Wednesday, July 8, 2009

Airborne Multi-Mode Radar Data














61 comments:

Anonymous said...

No AGP-68 for older F-16? So what is PAF going to do with 500 AIM-120C?

Prasun K Sengupta said...

The AMRAAMs are meant for the PAF's Block 52 F-16C/D.

Anonymous said...

This US Govt statement says 35 MUL kits for PAF F-16 include APG-68(V)9
radar.

http://www.dod.mil/dodgc/olc/docs/testWieringa080916.pdf

Prasun K Sengupta said...

The MLU kits for the PAF's original 40 F-16A/Bs and 26 F-16A/Bs did contain the APG-68(V)9radar but this component of the order was later withdrawn at Pakistan's request after the 2005 earthquake due to budgetary constraints. The MLU package now includes only the structural life-extension programme and installation of upgraded defensive aids suites and comms suites, both of which are US-origin hardware but will be installed jointly by TAI and ASELSAN in Turkey. The 500 AMRAAMs are thus only for the new-build Block 52 F-16C/Ds. Had all PAF F-16s been retrofitted with the APG-68(V)9 radar then the number of AMRAAMs to be procured would have reached the 1,000 figure. Over the next few years, therefore, the dominant M-MRCA of the PAF will be the FC-20A/B (36 + 4 being just the initial order against a total reqmt of 80), and not the F-16s.

Anonymous said...

and the proof for ur statements?

Anonymous said...

The US Govt document is dated 16 Sep 2008 and it states the revised contract for 18 new and 14 seconded F-16. It says that 32 old PAF F16 A/B and 3 of the 14 seconded aircraft acquired are to be upgraded (35 in total). This is certainly not the pre-2005 plan.

ABHINABA said...

Prasun da, it was said that N001M Bars radar's detection range for f-16 is 60 NM.
So, is not it for UPLOOK detection?& what is the MTBF of N001M Bars?

Black Hawk said...

What happened to the MMR we were designing for the Tejas. Heard that the air to air mode was fine and only the air to ground mode was giving trouble. When will our own MMR be ready

Raghav said...

1. In the midlife upgrade of the Su-30 MKI if we increase engine thrust by 20 %, will the plane be able to supercruise?

2. What is the advantage in having tandem seat MMRCA? I believe you once said that with sensor fusion technology, the job of two pilots can be performed by just one. Doesn't F/A-18, F-16IN, Typhoon use sensor fusion? Why tandem seat?

Ramsesh said...

Hi Prasun,
Many thanks for your reply.
I have some more queries.
i) I saw your article in Force Mag, about the stealthiness of Su-MKI. Though I am not an expert in identifying the fighters, I felt that the something is missing in that picture of MKI. The MKI I have seen has canards, but in this pic they are missing (looks like they missing). May be I am wrong.

ii) Before Su-30MKI, not many people are aware of Sukhoi Fighter planes. I only know about MiGs from Russia (or former USSR). My question is, why MKI became so famous whereas Su-30 or other variants of Su-30 are not as famous as MKI? I know MKI uses a lot of electronics from IAI, but MKI really deserved to have this much credit compared to other Su-30s? Or our media hyped its credits? Even Russian Air Force do not operate much Su-30s.

iii) Similarly the BrahMos Cruise Missles. It was unknown until it came to India through its predecessor P-800 Oniks cruise missiles. Then all of a sudden, BrahMos became the one of the best (if not the best) cruise missiles from Indian point of view. In spite of all these developments, BrahMos is still not very active in our forces and there is a lot of skepticism among Indian Defense Forces on deploying BrahMos. In fact, even Russian Navy is reluctant to use it. Is this again a hype on its ability?

Our media has a habit of exaggerating things before they understand the full potential or capacity of it or blindly write something without understanding the technology or science behind it. The reporters use high quality English words or technical terms so that readers get the impression that whatever the reporters say are correct.

Thanks

Prasun K Sengupta said...

To Anon@7:02AM: The proof is within the PDF document itself. Just check out there which of the LoAs have been put into effect and which have not. Also, do check out in my previous post the two posters that detail the avionics components of the MLU package to be implemented by Turkey's Tusas Aerospace Industries. Can you find the APG-68(V)9 in those posters, which are of June 2009 vintage? The only LRU that is not shown in those posters is the CW illuminator for the APG-66, which will be ferried to TAI from Northrop Grumman for installation.

