Is there any existing shipyard in India that can undertake modular warship-building? For that you ought to look for some visual signs of it, instead of asking any of the existing shipbuilders, be it Goa Shipyard Ltd (GSL), Kolkata-based Garden Reach Shipbuilders & Engineers Ltd (GRSE), the Mumbai-based Mazagon Docks Ltd (MDL), or Cochin Shipyard Ltd (CSL). Because one will only get a warped answer that skirts the entire issue of modular shipbuilding and tries to oversimplify the industrial challenges. Before we go any further, let us examine in simple terms what modular warship-building is all about. Simply put, it was pioneered by Germany’s Blohm + Voss and ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems (now grouped as the German Naval Group, or GNG), with the scope of work to be performed consisting of integrated modular designs (using TRIBON CAD/CAM software) for both onboard and off board systems that are designed specifically for the varied deployment of standardised modules (weapons, electronics and the ship’s technical equipment) which, in addition, are connected with the power supply, the air-conditioning and ventilation system and the data network for example, via standardised interfaces. All the components needed to run a specific system are accommodated in a single module. Depending upon the particular task they are required to perform, a distinction is made between weapons, electronics and the ship’s technical modules. Containers, pallets and mast modules are installed during the construction phase. Such modularity allows a wide range of choice in the selection of the on-board systems, whether it be with regard to the integration of customer-supplied systems or the use of products that the customer already has in service from various manufacturers. By simultaneously building the warship’s platform at a shipyard and the modules at the suppliers’ premises, a significant savings in both time and cost can be achieved. The modular construction principle also reduces the costs of maintaining and modernising the vessels during both periodic refits and service life-extension programmes (SLEP). Following the example and standards set by the GNG, other European shipyards like The Netherlands’ Schelde Naval Shipbuilding, the UK’s BAE Systems and Italy’s Fincantieri have actively embraced such shipbuilding practices and processes.This now leads us to the question at hand: can shipyards like GSL, CSL, MDL and GRSE presently undertake modular warship-building? The answer is a clear no, as they are not only not equipped with the required industrial infrastructure, but they do not have any standardised roadmap or time-bound infrastructure development implementation plan. A cursory look around any of these shipyards will reveal that none of them even have syncrolifts, which must be accompanied by related shiplift piers, and dry berth. For modular shipbuilding the syncrolift (for transferring the various modules into the final enclosed assembly hall), dry berths and assembly halls must all be connected by a modern, land-level ship-transfer system. The only such syncrolift that exists within India is the one at INS Kadamba (Project Seabird) in Karwar, having been ordered on May 20, 2002 at a cost of US$32 million and delivered by Rolls-Royce Marine Systems in late 2004. Configured as a 10,000-ton shiplifter, it is a large marine elevator used for lifting warships out of, or lowering ships into, the water. To dock a warship, the platform and cradle are lowered into the water, and the vessel is then moved into place over the platform. When in position, the syncrolift raises the platform, removing the vessel from the water. Work on the vessel can then be done in situ, or the vessel transferred offshore, leaving the syncrolift available to dock other vessels. On completion, the process is reversed. The hoists, platform and associated ship-transfer system were all made in India and the project was managed by Syncrolift Inc, the world leader in shiplift systems with 224 installations in 67 countries.
Making matters worse is the disparate state of military-industrial cooperation between the Indian shipyards and their foreign counterparts. For instance, GSL has a longstanding agreement with Schelde Naval Shipbuilding, The Netherlands’ Maritime Research Institute (MARIN) and Haskoning Nederland BV, and Germany’s Raytheon Anschutz GmbH. MDL, on the other hand, openly declares its preference for ARMARIS of France, while CSL is now in bed with Fincantieri, with GRSE preferring to team up with the GNG. These varying and competing industrial tie-ups are now indulging in intense lobbying within the MoD for securing the contract for supplying the Indian Navy with seven Project 17A guided-missile frigates (FFG), seven Project 15B guided-missile destroyers (DDG) and up to three amphibious assault vessels. While the Navy’s Directorate of Naval Design (DND) has clearly indicated its preference for adopting the GNG’s proven and globally popular MEKO concept of modular design/construction, BAE Systems, ARMARIS, Schelde Naval Shipbuilding and Fincantieri haven’t yet lost hope and are exerting intense pressure on the MoD to at least share the cake (comprising the projected FFG, DDG and LPH projects) as a compromise. The latest entrant into the fray is South Korea’s Hanjin Heavy Industries & Construction, which is offering the Dokdo-class LPH and KDX-3 DDG.
As far as selecting the design of the Project 17A FFG goes, ARMARIS’ Fremm FFG, the GNG’s F-125 FFG and Navantia’s F-310 FFG are likely to be shortlisted. The foreign shipyard whose FFG design wins the tender will be required to build two FFGs at its own yard, using craftsmen from the selected lead Indian shipyard. For the Project 17A FFG, the Navy is seeking revolutionary solutions aimed at seamlessly operating under various scenarios under a global deployment spectrum. For instance, the Navy wants the vessel’s dwell-time in the area of operations of up to one year, without having to return to its homeport for scheduled maintenance during this phase. This concept of operations is thus aimed at doubling the warship’s time-on-station between major overhauls by maintaining the warship’s uninterrupted operational availability, and drastically cutting down (by several weeks) on long-transit times. In addition, a high degree of on-board automation will be specified to enable the warship to be manned by a crew complement of less than 100, with the crew complement on deployment being swapped at-sea according to a four-monthly cycle. An identical concept will be specified for the three planned seven Project 15B DDGs.
