Sunday, July 19, 2009

The Truth About Krasnopol-M Firing Trials In India



58 comments:

Anonymous said...

to prasun

thanks for posting this

Anonymous said...

prasun what do you think will BAE be allowed to bid for their m777

Anonymous said...

to prasun

any info on gorshkov's combat management system layout

sachin_sathe said...

prasun

Thx for posting this. Can u post more details abt the Kranspool munition?

As far as the UAV developement is concerned i think it like all other projects depends upon those lazy paper-pushers at MoD(remember LM 2500 incident?) the tech developement and transfer to private production house won't be a problem.

Can u post in detail abt the CQB procurement rated at whopping 4400 crore Rs? The news says tht an new 5.56-mm model carbine developed inhouse. Can u post more in detail abt this carbine?Is this carbine the previously named Kalanthak varsion of INSAS?

ABHINABA said...

Prasun da, do you have information about other krasnopol type guided projectiles which are good in high altitude condition?Which types of guided projectiles are used by our two main enemy's artillery divitions?& is it possible to use guided projectile against moving targets(like moving tank,artillery division etc.) ?

Anonymous said...

Prasun da,

In the FORCE November 2008 issue the Controller of Warship Production and Acquisition has stated "a total of 7 destroyers, 13 frigates..." as the major warship construction that would have been accomplished by 2022. That would indicate (4 P15B DDG + Project 15C DDGs)+ (three Project 17 Batch 2 FFGs + 7 Project 17A FFGs + 3 Project 1135.6 FFGs).Please tell me if i am true.

If there is Project 17 Batch 2 FFGs what sensors will go aboard them.

Out of the G-550 CAEWCS and E-2D Hawkeye 2000 being evaluated by the IN which will provide robust early warning of launch of anti ship missiles and network centricity.

In the arena of BMD, will the Indian BMD systems make use of US-owned missile early-warning satellites just like Israel does

F said...

Prasun, apologies bor being off-topic again.

Is there any truth to the reports that the RMAF had planned to integrate MICA to its MKMs but reverted to the R-77 due a lack of funds?

Has the RMAF actually bought any air to air/air to ground ordnance for its MKMs or is it still early days?

Do you have any details of the USD50 million contract awarded to a South African firm for an EW system in the mid-90's for the Malaysian army?

Have you heard of plans to install the Selex Vixen 500E AESA on the RMAFs Hawk 200s?

With MINDEF almost cashless at thee moment, do you see the possibility of the RMN receiving the Brunei navy Nakhoda Ragams as a cheaper alternative to newly built Batch 2 Lekius? Thank you.

Anonymous said...

Is there any truth to the reports that the RMAF had planned to integrate MICA to its MKMs but reverted to the R-77 due a lack of funds?
----------------------------------
why one needs MICA when better r77 available

malaysian su30mkkm have french electronics and targeting systems.

Anonymous said...

Out of the G-550 CAEWCS and E-2D Hawkeye 2000 being evaluated by the IN which will provide robust early warning of launch of anti ship missiles and network centricity.
----------------------------------
there is no comparision between g550 aew and e2d,g550 aew has much better range compared to e2d

moreover e2d can't take of from gorshkov so it has to use air strip from shore so its better to more P8I than e2d

moreover its time not to acquire AEW from foreign cuz our own DRDO aew should be available by 2012

and i hope drdo better get israeli help in its AEW program and deliver the AEW on time

Aaditya said...

To Prasun Sir: Actually having 2 Ospreys on the Vikramaditya (as you have suggested), will not take up much space either. It occupies nearly as much space as the navy's MiG-29k when in folded or parking configuration...so far so good.. but will the US allow the Israeli Phalcon or the Eitam radar to be installed on the aircraft or does the offer insist on having only an American radar? Wouldn't it be better to go for an Israeli radar as the IAF already operates the Phalcon...?
Thanks!

Prasun K Sengupta said...

To Anon@5:37PM: I sure hope the MoD decides to go for the LW-155 (the M-777 is the USMC-optimised howitzer) as it is the only one that is combat-proven and will dfeinitely be ordered in large numbers in future by several more ground forces worldwide.