To ABHINABA: That detection figure applies to the tail-chase look-down mode. The NO-11M's MTBF is 100 hours.

To Black Hawk: Who needs a mechanically-steered MMR when mature AESA options are available? Let the MMR be given a decent burial and let it RIP.

To Raghav: Supercruise is being targetted but whether or not it will be achieved with maximum weapons load or in clean configuration remains to be seen. Regarding sensor-fusion and network-centricity a single-seat cockpit is possible in case of platforms like the F/A-22 Raptor or F-35 JSF but it is highly unlikely that such technologies are being offered by the US on either the Super Hornet or the F-16IN Viper, let alone the Gipen IN or EF-2000 Typhoon Tranche 3 (which has yet to enter production). For a truly single-seat network-centric combat aircraft to be effective, a lot more than just platform-based sensors are reqd, such as bandwidth availability, dedicated comms satellites, and situational awareness enhancement platforms like AEW & CS and JSTARS-type systems.

Prasun K Sengupta said...

To Ramsesh: You're right, the photo is that of the 'stealthy' Su-35BM's airframe. The reason why the Su-30MKI has hogged far more headlines than the other members of the Su-30 family is simply because it has supermanoeuvrability and it also has the kind of on-board avionics and mission sensors which, when networked with force multipliers like AEW & C platforms is able to do things that other Su-30 variants cannot as yet. Add to all this the pre-planned product improvements already identified and you have a formidable air dominance platform. The BrahMos has been operational with the Indian Navy since early 2005 and with the Army since 2007 and by next year the IAF will become an end-user as well. The Indian Army has officially stated its satisfaction with the BrahMos Block 2. The Russian Navy's operational reqmts are totally different from those of the Indian Navy and it has nothing to do with BrahMos being an imperfect or inferior weapon system.

subroto said...

Prasun,

Can you post update on Indian Sea Harrier jets?

After Limited Upgrade Sea Harrier (LUSH) project, Indian Sea Harriers are completely new Jets now.The INS Viraat will be retiring by 2012. How long Indian Navy planned to operationally use these jets. Will few Harrier jets continue to active with the Gorskhov aircraft carrier?

Prasun K Sengupta said...

To Ramsesh: Here's an excellent example of how the newsmedia misinterprets data: http://www.deccanherald.com/content/10635/iafs-search-jets-begin-blore.html

I just can't figure out how these reporters have come to conclude that the flight evaluation process will drag on for two years! In reality, to get a rough idea of how exactly the IAF will conduct flight and ground evaluations later this year of the six contenders for the M-MRCA contract, it will be worth taking a look at how the Swiss Air Force evaluated the three principal contenders for replacing its existing fleet of 54 Northrop Grumman F-5E Tiger 2 combat aircraft. Following the issue of RFPs in January 2008, each of the contenders was subjected to a four-week period of test-flights between last July and December, with a total of 100 sorties being logged in. The JAS-39 Gripen D tandem-seat M-MRCA was the first to be evaluated between July 28 and August 28 last year, followed by the Dassault Aviation Rafale between October 13 and November 7, and the Eurofighter EF-2000 between November 10 and December 5. All three candidates, together with their air and ground crews, were based at the Emmen air base, and all test-flights undertaken during the test and evaluation phase were flown according to a plan specified by the Swiss Procurement Agency, with specific tasks for every flight, in order to give the Swiss evaluation team all the necessary information about the multi-role capabilities of aircraft, including air defence, air policing and reconnaissance. In parallel with the flight evaluations, there were also very intense ground evaluation activities undertaken. While one of the aircraft was in the air, the second aircraft was used for evaluating the handling of the aircraft on the ground, including pre-flight preparations, re-armament, maintenance and logistics routines. The Swiss Air Force supported the evaluation with about 50 F-5E/F and F/A-18C/D missions each for target simulation and formation flying. Night and supersonic flights were also carried out. The Gripen D was subjected to 30 flights (lasting a total of 35 hours), while the Rafale was subjected to 39 flights lasting about 60 hours (including an extended phase to test the THALES-built RBE-2 AESA radar). The EF-2000 provided by EADS flew 31 sorties lasting 45 flight hours. Earlier, on April 8 last year, Boeing decided not to enter the competitive bidding process, saying that “after a thorough review of Switzerland’s requirements for partial replacement of its Tiger fighter aircraft, Boeing has decided not to enter the competition due to the disparity between the requirements for an F-5 replacement aircraft and the next-generation capabilities of the F/A-18E/F Block 2 Super Hornet”. After completion of the flight and ground tests the collected data will be evaluated and the three manufacturers will be invited to submit a second offer. After submission of the second offer and the subsequent evaluation report this May, the selection of type is planned for this July.