On the Indian Navy’s plans to acquire up to three LPH-based multi-role support ships (MRSS), a total of eight companies from The Netherlands (Schelde Shipbuilding with its Enforcer LPD), France (Armaris’ Mistral LHD), the UK (BAE Systems Marine’s Ocean-class LHD), Germany (ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems’ MHD-150), Italy (Finantieri’s 20,000-tonne LHD), the US (Raytheon’s San Antonio-class LPD-17), Spain (Navantia’s 21,500-tonne Strategic Projection Ship, two of which were ordered by Australia on October 9, 2007) and South Korea (Hanjin Heavy Industries & Construction’s 14,500-tonne assault landing ship, three of which have been ordered for the ROK Navy) have begun lining up for marketing their respective solutions. It is believed that the Indian Navy originally desired a LPD design capable of undertaking sea logistics and humanitarian relief operations. Now, however, the Navy has projected a requirement for helicopter carriers (LHD) that will also host rear flooding decks to accommodate armoured wheeled/tracked amphibious assault vehicles and LCAC-type assault hovercraft. This means the MRSS will in essence be a LHD that will also be capable of supporting ‘over-the-horizon assaults’ by heliborne and LCAC-borne infantry forces. That being the case, the Navy’s to-be-selected MRSS will have to host on board at least six medium-lift utility helicopters.—Prasun K. Sengupta
269 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 269 of 269Hi Prasun, I just missed being the 200th to post in this thread. Thought Ill get a candy or something. Never mind.
To Anon@12:53:00 PM: Why is this debate still running around childish ideas of range and height. Its akin to saying the taller guy is the better soldier. But that's not always true. Radars and SAMs too have character my friend.
To get an idea of AAM range check this out. The advertised range is only the maximum head on engagement range possible. Pilots still hesitate to engage at long BVR and try to get as close as possible before taking a shot.
Deserts are not as empty as one would imagine nor are seas. AC and large ships should be an easy find by that measure but they are not.
The focus has shifted from anti-aircraft to anti ASM/PGM/BM. Somewhere above I have explained why.
MR-SAM/MF-STAR combo has been reported as more capable to Ageis or PAC3 who have already advertised their anti supersonic AShM capability. Defense against Kh31/41 is definitely a design consideration for MR-SAM.
AESA is one of the most sensitive and guarded military tech today. Despite whatever figures are available in public domain those with a background in radio and microwave physics can understand the advantage of AESA's highly focused beam steering and acknowledge it as 10X capable to PESA. Recently Boeing officials had reported that when they declassified some of AGP79 capability to IAF brass at MOD, jaws dropped.
As a thumb rule as you go higher on the frequency band you get better resolution and better target discrimination though at the cost of higher propagation loss and accordingly range. This is why usually two different radars are are employed in tandem, one lower frequency radar for volume search and a higher frequency one for target identification and engagement. But this does not mean that high frequency radars cant have long range. This is a matter of technical competence. Just look how far US has pushed X Band AESA with sea based missile defense radar and Boeing 737 Wedgetail AWAC.
Russians sure are smart but they cant bridge the lead west has built in specific fields like electronics overnight or even over a decade. Same is true for the west which is trying to catch up with supersonic missiles and rocket propulsion where Soviet technology remains the yardstick to date.
S400 is a system suited to Russian requirements which they have developed within their means.A vast open country where you can confidently shoot down almost anything flying across the arctic which is not following international air traffic route or protocol. The 400km missile of S400 is more of an ABM like PAD or THAAD and not really meant for anti-aircraft. Any aircraft being fired from such a range has enough time to dive below the radar coverage. Even AWACs cant provide seamless coverage at our Hymalian frontiers.
About the anti stealth capability of S400 I can only try to examine how it operates. It has a VHF AESA radar certainly capable of detecting and perhaps tracking low RSC targets but it sure cant tell the difference between a B2 and a jumbo jet and also cant guide missiles. The L Band AESA like all radars in its wavelength have very limited range against true stealth (<0.001m^2 RCS) targets. Furthermore SAM seekers operate in X,K bands where stealth is most efficient. Such missile sure cant lock on to the target until the last second, if at all they do lock on. Thus these missiles have to by guided by the fire control radar to the end.
I dont know of IAF plans to deal with stealth but MR-SAMs multi mode seeker with its IR sensor will sure come handy in dealing with such threat.
Anyone who wants to comment further on this subject please read this entire thread. I could hear repeating myself in this post.
Hi Prasun,
Any updates on Arjun MBT?
Regards,
Khambat Dagha.
To Anon@12:53PM: The Ericsson-built ERIEYE radar mounted on the PAF Saab 2000 AEW & C platforms WILL NOT be able to operate in the moving ground target indication mode. It will be programmed strictly for airspace surveillance and airborne battle management, and this has repeatedly confirmed in official interviews given by both PAF officials as well as by Saab marketing officials.
With regard to radar coverage envelopes it needs to be noted that Russian air defence systems like that associated with the S-400 have a long way to go in terms of network-centricity. That will not be the case with the Indian IACCCS, which will not only have engagement radars like the MF-STAR and EL/M-2084, but also ground-based and aerostat-mounted EL/M-2082 and EL/M-2083 airspace surveillance/tracking radars with instrumented ranges in excess of 350km. Even the Chinese, who have the S-400, know only too well the weaknesses of the S-400 and have therefore developed a far more balanced SAM-based air defence network that includes their homegrown HQ-9, HQ-12 and HQ-16 SAM systems. In many ways, therefore, both China and India have broadly adopted similar approaches towards the in-house developement of integrated, hierarchical and network-centric air defence networks. It will therefore be interesting in the near future to come across some news on Pakistan's probable acquisition of point-defence ABM systems like the HQ-16.