To Sachin Sathe: The Krasnopol-M ammo's performance parameters (in Charts 1 & 2) are the ones offering comprehensive data. Nowhere else will one have such data presentations (not even in the OEM's brochures). Regarding the 5.56mm carbine developed in-house by OFB I'm afraid I don't have any data on this model but I'm sure it is not the Kalantak variant of INSAS.

TO ABHINABA: While NORINCO of China is producing the Krasnopol as the 'Red Mud' projectile, Ukraine too has developed a clone of the Kransopol-M, and this is available for sale worldwide. Such laser-guided projectiles can engage moving targets as well.

To Anon@12:35AM: There won't be any Batch 2 Project 17 FFGs as the on-board mission sensors of Russian origin are today considered 'legacy' systems, especially the Fregat and Garpun-Bal radars. The plan now is to leapfrog ahead in terms of acquiring the kind of mission sensors that are going on board the Project 15A DDGs and Project 15B DDGs. To this end, the seven projected Project 17A FFGs will be a quantum leap ahead when compared to the three Project 17 FFGs.
Regarding BMD systems of Indian origin, the US has already offered to India the networking of the ground-based command-and-control element of the BMD system with the US space-based missile launch early warning satellite constellation.

To Faris: The Mica was offered by MBDA for the Su-30MKM along with THALES' TopOwl helmet-mounted display, but since these two systems were not integrated (and have still not been) with the Su-30MKM's mission computer a the time of contract signature in May 2003, this option was dropped and it was decided then to order the R-77 at a future date. The Su-30MKMs are presently armed with R-27R/T and R-73E AAMs, plus Kh-59ME and Kh-31P ASMs. The South African (Grintek-built) system acquired in the mid-1990s was a ground-based ELINT system, not an EW system. Regarding the mid-life upgrade for the RMAF Hawk Mk208s, only paperwork analysis has been done so far, and things have not yet moved to the contractual negotiations phase. One will have to wait for Selex-Galileo to first install a Vixen 500e on a flying prototype and flight-qualify the radar before proposing it for other airborne platforms. Lastly, regarding the three Royal Brunei Navy OPVs (popularly referred to as over-priced vessels!) Brunei will retain only one of them, with the other two (berthed in Scotland) already being put up for sale. They will be viable options for a future RMN purchase. Meanwhile, the 6th and final NGPV of the RMN will be formally launched in Lumut on July 23 and be called KD Selangor.

To Aaditya: Financially and technologically, it will make better sense if the AEW variant of the V-22 Osprey is equipped with the same Northrop Grumman-developed mission sensor package as that on the E-2D hawkeye 2000. But despite this, the Indian Navy still requires shore-based AEW & C platforms like the G-550 CAEW & CS, as these are required for maintaining airspace surveillance over India's island-based territories in the Arabian Sea and the Andaman Sea.

subroto said...

Hi Prasun,

Today India and USA signed the “end-use monitoring agreement” which will pave the way for greater defence cooperation and technology safeguards agreement. This is just happen before the trial of the MMRCA. Do you think IAF will now seriously look into the combat proven F/A-18 E/F aircraft with the AESA APG-79 Radar?

Prasun K Sengupta said...

To Subroto: Not just the Raytheon APG-79 AESA, but also Northrop Grumman's APG-80 and SABR. The SABR is also being proposed for the Jaguar IS upgrade and will be competing against the Vixen 500e. The EUMA is similar to the ones inked between India and Russia in late 2000. It won't be any more intrusive than similar agreements India had in place with the erstwhile USSR.

subroto said...

IAF decision on acquiring the F-16 Block 60 (F-16IN) with the AESA APG-80 is uncertain. APG-80 is older technology compare to the AESA APG-79 which is combat proven.

It will be interesting to see the IAF decision now.

Nava said...

Will the IN be installing IRST systems on its future ships? If so, do you know which?

Prasun K Sengupta said...

To Nava: Yes, starting with the three Project 17 FFGs long-range IRST sensors will go on board, followed by the three Project 15A DDGs and will also be retrofitted on the first three Project 1135.6 FFGs. Systems from THALES, SAGEM and Amethyst JSC are being evaluated.

Prasun K Sengupta said...

To Nava et all: Check this up at: http://livefist.blogspot.com/2009/07/glimpse-into-indias-artillery.html

Anonymous said...

to prasun

was there no 155 mm gun offered from russia?