Prasun K Sengupta said...

To Subroto: Having an inventory of nine upgraded Sea Harriers for the air defence of carrier battle group even for limited durations (like six to eight hours) without carrier-based areial refuelling tankers does not translate into any meaningful operational gain, unless one only wants to use such assets against marauding Somali pirates! If an Indian naval carrier battle group approaches even close to 90nm of Pakistan's coastline for a two-hour period it will have to contend with at least two PAF squadrons of maritime strike aircraft backed up by interceptors. Clearly the nine Sea Harriers will be overwhelmed even if Ka-31s give AEW support. Therefore, the objective behind upgrading the Sea Harriers is not to confer any kind of operational advantages to the Indian Navy, but rather to just maintain the human resource proficiency for carrier-based air operations, i.e. just for training purposes, until the arrival of INS Vikramaditya and the initial 16 MiG-29K/UBKs. Thus, the refitted INS Viraat and upgraded Sea Harrier FRS Mk51s will remain operational till 2014, assuming that INS Vikramaditya is delivered by 2012 and its full complement of on-board combat aircraft and helicopters become fully operational by 2014.

Anonymous said...

To Prasun

Is it true that Pakistan army is opting for the French Tiger ARH which is a modified version of the Tiger HAP with upgraded MTR390 engines?How many PA is getting? From when?

Anonymous said...

AMRAAMs are meant for both PAF's F-16 Block 52 and F-16 AM/BM as both will have same radar

Anonymous said...

Comparing Swiss acquisition process with ours is a no brainer. Even Brazilians have beaten us to the test trials despite having started the FX2 competition after us.
Though my heart wants to see the MMRCA ASAP, having followed the IA Arti acquisition process the MMRCA appears to be just at the start of the first round of test for the first RFP...sigh. We couldnt even get light helicopters in one round, this is the mother of all deals. Expect big boys to play all kinds of dirty games. Given how easy it is to derail our precurement process I am keeping my fingers crossed.

Anonymous said...

I will be happy to see PAF F-16 upgraded with AGP-88 and not SABR AESA which will be available by 2012.

Anonymous said...

No Tiger Helos in Potential French Sale To Pakistan

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=4177914&c=ASI&s=TOP

Pak should buy Iranian attack helos. Apparently that is all they can afford.

http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=95824&sectionid=351020101

Anonymous said...

New RAAF F-18 SH looks cool.
Just where is that AIM-120 mounted. It looks flush to the fuselage.

Prasun, what do you say about SH stealth as against EF. At least the SH has canted fins. Something EF originally envisioned to have.

Anonymous said...

if you see the news title of


“No Tiger Helos in Potential French Sale To Pakistan”

and later on explanation


“He gave no further details but denied reports that a deal had been reached to sell the Franco-German Tiger helicopter to Islamabad.The spokesman said the deal might be concluded when French President Nicholas Sarkozy visits sometime after Sept. 21.”


Both can’t be interoperated in the same sense as he is doing. French spokesman never said that no Tiger for PA but that deal is yet not signed and might be concluded when French President Nicholas Sarkozy visits Pakistan later this year.


But France may not be keen to sell the Tiger gunship, said defense analyst Haris Khan of the Pakistan Military Consortium.

even the statement of Haris Khan agrees with the fact that Tigers are on the table atleast for now
AH-1W seems good option

Anonymous said...

Prasunda! how could Shiv beat you to this
http://livefist.blogspot.com/2009/07/presentation-on-atv-breaks-surface.html

Where are your ATV diagrams and design you said you had?

Anonymous said...

