fair Winds & Smooth Sailing in Calm waters" on 8th Feb. Will appricte your reply /cooments on same at the same blog

Anonymous said...

il 78 for pakistan coming from pakistan abd this was confirmed by paki air chief

Anonymous said...

il78 for pakis coming from ukrain and was confirmed by paki air chief

Anonymous said...

You could be right
Prasun as far as linking the LCA engine selection to the MMRCA contract is concerned. The Govt should allocate more money for it.Eurofighters though costly are definitely superior to the F-16's. they would eventually get an AESA in a couple of years.any comments on the EF'd in an A2G role.

F said...

Prasun,
Have heard lots of rumours that the Gripen is now the favourite instead of the Super Hornet for Malaysia. Any comments?

Also, are the Malaysian MKMs currently fitted with a data link?