Anonymous said...

to prasun

as shiv posted the FH77 AND ATHOS2052 trials were conducted,so why there are field trials for 155mm guns being conducted

and why this time only pegesus howitzer and m777 why there is no fh77

and also israeli howitzer stands no chance against FH77

Anonymous said...

Dear Mr. Sen Gupta,

I'll appreciate your view on the following
http://www.g2mil.com/155LW.htm

The information in the above ink is dated.
Assuming its true I'll like to know whether US had overcame the problem.

thanks and regards,

N

sachin_sathe said...

prasun,

FH-77B comes from a legacy of world-class cannomn builders & is another feather in their caps. The results published by shiv on livefist are hardly surprising.The real culprits in this mess r politicians who r hell bent on punishing the Armed forces rather than those who r guilty. An act nothing lesser than Treason since the armed forces in india r bound by their civilian government's whims.

As far as the EUMA goes i think it will pave way for not just tech involved in MMRCA contract but also other projects such as the P-8I, C-17 globe-master purchase etc. Also, the to & fro volies of drafts suggest tht the Indian government and military wanted to modify it so tht the on-site inspections occur at their choice of time & place(i.e they denied entry of US personel on the Forward bases which i think is a good move.)wht r ur thoughts?

F said...

Prasun, last year in Tempur you wrote that the Malaysian army ordered Pakistani made laser designators [ATCOP?] during DSA. What are they meant for? Apart from the Paveway 1s carried by the F/A-18Ds, I can't think of anything else in service that needs lasing. You mentioned the Bruneian OPVs were overpriced... Could one of the reasons be the the higher build quality than the Lekius and the higher grade steel used? I think you mentioned this during one of our discussions some years back.

Anonymous said...

INDIA'S AMMO STORAGE PROBLEM

http://www.defensetech.org/archives/004937.html#comments
----------------------------------
there have been many fires in ammunition depots

Prasun K Sengupta said...

To Anon@3:23PM: Russia does not manufacture 155mm and 120mm barrels. However, Uraltransmash in the mid-1990s had teamed up with BAE Systems/SWS Defence to offer the 52-cal/155mm barrel for the MSTA-S tracked howitzer.

To Anon@3:25PM: The FH-77B BO5/L-52 and the LW-155 are not in the same category and the GQRS issued are for three different 155mm howitzers: one for 52-cal/155mm towed guns, one for 39-cal/155mm heliborne ultralightweight systems and the last for motorised 52-cal/155mm howitzers.

To Anon@8:13PM: All those problems witrh the LW155 have already been overcome and the LW155 has since demonstrated excellent performance parameters in Afghanistan at the hands of the USMC and Canadian Army.

To Sachin Sathe: The EUMA does not insist upon on-site inspections at forward bases, but calls for an annual accounting of in-country inventories, which can be carried out simultaneously or in stages at a time and place mutually agreed upon by both countries.

To Faris: The hand-held laser rangefinders/target designators are for PASKAU and will be used to lase targets for the Paveways and Mavericks. The Bruneian OPVs indeed used higher-grade steel for hull construction.

Anonymous said...

Prasun da,

If there won't be be any Batch 2 Project 17 FFGs then what FFGtype would make the remaining 3 FFG'S that would be accomplished by 2022.Would it be Project 17B FFG.

Would the IN upgraded type 209 SSK's match against the PN'S to be inducted type 214 SSK's and the Agosta 90B SSK.Please provide some details of the upgraded type 209 SSK.

Nava said...

Have you heard about the recent successful testings of "Iron Dome"?
What do you think about the system's effectiveness as opposed to other CRAM systems?

Also when can we expect a testing of the Barak 8?

Prasun K Sengupta said...

It will be Batch 3 of Project 1135.6 FFGs, comprising three new vessels. No Project 17B FFG as of now. I had last year posted date on the ISUS-90 combat management system retrofitted on the four Class 209/Type 1500 SSKs of the Indian Navy. The same ISUS-90 will go on board the Class 214 SSKs of the PN.

Prasun K Sengupta said...