Whole talk about the PAF 35 F-16 A/B to be upgraded with APG-68 is old news now PAF have taken the option of 11 MLU kits and thats why TIA willupgrade 42 F-16 and USA will 4 F-16 making them 46 ie all of the PAF F-16 will be upgraded with BVRAAM capability with APG-68

Prasun K Sengupta said...

To Anon@9:43AM: I don't believe anyone's engaged in any kind of rat-race involving ATV-related revelations, least of all me as I'm not into any kind of broadcast journalism. That diagram is generic & is indicative of an SSN, not SSBN hull.

To Anon@9:19AM: The Eurocopter Tigre is indeed on offer to the Pakistan Army Aviation Corps but only as the ARH variant, devoid of anti-armour guided-missiles. The total number expected to be acquired is reportedly 16 in two batches of eight. Once that happens, then the way forward is clear for the IAF to shortlist the Mi-28N and AH-64D Longbow Apache. For all intents and purposes the Bell 206Bs have been replaced by the AS.350B3 Fennecs now the AS.355 variants could also find their way to replace the AH-1F/S HueyCobras.

To Anon@9:49AM: If you take into account the contract value of the TAI-led contract you will easily realise that the total cost of the avionics package for each MLU F-16 is way too low to include an APG-68(V)9 installation.

ABHINABA said...

Prasun da, how Helmet Mounted Display (HMD)'s calligraphic symbolic figures are correlated with Head Up Display's same symbology?
What types of HMD are used by su-30mki & PAF's F-16A/B? & are they abled to support raster scanned imagery to FLIR/IRST display pictures for night operations & provide collimated symbology to the pilot?

Anonymous said...

contract value 75$ M IS FOR THE services of the TAI and it does not includes that total cost of the avionics package which is paid to USA

Anonymous said...

to prasun

do you have brochures of apg80 radar which is more concerned to india

Anonymous said...

in above RAAF f18 also note that the air intakes between tail fins and through these air intakes cool air goes into engine exhaust and which reduces the engine exhaust's IR signature.

Anonymous said...

To Anon@10:17:00 AM:
So what does the Blk52 avionics package cost? Probably more than a JF-17.

Prasun K Sengupta said...

Anon@10:17AM is right about TAI's service charges. But the individual cost of an F-16A/B MLU kit for the PAF is valued at about US$8 million only, according to TAI, and this is inclusive of the CW illuminator and related upgrade kits for the APG-66. That's what TAI communicated to me two days ago.

To ABHINABA: When the HMD is in operation all relevant symbology is displayed only on the HMD and not on the HUD. In fact, the HUD is becoming increasingly irrelevant as HMD technology advances. On the F-16A/B there's no HMD as yet although the Kamra-based Air Weapons Complex is developing one for the JF-17. But without US-controlled access to the mission and weapons magagement computers the HMD cannot be integrated. The Su-30MKI uses the Sura-M HMD on which IRST images are displayed. But the imagery from LDPs like the Litening-3 (on the Su-30MKI) or ATLIS-2 (in case of the Mirage 2000H/TH and F-16A/B) are displayed on cockpit-mounted AMLCDs and CRT displays.

Prasun K Sengupta said...

To Anon@5:53AM: As of now, the EF-2000 Typhoon cannot hold its ground against the F/A-18E/F and EA-18G, that's for sure. And with the Typhoon's Tranche 3 version yet to surface (it may eventually, if not for the IAF then for the Saudis), the Super Hornet's superior non-cooperative target recognition mode of operation makes it the superior warbird.

Anonymous said...

EF2000 costing 122 million just has captor radar against apg79 of f18e which cost 80 million so apg79 definitely better than captor radar

Anonymous said...

To Prasun

is Leninets V004 passive electronically scanned array on
SU 34 a terrain following radar

Anonymous said...

su34 is really good for long range,it has more fuel than mki and it has flown 16 hours continously with 4 refuellings

sachin_sathe said...