To Anon@1:30PM: A Growler equipped with three airborne jammers, twin wingtip jammers and an AESA capable of directional jamming will be IMMENSELY MORE lethal and potent than a sole EL/L-8222 EW pod. But it all depends on how the aircraft operator wants to utilise the platform. For instance, there's nothing to stop a Su-30MKI being equipped with four or six EL/L pods and four Kh-31Ps to act as a dedicated SEAD platform.
To Anon@1:47PM: Are you kidding? In what modes of operation is a PESA more effective than an airborne AESA-based radar?
Prasun Da,
Subho Nobo Borsho !
There was an interesting exchange of conversation between you and Anon which I thought uploading it here as it is v relevant. Your reply is awaited.
=============================
Prasun K Sengupta said...
To Anon@7:54PM: I' glad you've decided to apply logic as this has been missing in several debates since 1998. The first point to be considered is that despite the enormous investments made into uranium enrichment by Pakistan, the n-tests in Chagai on May 28 and 30, 1998 clearly and conclusively proved that the two warheads tested made use of weapons-grade plutonium, and not enriched uranium. How do you explain that, especially since the PAEC's first China-supplied nuclear reactor capable of producing plutonium went critical only in 2001? If you can explain this anomaly, I will gladly accept that my previous reply was highly speculative. Even as far as China is concerned, it gave up using HEU in the 1970s and the great majority of its n-weapons use plutonium cores.
Lastly, you may be led to believe that Pakistan will be toast if it executes a nuclear first strike against India, but here you are clearly over-estimating India's retaliatory strike policies and capabilities. This is because A) India's nuclear deterrence doctrine exists only as a draft and no declaratory white paper has yet been issued by the Govt of India that will govern the application of its minimum credible n-deterrent. B) Unlike India, the strategic-level and operational-level decision-making process in Pakistan is smooth, troublefree and well-insulated from any kind of civilian procrastination. C) Every time Pakistan has threatened India with n-blackmail since mid-1999, it is India that has blinked first, instead of calling Pakistan's bluff. Now, if India had an assured and credible n-deterrence in place, LOGIC would dictate that India would not have to even bother about guess-estimating Pakistan's nuclear threshold levels in the event of all-out conventional war breaking out, Yet, experience proves that both in 1999 and 2002 (during OP Parakram), India's top civilian decision-makers displayed total ineptness and a total lack of understanding of what n-deterrence is all about. This, to me, is treasonous.
To Anon@7:56PM: I have not come across any direct linkage between Pakistan and North Korea when it comes to nuclear weaponisation. Concerning Lop Nor, it was the visit by a PAEC delegation there to witness an underground Chinese n-test. But that was in the early 1980s and the n-test was that of an aerial n-bomb using HEU, whose design was passed on by China to Pakistan. A lot of water has flown since then and this aerial n-bomb design has since been discarded by Pakistan in favour of n-warheads carried by ballistic missiles.
April 8, 2009 9:40 AM
=============================
ANONYMOUS said...
Prasun there are several things you are saying at once:
1. That Pak has not yet made bombs using enriched uranium. (I guess the sniffer planes flying high would have picked up traces of plutonum and not uranium - however I doubt if India has deep penetration aerial vehicles that can pick up such a signature. The US will surely have - but will it ever share such data with India - I doubt it).
2. The nuclear reactor by China (plutonium) going critical in 2001 means one of two things:
a. These bombs were Chinese
b. These were Pakistani bombs using imported plutonium cores from China.
3. India dithering - does India have nukes? Even if it has - maybe its delivery systems are suspect - as my guess is that these are not missile mounted but only deliverable by planes.
The body language is one thing that bluff and bluster does not hide. Pakistan did launch the Kashmir struggle in earnest when it was reported that they have gone nuclear. If this were "teen patti" it will be difficult to play so long on bluff and India to go on playing "blind".
There is more to it than meets the eye. Now that Muslim Khan the spokesman has said that Taliban is eyeing Kashmir - I believe him. These are old war horses and in the vein of Hekmatyar, J Haqqani - I will take them on their word. Does India wait for them to come in - or we go and hit them at their spawning grounds?
I am same as Anon above.
Prasun Da,
I met a senior intelligence guy and he was telling me something funny almost in jest - so I do not know whether he meant it or not?
He said what would we (indians) feel if we ever get to know that kind of "radar / electronics" that goes into Arjun MBT is told by the Israelis to the Pakis - as a sort of bargain that Israelis want something from Pakistan? He just smiled and shut up.
I had a feeling he was telling the truth.....
Prasun, is this an accurate depiction of Barak NG or LR-SAM. It says the photo is from IAI.
So whats ur take on the Rafael being kicked out of the MMRCA contest? What bearing will it have on Maitri and Mirage upgrade contracts?
Is the Indian Bureaucracy planning to dish out the contract to the Americans on a $12Bn plate? How long before the EF & Mig-35 get the boot?
To Anon@11:49PM: Subho Nobo Borsho to you too! Regarding the first issue you raised regarding proof of atmospheric residue of a plutonium-warhead explosion, it was acquired by a USAF U-2 that took off from Oman, overflew Chagai, and landed in Turkey in the first week of June 1998. This was widely reported and the US officially confirmed this at the NATO HQ by August 1998.