To Nava: I personally believe the best way to counter guided/unguided field artillery projectiles or rockets launched from MBRLs are directed-energy weapons, since very rapid target engagement procedures are called for. Using expensive guided-projectiles to counter a Grad or Katyusha is not my idea of a cost-effective weapon system. Unless one is talking about intercepting the Iran-supplied Zelzal-type heavy artillery rockets now in Hezbollah's inventory. In my personal view, air-defence systems like Iron Dome and Stunner are specifically targetted against the family of existing Iranian rocket artillery systems that may have already found their way to southern Lebanon and the Bekaa Valley.

Nava said...

Ideally of course they're better. Question is how mature the technology is, what is their performance under adverse weather etc.

subroto said...

Hi Prasun,

Do you have any information when DRDO is going to conduct the fourth test firing of its AGNI-III Nuclear capable Ballistic Missile?

Anonymous said...

procuring 43000 rifles off the shelf is outrageous .spending close to a billion dollars just on importing rifles!what happened to our indegenous capability?next we might have toimport other sall arms like pistols in large no and lmg ...........
cant we manufacture it here

Anonymous said...

can u list ur top 10 air superiority fighters & mrca in service

Prasun K Sengupta said...

To Subroto: I've no definite info in this matter, but expect it the last quarter of this year after the monsoon wears off from the ITR area.

To Anon@11:41AM: You mean carbines, or assault rifles, or GPMGs? And don't worry, Glock 22 and SIG pistols are being imported in great bulk for the state police and paramilitary forces. And why should all these be developed in-house? Far more prestigious to attempt developing MBTs, turbofans, MRCAs, MBRLs, field artillery howitzers, warships, MRBMS, SLBMs and nuclear-powered submarines! Only after all this can the small arms, diesel-electric submarines, armoured infantry fighting vehicles, 4 x 4 ATVs and 6km-range ATGMs can follow. Remember the MoD's motto: first learn to sprint, then learn to jog, then learn to walk and finally settle down to crawling!!!

subroto said...

Prasun,

You have mentioned earlier in this blog that Ukraine too has developed a clone of the Kransopol-M: Are you talking about the ‘Kvitnyk ‘that Ukraine has produced to compete with Kransopol.Can you post details of the Ukraine projectile?

I heard that KBP is also reported to be working with Germany’s Diehl on a RAP laser-beam-riding round. Do you have any idea whether Denel which make the long range 155mm PRO-RAM projectile that can reach 70 km (M9703A1 V-LAP round) tested from the Indian FH-77B? Earlier it was mentioned in the news that Denel special velocity-enhanced Long Range Projectile (V-LAP) was fired from the Indian FH-77B during the trial and with a range of 53KM.

Prasun K Sengupta said...

To Subroto: The Kvitnyk is a cloned Krasnopol-M. From this was norn the COMBAT 125mm cannon-launched laser-guided anti-armour round (like the LAHAT). As for the Denel-developed RAP projectiles, when fired from FH-77B-type howitzers they can go out to 41km in the plains. The RAP round that went up to 53km in the plains was fired from the Bhim/T-6 tracked SPH, not from the FH-77B. However, up in the mountains, even a FH-77B can fire conventional HE rounds out to 41km due to the rarified atmosphere. The Indian Army's 81mm and 120mm mortar-based fire assault capabilities too need to be upgraded through acquisition of laser-guided projectiles, which are available from Israel, Russia and the US. There is also a need for turret-mounted breech-loading 120mm mortars that can be mounted on ICVs like the BMP-2 or Abhay. God alone knows why such 'basic' self-propelled indirect fire-support weapons have not yet been developed by the DRDO. What folks don't realise is that such indirect fire-support weapons capable of firing 'smart' mortar rounds are far more important during combined-arms 'contact' battles (involving fast-moving Company-/Battalion-sized mechanised infantry formations than the 155mm field artillery howitzers or MBRLs that are normally Divisional-level or Corps-level assets.

Nava said...

Sorry if I'm out of my element, but has a decision been finally made about the Arjun's procurement?

Prasun K Sengupta said...

To Nava: Not only was the decision made two years ago, but deliveries are well underway. Check this out at: http://livefist.blogspot.com/2009/05/first-photos-army-gets-its-first-mbt.html

Nava said...