Super Hornet's biggest advantage i think is its true network-centric ops nature.It excels as a part of a well set/built network rather thn a stand alone fighter. Tht's why it is far more capable.many think SH and Su 30mki have overlapping abilities but a combo of BrahMos equipped Su-30 and a growler(even lite version) will be enough to give sleepless nights to any surface to air defence network comander. Add a early warnig platform like Phalcon or a J-Stars type ac along with dedicated comont,elint ac in the region then u hav a real strong SEAD/DEAD setup.

as far as the Headlines today's so called expose it looks like a DELIBERATE Release ahead of launch.also the rumors of the ships dimentions suggest tht india is indeed following the global trend of SSN's benig around
7-8k ton displacement. u r thoughts prasun?

Anonymous said...

Prasun, what is the status of RFP for international engine for LCA. Has it been floated yet?

Anonymous said...

Super Hornet's biggest advantage i think is its true network-centric ops nature.
--------------------------------
why do you think? as if other aircrafts not offering this

airframe is never net centric whether its f18e air frame or something net centric are the communications and other electronic systems

Anonymous said...

our drdo and other defence establishments able to do nothing,

look at chinese radar at least they can make such things and they also testing new and their own pulse doppler radar for j11,although many parts in this radar can be of russian origin

Anonymous said...

The KLJ-7 specs seem to be very interesting. The specs are better than the upgraded APG-66 PAF has on its F-16s!

Prasun K Sengupta said...

To Sachin Sathe: Now that you've reaised the issue about the so-called HEADLINES TODAY expo on the ATV, let's examine it further.
1) Firstly, how does the expose become an exclusive item when it was THE NATION newspaper which first published the story about the expectated July 26 visit to Vizag of the Indian PM purpotedly to see the ATV for himself? Does it mean that HEADLINES TODAY was the first in India to quote THE NATION and re-publish that story?

2) When in the past both HEADLINES TODAY and INDIA TODAY have referred to the to-be-leased Akula-2 SSN as INS Chakra and the ATV's design being reportedly derived from that of the Charlie 1-class SSN, then how come the ATV is being suddently referred to as INS Chakra and it is now being claimed that the ATV's design is based on that of the Akula-1 SSGN? Why this inconsistency?

3) The single page of the PowerPoint presentation (if we are to believe that it runs into 9 pages) says the presentation is 'Restricted'. If this is so, then by no means is the presentation is out-of-bounds as far as secrecy goes and it was meant for only a select audience and was not covered by the Official Secrets Act.

4) Which then brings us to the presentation itself. The 9-page presentation by no means constitutes anything resembling a project status report, but rather one of 'desired capabilities' that will emerge out of ATV-related R & D efforts. This was also confirmed some months back by Ret'd Admiral Arun Prakash who clearly stated in one of its OP-ED articles that the ATV will NOT be an operational vessel but it will serve as the testbed from which designs for operational SSNs/SSBNs will be derived. In conclusion, therefore, the 9-page PowerPoint presentation is a generic explanation about about the desired sea-based nuclear deterrent's salient points, rather than a detailed explanation on the ATV itself.

5) I have been dabbling in such matters since 1987 and I have yet to see a techical presentation of a submarine design that shows a submarine's silhouette without the vessel's propellers or mast-mounted radar/periscopes/antennae. Therefore, the silhouette of the ATV shown in the PowerPoint presentation is just a generic graphic illustration that does not reflect the true design or dimensions of either the ATV or the projected operational SSNs and SSBNs.

6) If indeed we are to believe that the Govt of India has spent thus far only US$2.3 billion on the ATV, then would seem that Indian public-listed companies (and not the established MoD-owned shipyards) like Larsen & Toubro are in the ridiculous but enviable position of being in possession of submarine design-cum-manufacturing expertise that is unchallenged and unbeatable! For, if established submarine manufacturers like BAE Systems and DCNS can spend more than US$8 billion on designing and fabricating new-generation SSGNs and that too in an environment where there are no technology denials and restrictions, then how come Indian companies like L & T, faced with technology-denial regimes and no prior expertise in fabricating SSGNs and SSBNs, can charge only US$2.3 billion for one vessel? If that's the reality, then it should be BAE Systems, DCNS, GE Electric Boat Division, Sevmash, Fincantieri and HDW that should be knocking at India's doors seeking such dirt-cheap ToT from L & T, instead of MDL seeking ToT from DCNS for fabricating far smaller SSKs! Does this make any sense to anyone? It is like saying someone has the technology and expertise for making Lincoln Cadillacs but that someone needs to import the manufacturing expertise for making TATA Nanos.
With that I rest my case.