Regarding the weaponised Indian nuclear warheads the day of reckoning came in the first week of January 2002 just after OP Parakram's mobilisation had been completed and the then COAS Gen S Padmanabhan was extensively briefed by DRDO and BARC officials at the BARC facilities in Trombay and he was also shown the warhead components and the plutonium cores. But what he was NOT TOLD or SHOWN was 1) how exactly will these components be put together into a weaponised warhead and mated with a ballistic missile and in what kind of a timeframe 2) how exactly would these components be transported out of BARC and under what kinds of operational security3) are all such components held in storage only in Trombay, or are they replicated and scattered throughout the country. Needless, the then COAS was not impressed at all and was at that time far from convinced that India's nuclear deterrent was in an operational state.
Now, regarding the crystal-gazing by this 'senior intelligence guy', I wouldn't even bother about it as the kind of data he was referring to (if indeed he was) is freely available. In fact, such remarks are nothing but a form of self-righteous backslapping and tend to oversimplify the warfighter’s operational art.
To Harpreet: It is a 'near-accurate' artist's depiction of the LR-SAM.
To Anon@9:20AM: Firstly, it is the Dassault RAFALE, and not Rafael. Secondly, it was widely expected as the Rafale's offer was the least acceptable financially and industrially. The next to be kicked out will probably be the MiG-35, which does not exist in physical form and will therefore most likely be eliminated as there is no available prototype for flight-testing as yet. In the end, my personal belief is that the EF-2000 Typhoon and the JAS-39IN Gripen will be the two finalists. You only have to go so far as to look at the extremely gleeful faces of senior IAF officials (serving and retired) everytime they've tried out the Gripen simulator at Aero India 2007 and 2009 expos. The EF-2000 too stands a serious chance of being selected if its acquisition is tied with the selected powerplant (EJ-200) for the Tejas Mk2 LCA.
Prasun,
Dassault Rafael is out of the MMRCA competition.
hey prasun r u dead or alive
sorry just kidding
by the way look at brazilian MRCA contest,at first typhoon,su35bm were phased out but suddenly at the request of rosoboronexport and EADS su35bm and typhoon r back in race
same thing can happen here
rafale has better thrust/weight ratio and is more manouverable,smaller ,lighter and consumes less fuel and can carry more payload than f18 superhornet
and IAF not going to induct any of these aircraft next month
it will be not before 2014 and they get these aircraft and by then all aircraft will have operational AESA radars
by the way what other aircraft r able to do and rafale can't
The EF-2000 too stands a serious chance of being selected if its acquisition is tied with the selected powerplant (EJ-200) for the Tejas Mk2 LCA
--------------------------------
EF 2000 AND RAFALE will share the AESA radar of same tech
rafale is better in air to ground than typhoon and typhoon is better in air to air than rafale
but then again both aircraft will have same METEOR missile when its available
to prasun,
can u please post the brochures if u have any of different aesa radars so that v can comapre different radars like this one from shiv's blog
http://livefist.blogspot.com/2009/02/mig-35s-zhuk-ae-radar.html
it also hows ground mapping resolution at different distance
to prasun
take a look at this link
is this frigate india going to acquire in third batch from russia
http://warfare.ru/?lang=&linkid=2544&catid=270&image=1673
Lol, why so excited about foreign weapons? Is it because own systems fail miserable. Just look at the blog and tell me the big success stories. Even the destroyers use Russian steel.
Prasun, have we given into US End User Agreement? I think we better negotiate issues like End User Agreement and technology/codes transfer with the US before pursuing any further on MMRCA.
What we have done in case of P8 is stupid. Now we may have no choice but to agree to US inspections or re-tender MPA all over again.
As Boeing officials had explained at AI2009 that first the contract is negotiated between the company and the client and afterwards the US gov has to approve it. If we blindly go down this path we may end up kicking out every other contender in MMRCA and finally getting struck in tech transfer issues with the US.
To Anon@3:40PM: Am now in Shanghai on a bbusiness trip, hence the delays in uploading new stories.
To Anon@3:43PM: You will be surprised to note that compared to the Rafale, the EF-2000's future growth potential has been defined as a clear roadmap. What is more, the same methodology has been applied to the Tejas Mk2 which will have a larger wing area and will also have thrust vectoring nozzles (IF the EJ-200 is selected) which in turn will nor only make the Tejas Mk2 more manoeuvrable, but will also reduce its takeoff run by 20% and save fuel consumption by 3%. All this will soon be validated in thre LCA's engineering simulator at ADA's Bangalore-based facility and the simulator is now being reconfigured and modified with EADS' help. The IAF is highly elated by the Tejas Mk2's shortened takeoff run and feels much more reassured about EADS' assistance in developing the Tejas Mk2. The only thing that now remains to be seen is if the M-MRCA competition will be de-coupled from the Tejas Mk2 R & D programme, or will economies of scale prevail and the EF-2000 Typhoon gets selected as a consequence.
To Harpreet: Are yaar, why get so agitated by the end-user agreement? If such agreements are inked by customers of US-origin weapons all over the world, why should India be thr sole exception? In what way does the inking of such agreements limit India's operational sovereignty over the purchased weapon systems? Such agreements were inked even when India chose Lockheed-Martin's CIC for the four Class 209/Type 1500 SSKs in the early 1980s, and subsequently bought the TPQ-37 Firefinders in 2000. So what's the controversy about such agreements? Is it because the US clearly outlines such clauses in the public domain before the contracts are inked, or because European and Russian OEMs shy away from publicising such clauses that are also contained in contract documents prepared by such OEMs? Even Indian companies like BrahMos Aerospace have such end-use agreement clauses for potential export customers, so why go out of the way and make devils out of the US OEMs? So please, let us not lose sight of objectivity.