Oh no I meant the upcoming (?) comparative trials with the T 90 that I believe will determine the extent of the procurement. Correct me If I'm wrong of course.

Prasun K Sengupta said...

To Nava: Irregardless of the comparative performance trials of the Arjun Mk1 and T-90S/M, the procurement of Arjun Mk1 was frozen at 124 MBTs as far back as 2004. What has yet to be decided is whether to procure an additional 400 Arjun Mk2 variants (something similar to the Leopard 2A6), or forego this option and leapfrog straight to the future MBT (FMBT), which is what the Indian Army HQ prefers to acquire and to this end, the Uralvagonzavod JSC of Russia's futuristic T-95 is being looked at for possible co-development between Russia and India.

Anonymous said...

to prasun

Uralvagonzavod JSC of Russia's futuristic T-95 is being looked at for possible co-development between Russia and India.
------------------------------
this T95 tank has 152 mm calibur gun and from this kranspool can be fired on plains of rajasthan,gujrat,punjab and some parts of j&k

no need to bring 155mm guns for this purpose

sachin_sathe said...

prasun,

the BMP-2 or Abhay based mortar is in development i remember seeing its pics from DEFEX a year or so back. The need is for Army to get practical and start investing in such equipment being development in-house. Becoz the indian companies are the ones which will have to handle the production load id & when the war start as the international community WILL use munition denial tactics to stop the war which can be disastrous for India.

So the real culprit in ignoring the development of bread & butter items in india is the ARMY not DRDO.

As far as the rifle or carbine procurement goes i believe it is a result of the MINSAS not being up to the task and also its use of diff ammo(5.56*30mm not 5.56*45) which can create ammo short-fall in initial stages(a real possibility) also the procurement of a modern Carbine preferably a sub-compact assault rifle will aid in pushing the DRDO/OFB with modern metallurgy techniques for barrel prod. I also think tht the carbine purchase is more for the replacement f\of the ancient SAF Carbine 1A used by the IA.
Ur thoughts prasun?

Anonymous said...

Hi Prasun,
Any latest updates on LCA LSP-3 or PV-5; Arjun??? It seems all sources have dried up and no info. is coming forth.

Thank you.

Regards,
Khambat Dagha.

Anonymous said...

where does LCA against this j10


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/32/Vigorous_Dragon.jpg

and this J10 seems to be ready before LCA comes to service

Anonymous said...

Prasun da,

The RFP for 100-150 engines for the LCA Tejas Mk2 has been and in another six months all the proceedings (for the new engine)deal is expected to be completed according to P.S. Subramanyam, director at ADA.Does that mean that MMRCA acquisition has little or no the type of engine selected.

The tender stipulates transferring at least 60% of the engine technology to HAL to produce the engines locally, said Hubertus von Schoenfeldt, spokesman for Euro jet in India.And Euro jet is willing to give more than 60% of the technology...if they become partners.Does that mean Euro jet has more chance winnng the bid as they are also offering an engine with TVC especially for the Naval Tejas and more ever their engine will require less modifications on the aircraft.

If the deal is signed by early next year then when the LCA Tejas Mk2 is expected to fly if EJ200 is selected?

Prasun K Sengupta said...

To Sachin Sathe: The BMP-2 ICV carrying the 81mm mortar is totally different from the breech-loading 81mm and 120mm mortar systems. As for the Abhay ICV it is unlikely to enter production in the near future anf to date it remains only a technology demonstration project. Regarding the small-arms scenario, it was well within the DRDO's means to develop the reqd carbines be it 5.56mm or 9mm. Failure to develop them as well a decent GPMG derived from the INSAS or even a new-design 7.62mm GPMG is nothing short of criminal negligence.

To Anon@3:48PM: Your comment leads me to presume that you can't tell the difference between a direct-fire cannon and an indirect fire-support field artillery howitzer.