Prasun K Sengupta said...

To Anon@12:14AM: The RFP has been floated and it is restricted to GE Aero Engines and Eurojet only.

sachin_sathe said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
sachin_sathe said...

Relax man

Tht report is what i call a CLASSIC case of secrecy through openness.Its like giving them an image of the tip of the iceburg while normal(citizens of tht country) people get exited by seeing it they have no idea of how sinister it can be(which it usually is anyway.)

The indian polititians are grand old masters at this and since they know tht 99% of indian media does a cut-paste job & is more intrested in sensationalizing the issues they(polotitians) manipulate the media to show only & only what they(polititians) want to be seen.

As far as the cost is concerned it will never be told to media its a freakin BLACk project.I think the given cost is probably for building the reactor alone(BUILD cost not R&D cost).

The Agni program is a prime example of this people think separate R&D will be required for developing the A% but what is really needed is political & thus financial backing throughout the testing period bcoz some hackles are definately going to be raised in international community.Ther are fairly solid reports on this tht A5 is supposed to be a canisterised and is to have smaller length than A3 if it is indeed true then we can be fairly certain tht A-5 will be Reconfigured or modified into an SLBM(Reverse of the K-15 to Shaurya convrsion) Also the A5(land based is expected to enter service around 2014-2015.

As far as the SSN/SSBN construction is conscerned i don't think we will ever see the real launch date or photos of it for some time.

Also the IN knows its immediate needs are having enough destroyers and frigates and getting the carrier force upto requirement.As none of the coming carriers will be able to sustain more than 30kts for longer duration(their own ops deployment is about a third of an ssn anyway) there is no dire need of inducting an ssn the a upg'ed kilos and U-209's are enough for now.

Also Did u notice tht each of the Bigticket projects like scorpene , the SSN's , new ASW assets
(including P-8, p-28 asw corvetts ,etc.) , their own AEW assets, carriers , and the new P-17 & P-15
follow ons all are expected around year 2014?

Anonymous said...

india better spend 9 billion dollars on diesel subs rather than acquiring just 7 p17a frigates

Anonymous said...

The single page of the PowerPoint presentation (if we are to believe that it runs into 9 pages) says the presentation is 'Restricted'.
----------------------------------
i never saw a 9 page presentation and if there is 9 page presentation can u please post that for everyone

Anonymous said...

Now the CAG says the Army purchased HAL ALH with flaws and they can't climb beyond 5000metres and have excessive vibrations.This is shocking especially now that HAL is boasting about its export prowess!Not only will this jeopardise combat operations but ruin international reputation - will it not?Does this mean the Dhruvs are duds and a whole new engine/manufacturing/design would be required?

Anonymous said...

CAG is a dud! Everyone knew ALH engines were underpowered as US had blocked Allied Signal engines after the nuclear test. This is why Shakti engine has been developed. What is the point of discussing the status of ALH in 2006 now that the new engine is ready? ALH is not exclusively meant for Siachin. Just because a more powerful engine was not available earlier does not mean Army should not have procured ALH at all.

Anonymous said...

Prasun K Sengupta I HAVE FEW Questions from

FC-20 M-MRCA Emerges

The first single-seat FC-20 prototype was rolled out by CAC last December


1)Can Fc-20 Super cruise?

2)How many BVRAAM Fc-20 can carry? EF-2000/Su-30MKI/ F/A-18E can carry upto 12 BVRAAMs

3) FC-2’s 4.5 tonnes of weapons payload seems very low its even less then JAS-39 C let alone NG

4) Maximum combat radius of 2,540km seems very long-range, with what weapons configuration this maximum combat radius of 2,540km can be achieved

5)any details about the KJ-200? Endurance? operators? Radar size? Price?

Anonymous said...