If you turn out to be right- and the Gripen and EF are selected as finalists, than the IAF clearly hasn't decided on what it wants from its MRCA. These two fighters are at opposite sides of the high-low spectrum, and their added value compared to existing programs seems dubious (SU 30 and LCA). Also, your position regarding the Gripens chances seems quite exceptional, I haven't heard it being described as the favorite before. Could you elaborate on that, and on which systems are likely to be integrated with it if selected? Also, several reports have indicated that the two American fighters are in fact ahead .Do you think India will insist on Israeli (F16I) systems if the f16 were to be selected?
thanks
to harpreet
u r right there about end user agrements and other reservations over US military hardware sale
france offered us full TOT along with source codes for AESA radars
and france has no reservations over to use of aircraft even then v turned it down
while americans haven't offered full TOT and operating software and codes for AESA radars and have reservations on their military hardware sale
rafale must be cheaper than
ef-2000
and there is no technical snag over its performance
on the other hand if mig35 isn't choosen u can expect 300 jf 17 and several j-10 with russian engines in paki air force and get this they r equally capable in line of f16 blk50/52,as of now russia has refused to sell
rd33 engines for paki jf 17
so if v don't want to see jf17 and j10 in paki air force v better choose mig35
here it makes no sence to american stuff cuz they have reservations and same THING ABOUT P8I ISN'T been SOLVED
and what f18,16 can do and mig35 and rafale can't
now i also think that LCA and
LCA MARK2 will be killed as well like arjun tank,akaash missile on the behalf of imports by our own people with less than 220 LCA in service
by the way france offered its ECO core for kaveri engine as well and that would be equally good compared to ej2000
but i think our govt goig to kneel down in front of americans
to harpreet
now i wish this UPA govt won't come in power this time,they killed so many deals
like howitzer contract was scrapped because none of contenders meet GSQR even then bofors's 155 mm howitzer which exceeded GSQR limits
fennec helicopter contract was canceled even though france explained it met every bit of GSQR
combat helicopter deal was scrapped and it was told that none of contenders met requirement which is just rubbish ,it was done most probable for to bring in apache again and later air force wanted apache to join race again
and there is not even a single point on which rafale can be refused
Prasun, what bugs me is how it will effect the moral of our officers and soldiers if foreign nationals are to audit their inventory every year. Half the world may be playing second to the US, but we were not among them and our men in green were not taught to expect the same. This may be the reason behind Admiral Sureesh Mehta's outburst against intrusive nature of US agreements.
Also can you shed some light on US standing on tech/codes transfer to India. Has this been approved in Boeing/LM proposals for MMRCA or as I fear we may get stuck with these issue at the end.
Do ypu have any information about chiese HQ-16 SAM on Type 054 frigates and Type 022 missile boats
Is there any news that Pakistan navy will but more MRTP-33 missile boats from turkey or produce them domestically?
Do you know what weapons Oliver Hazard Perry Class Frigate USS McInerney (FFG-8) offered to Pakistan navy by US will carry when transferred to PN this august ? Will it carry ESSM and Harpoon? Currently it lacks both
How many KJ-200 are operated by PLLAF and what is there capability (endurance ,range, ECM etc)? What’s your view on Chinese J-10B?
Prasun K Sengupta said..But since the DRDO is mkaing no such effort, it remains at best an E-SHORADS and that too inferior to the likes of the SpyDer, Raytheon's SL-AMRAAM-ER and CPMIEC of China's Hunter-2.
Any details about the CPMIEC of China's Hunter-2?Is it KS-1A?
Wouldn’t it be replace by the HQ-16 in production?
How you would compare HQ-16 with the Barak-8MR
I am sorry if it seems dumb questions but just to clear my mind
Does India operate any type of S-300 SAM?
Can anyone give the breakdown of number of squadrons of AKASH SAM, SPYDER SAM and BARAK-8 India intends to operates?
Type 022 missile boats looks to be really good compared to MRTP-33 that pn has purchased. Type 022 missile boats carry 8 C-803 antiship missiles with ranges of about 180 to 250 km compared to MRTP-33 with can carry only four harpoons with 120 km range.China is currently mass producing these boats and I hope that Pn don’t have any plans for these
I have heard that PAF is buying MBDA-built Spada 2000, how does this compare to Indian SR-SAM Spyder SAM and Akash SAM?
Any details about the number of missiles and launchers involved in the deal and delivery dates?
I have heard the news that PAF have already took the deliveries of Aim-120 and Sniper pod, is it true? Can PAF use these two currently with f-16?
To Nava@2:09PM: I haven't as yet speculated about which contender will be the frontrunner for the M-MRCA contract. But the choice favourites have been well-known since the past two years and if one has visited the Aero India expos since February 2005 the answers will be fairly obvious, after talking to serving and retired IAF decision-makers. If you have followed the evolution of this programme then you would have realised by now that the programme originally started out as the MRCA, and was then upgraded to the M-MRCA. Under the category of MRCA one can include the single-engined models like the F-16IN and JAS-39IN. Once it became the M-MRCA, then the Super Hornet and EF-2000 Typhoon entered the fray along with the still non-existent MiG-35. I had highlighted all this way back since June 2005 in several articles published by FORCE. Now, in terms of pricing as well as the ability to supply licenced-assembly lines, the unchallenged market leader is Lockheed Martin, followed by the Eurofighter consortium. Then comes Boeing, followed by Saab Aircraft. And as I said innumerable times before in this blog, the final choice will be a matter of economics. Whichever OEM is selected to supply the turbofan for the Tejas Mk2 will also supply the powerplant for the M-MRCA. Therefore, if the GE-built F414 is selected for Tejas Mk2, then the JAS-39IN and Super Hornet will be shortlisted. If the Eurojet EJ-200 is selected then the EF-2000 will be winner of the M-MRCA competition. Having said this, it will be a real surprise if the F-16IN is selected as the M-MRCA, but this possibility cannot be ruled out as the F-16IN offer to IAF HQ, along with that of the Super Hornet, have been deemed as being the most advanced offers that contain fully viable ToT offerds as well as the latest available technologies in terms of AESA radar, IRST, network centricity, future growth potential, etc.
To Anon@2:13PM: No one, France included, has offered any kind of 'full ToT' as you claim. Even when it comes to the Soviets/Russians, the hot-section parts of turbofans (be it for the MiG-21, MiG-27M. MiG-29 or Su-30MKI) that includes the engine core, has to be sent back to Russia for relifing and servicing. The same goes for the Snecma-built M88 as well. No one will be crazy enough to transfer such technologies. As for AESA radars, its licenced-production in India is deemed by IAF HQ and MoD as being totally uneconomical as ALL of India's on-going AESA-related R & D-cum-in-country production is based on Israeli technological competencies. If you read the RFP for the M-MRCA, it clearly states that in-country production of AESA radars is not necessary or required. Rather, the IAF requires 'operational sovereignty' over the AESA radars, meaning the ability to pre-/reprogramme their modes of operations via access to source codes. In this critical area the market leaders are the US firms Raytheon and Northrop Grumman. IAI/ELTA comes a close second.
And by the way, if you take a close look at the cockpit of the Tejas LCA Mk1 and the JF-17, if you easily conclude that the JF-17's cockpit is more user-friendly. Hopefully the shortcomings will be rectified on the Tejas Mk2.
To Harpreet: If you're that worried about morale, you ought to ask the Army, Navy and IAF officials that dealt with the USSR's Ministry of Foreign Economic Relations during the 1970s and 1980s. The annual on-site inspections by the former USSR within India were far more intrusive and gruelling, if not insulting. If India tolerated all this then, there should be no problem with such clauses being imposed by other supplier countries on India now. Like I said earlier, do try to be objective and do not for a moment think that it is only the US that is insisting on such contract clauses. The Indian Navy Chief's outburst was not directed at such clauses but at the reporter that asked a related question in a totally stupid manner. I've already addressed the issue of 'source codes' and 'object codes' releasibility in an earlier posting earlier this year.
To Anon@7:13AM: Yesterday I witnessed in the Gobi Desert the test-firings of the FN-6 VSHORADS, HQ-9 LR-SAM (a clone of the S-300PMU2), HQ-12 MR-SAM (also known as the KS-1A), and the HQ-16 E-SHORADS. The Hunter-2 SHORADS is for export markets like Bangladesh, Sudan and Zimbabwe.
Thanks man you are the best
So we wont see paf/pa getting wny of these
To Anon@10:20AM: Pakistan has already acquired some 60 SH-1 155mm/52-cal motorised howitzers and will soon begin receiving 2 regiments of A-100E 300mm MLRS from China, and is finalising a contract for acquiring four Regiments of the HQ-9 LR-SAM. On board its US-supplied FFGs the RGM-84A Harpoon and AIM/RIM-7M Sparrow will be mounted. On its MRTP-33s there are no on-board ASCMs. These fast assault craft are used by Naval SSG for rapid intervention special ops.
Prasun:
Thanks for the detailed response.
However, I still find it difficult to understand how the choice between two very different fighters (EF and Gripen), for such a large contract, will be made according to the Tejas engine picked...
(The other way around seems more reasonable to me.)
How many of the Mig-29 are currently still left with Indian air force?
To Nava: Its all about numbers and economies of scale. The IAF plans to procure 220 Tejas LCA Mk2s and the Navy about 50. On paper, therefore, more LCAs are to be procured than M-MRCAs.
To Jawad: 62 IAF MiG-29s are to be upgraded.
I have heard that PA is also interested in FN-6 VSHORADS?
You have talked a lot about LCA MKII but what about JF-17? Will it go beyond current form? What are its future developments?
To MJ26459: The FN-6 is a re-engineered Mistral and the PAS has had the Mistral since the late 1980s, just like Sri Lanka.
To Anon@ 1:30PM: Undoubtedly. Like all new-generation combat aircraft the JF-17 too has a well drawn-out roadmap for future growth in terms of avionics and stealthiness. It remains to be seen if in future the RD-93 turbofans will be replaced by the Snecma M88-3. Also to be incorporated in future will be AESA radars like Selex's Vixen-family. The nose-mounted IRST sensor will be of Chinese origin. The usage of composites for fuselage construction will also be progressively increased.
To MJ26459: The FN-6 is a re-engineered Mistral and the PAS has had the Mistral since the late 1980s, just like Sri Lanka.
To Anon@ 1:30PM: Undoubtedly. Like all new-generation combat aircraft the JF-17 too has a well drawn-out roadmap for future growth in terms of avionics and stealthiness. It remains to be seen if in future the RD-93 turbofans will be replaced by the Snecma M88-3. Also to be incorporated in future will be AESA radars like Selex's Vixen-family. The nose-mounted IRST sensor will be of Chinese origin. The usage of composites for fuselage construction will also be progressively increased. And don;t be too surprised if there is substantial commonality between the avionics suites of both the JF-17 Thunder and the yet-to-be-ordered FC-20 M-MRCA (Chengdu J-10C/D).
Prasun, thanks for your response.
Is there any plan in works to upgrade our existing destroyers and frigates? By 2012 INS Delhi would have reached its mid life(15 years). Logically we should then start upgrading P15,P16A and Talwar class in the order they were inducted. I would love to see something like Thales's Integrated Mast be developed, even if with foreign collaboration. This would simplify upgradation of the existing fleet and also perhaps shorten construction/integration time for P17A.