To Anon above:
FC-20 is single engined. Lacks the power to weight ratio of EF Typhoon likes. Ovbiously cannot supercruise or carry payload equivalent to twin engined jets. Payload also depends on adapter capacity and performance being sought.
Any jet can carry at least as many BVRAAM as it has hard points. Even more with twin missile adapters. Depends on operational requirement. Being single engined it may loose agility with too many BVRAAM.
Combat radius:
On hi-lo-hi mission: 2,540 km (1,370 nautical miles) with 4,000lb/1,814kg bombload and two air-to-air missiles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chengdu_J-10

Anonymous said...

a)how many other single engine fighter aircraft have Maximum combat radius of 2,540km?? atleast i no of no one

b)My question was about the FC-20’s 4.5 tonnes of weapons payload compared to JAS-39 C let alone NG which too are single engine. aircraft is in class of F-16 block 52(engine thurst wise so dont say it dont have thurst)and have more thurst then JAS-39 and Mirage-2000-9

c) even JAS-39 can carry 6 BVRAAMs

d)wikipedia is not a source to be .....

Kaushik said...

A small digression:

Recently I came across a book called "The War That Never Was" by one Ravi Rikhye. It was about the Indian Army's Exercise Brasstacks in 1987. In that book the author discusses the events leading up to the crisis and its development. That book enthused me to do more research on Exercise Brasstacks because the purported architect of that exercise, Gen.Sundarji, was a distant uncle of mine (my father's cousin). We used to live a short distance from his home in New Delhi and I often used to visit him at his home where we played chess and snooker. Quite sadly he died when I was still young and when I didn't know much about him or his work other than the fact that he was a former CoAS. I never talked to him much about army matters as I had no interest or knowledge in such things nor did he tell me anything.
Now during my quest for more info about, I came across a lot of information about him. Some of the remarks made by people once close to him were not charitable. They said he was arrogant, patronizing, caustic, intolerant etc. Some others say he was a brilliant guy with deep knowledge of warfare and so on. In a book written by Mani Shankar Iyer there is an account of a meeting between Sundarji and Rajiv Gandhi and Mani Shankar accuses Gen.Sundarji of being disrespectful to the PM. He says Sundarji was some sort of Dr. Strangelove, always in favour of nuclear bombs and also says he had no honour and did not deserve to be chief. Another guy, Lt. Gen. P.M. Hoon in his autobiography says Sundarji was not talented at all and survived because of his command over English and his chutzpah. He says Sundarji planned Brasstacks on his own to somehow bring about a war with Pakistan and become a Field Marshal.
I also came across one of your earlier posts on the T-72 tank where you mention about your interactions with Gen.Sundarji. So I want to know from you what was he like, are any of the allegations against him true? I am interested in knowing because I have seen him up, close and personal and always had immense respect for him.

Hope I am not committing any sacrilege by asking such a question in a blog devoted to discussing armaments.

Prasun K Sengupta said...

To Kaushik: Thank you very much for raising the issue of the late and illustrious Gen K Sundarji, which remains as valid an issue as any other discussed or raised in my blog. As you are well aware, the hierarchical command structure of an institution like the Indian Army creates much room for one-upmanship, backslapping and back-stabbing. But do rest assured that Gen Sundarji was a cut above the rest. I am in fact trying to draft an extensive analysis of Ex Brasstacks and giving due attention to the war plans of not only the Army, but the IAF and Indian Navy as well, which till this day have not even been written upon, let alone analysed! I had only only a limited-duration but intensive interaction with Gen Sundarji when I put him up at my residence in Singapore for only three days and nights in February 1992. He had been invited to present a paper at one of the conferences held at that time in conjunction with Asian Aerospace 1992 (I was at that time residing in Singapore, before transferring my residence to Malaysia in 1992 and finally to Thailand in 2002). What I can definitely state is this:
Ex Brasstacks was NOT unilaterally planned by Gen Sundarji. In fact, anyone associated with the Indian Army will know that such Corps-level exercises designed to try out new doctrines and related operational arts are NOT planned or devised by the COAS, but by the the Army's HQ Training Command and are put in motion under the directives of the Director-General of Military Training (DGMT) at Army HQ, which at that time was headed by Lt Gen Sunith Francis Rodrigues (a future COAS). It was in early 1986 that Lt Gen Rodrigues approached Gen Sundarji with the idea of organising multi Corps-level exercises designed to test out the Indian Army's battlefield logistics in the event of a two-front war breaking out along the Sino-Indian and India-Pakistan borders simultaneously. Gen Sundarji responded enthusiastically to this idea (as it was very much in the realm of possibility that such an eventuality would emerge in future) and directed the Army's HQ Training Command (through the DGMT's office) to prepare a three-part sequential exercise: Ex Brasstacks along the India-Pakistan border; Ex Chequerboard along the Sino-Indian border; and finally combining the two sequential exercises after a two-year interval (to be held in 1988) to culminate in Ex Brassboard. But regretfully, due to OP Pawan in Sri Lanka, Ex Brassboard could not be conducted and even till this day, not even Division-level exercises have been simultaneously conducted along a two-front theatre ion the West and North. All this was personally communicated to me by Gen Sundarji and we spent almost four hours discussing in detail all the issues related to Ex Brassboard. Therefore, rest assured that when folks like Mani Shankar Iyer or K Natwar Singh open their mouths to make ill-conceived, malicious and ill-informed statements concerning Gen Sundarji, they only bring disgrace upon themselves, to say the least. In conclusion, Ex Brasstacks was not Gen Sundarji's idea but gievn the fact that he was an able commander devoted to realising the higher directions of war and constantly refining the Army's contingency war plans, he extended Army HQ's fullest cooperation and support to Let Gen S F Rodrigues's detailed plans for Ex Brasstacks, Ex Chequerboard and Ex Brassboard.