Ab toh logon ne comment likhna bhi chor diya. Time for a new post sirji.
f18 shornet vs mig35
1. only adavantage f18 has against mig35 is its apg79 and that will vanish soon when mig gets larger diameter aesa radar and that will provide equivalent detection range compared to apg79(albeit the t/r modules r more miniaturized in apg79)
2. mig35 has better thrust/weight ratio than f18 and this allows
mig35 to take off in just 200-250 meters.
3.mig35 is more manouverable than f18
4.sustained intantaneous turn rate of su30mki is 24 degree and for f15 it is 16 degree so what is turn rate for f18 is around 12-14 degree
mig35 has better thrust/weight ratio and it is smaller than su30mki so it prduce lot less drag allowing better/equal turn rate which is twice better than f18
5.no TVC in f18 and optional for mig35 which has been proven on
mig29ovt.
6.ATFLIR IRST on f18 is in seperate pod while IRST on mig35 is inbuilt.
ATFLIR will only do air to ground survillence or air to air survillence at one time but not simultaneously but OLS35 will do both tasks simultaneously because there r 2 irst on mig35 one near radar and one on air intake to do both tasks
7.f18 able to carry 2 tons more payload than mig35 ,but again even considering 5 tons payload mig35 able to carry
6*(kh31p,kab500,kh29)= 3600 kg
1*fuel tank =1000kg
2*bvr missiles= 400kg
2*wvr missiles =200kg
total payload=5.2 tons
8. comparing f18 groweler than mig can also able to carry 3-4
elta8222 jammers and various decoys
to prasun
most of people think that jf17 is just useless and they don't want to listen about this aircraft
but this is exceptional success just achieved in 5 years and our LCA is flying for over 8 years and still not operational
jf17 manouvers pretty well and has excellent glass cockpit along with CHINESE EW pod,IRST for both ground targeting and air survillence and chinese radar to guide sd-10 BVR missiles and HMS for WVR missiles and data link
but our people don't want to listen all this and i tell u this is a threat if 300 jf17 r there in paki air force
but we can stop all this happening by pressurizing russia not to allow engine sale for jf17 and if russians allow engines to pakistan then india will not buy
russian hardware and this will work pretty well
french offered for P17A , here is
link
http://www.dcnsgroup.com/files/pdf/Setis.pdf
FM 400 frigate
Someone say something.
to prasun
any idea which radar j10 carry and what r detection ranges
which radar paki f-7 fighter carry and what r detection ranges
how do u compare apg69(v9),apg73,zhuk me,captor e,rdy 3 radars
to prasun
which radar will upgraded mirage 2000 will carry rdy2 or rdy-3
which missile has longest range r73,python5,asraam,aim9x,magic-2,
iris t
To Anon@7:58AM: There's one and only one flaw with your comparison: the MiG-35 DOES NOT EXIST in any shape or form as yet.
To Anon@8:35AM: The JF-17 project has been in existence since 1988 and it was then known as the Super 7. No amount of pressure from anyone will prevent Russia from exporting the RD-93 turbofan to Pakistan, just as Russia has been supplying the AL-31FN turbofan to China (and will to Pakistan in future) for the J-10/FC-20. Of course the Ruskies have now realised that they have been taken for a ride by China, which has been busy cloning whatever it has bought from the USSR/Russia since 1989. Well, let the Ruskies learn lessons the hard way, as they deserve it. From what I saw last week, the HQ-16 E-SHORADS, an improved clone of the TOR-M1, is definitely to be taken very seriously.
To Anon@1:59AM: The J-10 comes with the JYL-10 monopulse X-band radar which is similar in performance to the Zhuk-ME. The FC-20 version for Pakistan will, however, have the Vixen 5000e AESA on board. The F-7Ps and F-7PGs have the Selex Galileo-built Grifo-7 X-band monopulse radars.
To Anon@2:06AM: The IAF Mirage 2000s will be retrofitted with THALES-built RDY Mk3 X-band multi-PRF monopulse radars. The AAM engagement envelopes you've asked for are available in the open domain and I'm sure you will be able to get the answers through your own research.
Well the Python 5's range is said to be "more than 20 kilometers".
to prasun
what is the range of grifo 7 radar compared to kopyo radar
and as well as the range of Vixen 5000e AESA
http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-PLA-IADS-Radars.html#mozTocId769296
To Anon@3:20PM: The Grifo family of multi-mode radars is well-proven and is also on board the upgraded F-5S combat aircraft of the Republic of Singapore Air Force. The reliability and performance of the Grifo is way ahead that of the Kopyo, rest assured.
Prasun, if you say that the mig-35 isnt ready in any flyable form, please comment on this :-
http://img18.imageshack.us/img18/4835/mirage7.jpg
The image is from VAYU AEROSPACE and well I think you know who is AM Harish Masand
Prasun, This is what I understand of SR-SAM:
IA issued RFP for QRSAM with QSR specifying 15km range. MBDA and Rafael responded to the RFP. Then DRDO threw in the spanner stating that Spyder SAM didn't meet IA mobility requirement. Next DRDO issued RFP seeking co-development of SR-SAM to which MBDA responded.
Now my questions are:
1) Was the QRSAM bidding canceled because VL-Mica and Spyder didn't meet IA requirements or was it canceled under DRDO's pressure?
2) Is SR-SAM a real program or just a wet dream of DRDO? Has IA expressed any interest in it?
3) How will the SR-SAM satisfy QRSAM requirement?, its not a Gun&Missile system. Will it not have the same issues as Spyder or VL-Mica?
4) If SR-SAM is extra to QRSAM does the IA need two different point defense systems(15km vs 25km is not much) in addition to MR-SAM/LR-SAM?
5) What is the current status of QRSAM?
I am aware of the stated reasons for the cancellation of QRSAM bidding. However a statement from MBDA describing co-development with DRDO of SR-SAM and its progressive versions makes me wonder if this project is born out of DRDO and MBDA aspirations and not service requirements.
To Anon@9:45AM: If you go to the OEM's website you will be able to find out for yourself that the only new-build aircraft built by RAC-MiG over the past three years is the MiG-29K/KUB. Try this weblink: http://www.migavia.ru/eng/news/?tid=4
Furthermore, the aircraft now being peddled off as the MiG-35 (no154) is in fact a MiG-29M that was subsequently modified into a MiG-29M2 MRCA (also No154). Again, proceed to this website for confirmation:
http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_293.shtml
It is for this reason that no one has seen to date the single-seat MiG-35. What RAC-MiG has been doing since 2001 is recycling the original airframe of the MiG-29M as the MiG-29M2 MRCA and now the MiG-35 M-MRCA! I'm sure now you'll be more inclined to believe what RAC-MiG says in its official website, as opposed to what VAYU or I or AM Harish Masand say. Therefore, better to let this issue rest once and for all and no more speculations on the elusive MiG-35, please.
To Harpreet: There were two separate reqmts for the SR-SAM: the IAF's SL-QRM and the Army's QR-SAM. Both armed services did not specify a gun-missile combination and that's the reason the Pantsyr-S1 was not on offer. As far as the combined procurement of Spyder by the IAF and Army is concerned, what's been contracted for is only a quarter of what's ultimately reqd. This is where both the Army and IAF have given the DRDO a lifeline by giving it the chance to make up for the falure of the Trishul SHORADS, but now insisting on an E-SHORADS. This is where the DRDO/MBDA SR-SAM comes in and if this JV R & D venture is successful in producing the SR-SAM, then the two end-users will go for it. In fact, if the JV can deliver what it has promised to, then this SR-SAM (to be made available in two versions--one with active radar and the other with an IIR seeker) could also in future replace the Barak-1 and Kashtan-M CIWS.
Prasun, thanks for your prompt response.
Interesting to note that the Spyder systems have been contracted jointly by IAF and IA. So there will be no re-tendering of QRSAM.
to prasun
what is the speed to MRSAM ,i heavily doubt this
speed of barak-1 is mach 2 with range of just 10km
speed of aster 15 is mach 3 with range of 30km
spped of TOR MISSILE is mach 2.8 with range of 12 km
land based TOR missile system is most compact point defence system
--------------------------------
buying barak-1 was toatally wrong decision when aster 15 was also available with 3 times the operating range of barak-1
what is the speed to MRSAM ,i heavily doubt this
now days SAM missiles have speed of over mach 4
and to engage ballistic missiles SAM must have spped of mach5 and need stamina to sustain that spped
rafale beats other aircrafts hands down
operating cost of rafale as sited by dassualt per hour is 12000-13000 euro and operationg cost for
mirage 2000 is 11000 euro,so f16blk60 must have similar or more operating cost per hour than operating cost per hour of mirage2000 because of more powerful engine in f16
so now f16 and rafale almost have similar operating costs but rafale beats f16 in all parameters and all other contenders likely to have more per hour operating cost
only gripen NG will have lower operating cost per hourr than rafale operating cost
gripen NG supposed to get AES radar from
SELEX GALLILIO. radar name is vixen 500e
surprisingly pakistan also buys radars from this company for its CHENGDU F-7 and grifo-7 radar is fitted to F-7 is from this company
the same aesa radar offered fro gripen NG going to be used in
JF-17 as well
so what is the purpose of buying gripenNG if paki HAVE SIMILAR RADAR
but rbe2 aesa,apg79,zhuk ae35,amsar will beat this radar in detection ranges
gripen NG supposed to get AES radar from
SELEX GALLILIO. radar name is vixen 500e
surprisingly pakistan also buys radars from this company for its CHENGDU F-7 and grifo-7 radar is fitted to F-7 is from this company
the same aesa radar offered fro gripen NG going to be used in
JF-17 as well
so what is the purpose of buying gripenNG if paki HAVE SIMILAR RADAR
but rbe2 aesa,apg79,zhuk ae35,amsar will beat this radar in detection ranges
TO PRASUN
india paid $ 1.5 billion for 16 mig29k and gorky
out of that 1.5 billion half was for migs and only $ 750 million was given for gorky
india paid $ 1.5 billion beiong built in russia for 3 krivak frigates with combined weight of those frigates is over 12000 tons ,and weight of gorshkov is 44000 tons
so if 3 frigates cost $ 1.5 billion then how would an aircraft carrier cost half of this price ,so it means russian asking of more money isn't unjustified
hey prasun are you alive
chinese have HQ-9 SAM on their ships which has better range and operating altitude than MRSAM and it is also supported by an capable AESA RADAR
AND LAND BASED system is to be acquired by pakistan as well and that will be better than MRSAM
MRSAM is handicapped defence system ,only good for naval purposes but not for land based
To Anon@2:07:00 PM: Read the whole thread buddy before making uneducated comments. BTY HQ-9 is very similar to AAD in size, performance, tech etc and Chinese AESA is not comparable to Israel or US AESA tech. Read to find out why.
there is not activity on this blog..which once was very active!!!
there is not activity on this blog..which once was very active!!!
Prasun K Sengupta ACCORDING TO SIPRI Arms Transfers Database 2008 Il-78 Midas That PAF will be getting are Ex-Ukrainian, so they cant have PS-90 engines?
Post a Comment