Anonymous said...

PKS:-

1. You were suppossed to show a picture of ATV prototype in March but till now havent. I hope you can do so ASAP

2. I too think it is a Technology demonstrator. Hopefully you can direct your argument given here in Shiv Aror's blog.

thank u

Prasun K Sengupta said...

There is no such thing as the ATV prototype. It is just the ATV technology demonstrator and no more ATVs will be built. The ones to be built in future will first be two SSGNs (already sanctioned by the CCNS), followed by a single SSBN. Have already posted the photo of the SSGN's scale model in the latest post.

Anonymous said...

Prasun K Sengupta I HAVE FEW Questions from

FC-20 M-MRCA Emerges

The first single-seat FC-20 prototype was rolled out by CAC last December


1)Can Fc-20 Super cruise?

2)How many BVRAAM Fc-20 can carry? EF-2000/Su-30MKI/ F/A-18E can carry upto 12 BVRAAMs

even JAS-39 can carry 6 BVRAAMs



3) FC-2’s 4.5 tonnes of weapons payload seems very low its even less then JAS-39 C let alone NG

My question was about the FC-20’s 4.5 tonnes of weapons payload compared to JAS-39 C let alone NG which too are single engine. aircraft is in class of F-16 block 52(engine thurst wise so dont say it dont have thurst)and have more thurst then JAS-39 and Mirage-2000-9


4) Maximum combat radius of 2,540km seems very long-range, with what weapons configuration this maximum combat radius of 2,540km can be achieved

how many other single engine fighter aircraft have Maximum combat radius of 2,540km?? atleast i no of no one



5)any details about the KJ-200? Endurance? operators? Radar size? Price?

Prasun K Sengupta said...

1)No, the FC-20 will not be able to super-cruise.
2) The FC-20 will be certified to carry up to 10 BVRAAMs.
3) The FC-20's projected offensive payload in terms of tonnage is 6.5 tonnes.
4) The max combat radius of the FC-20 in a hi-hi-hi flight profile will be a projected 2,540km.
5)The KJ-200 AEW & C platform has an endurance of seven hours without aerial refuelling. The number of on-board mission management operators is 12 at the moment.

Anonymous said...

Prasun,

You have an interesting blog. The brochure you have for the KLJ-7 radar is very intersting to say the least. Where di you get it from? Paris? Have you got anything on the KLJ-6 radars?

Thanks,
Anonymas

Prasun K Sengupta said...

No, not from Paris, but from CETC's annual product directory which is updated every succeeding year. I have similar info-pages on the KLJ-6E and KLJ-6F X-band airborne radars.

Anonymous said...

Thanks for the quick reply. Where can I get the catalogue? Can you post datails for the KLJ-6 E and F like you have done for the KLJ-7? Please?

Thanks,
Anonymas

Hubald said...

Prasun,

If you get the opportunity please - we are still eargerly waiting for the pages of the KLJ-6E and KLJ-6F radars from the CETC brochure.

Thanks in advance,
The Watchman