To Khambat Dagha: Irregardless of whether it is the Tejas Mk1's PV-5 or LSP-3, it just make any sense to waste any more money on these prototypes as the definitive variant of the LCA which will be inducted in large numbers will be the Tejas Mk2. And since it is this variant that will have the higher thrust powerplant (as you well know), consequently, the only realistic and feasible approach to take is to gear up for fabricating the three required PVs for the Tejas LCA Mk2's flight-test/weapons qualification regimes, which will get underway by 2011 ONLY if ADA and HAL can deliver the following:
1) Complete the detailed design of the Tejas LCA Mk2, which will have a bigger fuselage, larger wings and an enlarged avionics bulkhead.
2) Qualify the chosen turbofan for all flight regimes.
3) Develop and integrate a new navigation-and-attack system that will include a newer-design ring laser gyro-based inertial navigation system, AESA multi-mode radar, IRST sensor, helmet-mounted display, tactical data link, and pod-mounted target acquisition/target designation system.
4) Install larger AMLCDs in the cockpit (instead of the existing MFD-55s) of the types seen on board the JF-17 Thunder and JAS-39 Gripen, and a retractable in-flight refuelling probe of the type being offered on the JAS-39 Gripen IN.
5) Develop and install an integrated defensive aids suite of the kind now being developed for the to-be-upgraded Jaguar IS and Su-30MKI.
6) Undertake weaponisation to flight-qualify both air-to-air and air-to-ground PGMs.
Now, given the R & D challenges outlined above, and the impending release of new ASQRs by IAF HQ for such a radically redesigned Tejas LCA Mk2, it will be at least another five years before the definitive Tejas LCA Mk2 enters service.
Regarding the Arjun MBT, I recently heard that some initial work has begun on developing a 55-calibre variant of the existing 120mm rifled-bore cannon. If developed, it will go on the proposed Arjun Mk2 variant.

"The tender stipulates transferring at least 60% of the engine technology to HAL to produce the engines locally, said Hubertus von Schoenfeldt, spokesman for Euro jet in India."
---------------------------------

You can rest assured that even if the content of locally-produced components/sub-systems of the chosen turbofan reaches 80%, the most critical parts of the turbofan--the engine core and the HP/LP turbine blades--will have to be imported off-the-shelf as no one in the world will transfer their design/manufacturing know-hows.

sachin_sathe said...

prasun,

The DRDO is practically a slave of the Govt. and is dependent on the armed forces to get exact info and their need & this is exactly where it gets screwed royally. The BMP-2 based 81mm omrtar may be diff one but it can serve as a tech base if & only if the ARMY itself is clear abt wht it wants and is committed to invest money,time & its intelluctal inputs in it. Yes the DRDO is equally guilty of not being proactive enough but the HARD fact is tht the DRDO does what it is told to do not wht it needs to do.

Also regarding the 7.62mm variant the OFB is responsible for the deigns as it was the one responsible for further developement of INSAS & it has done nothing but to kiss ar$e of foreign
arms manufacturers.They r unable to develope even a commando version of INSAS. Its top-brass needs to be hanged literally.

Did u read the article on RTA-70 on Shiv's blog?If it doses achieve the targets it has set for itself it can even replace AN-32 wht r ur thoughts?


As far as the Tejas Mk2 concerned i think a lot of subsystems u mentioned can be developed from the current ones for Su-30 MKI and jaguar.The EW systems are already at a very advanced stage of testing(refering to RWJ developement as relesed in AI-09). Also,the AESA developement is already underway as u know.

Regarding weapons integration the software integration can be ported from Mk.1 varient.I think the biggest challange is going to be the airframe-modification. Also the pod-mounted designation system will probably be an israeli one.As far as the engine goes it depends upon the govt. on wht they want.

Can u explain more abt this 55-calibre variant of 120 mm cann intended for Arjun mk2?

Also post if possible for the NGAR(next gen assault rifle) GSQR released by the ARMY.

Raghav said...

http://epaper.indianexpress.com/IE/IEH/2009/07/23/ArticleHtmls/23_07_2009_008_002.shtml?Mode=1

In this news report you have been proven right about the fundamental cause of the crash. But here it states that the crash was due to system failure and not due to any human error. why?

Anonymous said...

Prasun,

what is the status of FINSAS and Arjun MK-II ???

thanks

Anonymous said...

Col Ajai has just dropped a bombshell.
"there's no such thing as an ATV. There is, therefore, no launch. Mrs Manmohan Singh will be breaking a coconut over an imaginary nuclear submarine"

Prasun ji, comments please.

Prasun K Sengupta said...

To Sachin Sathe: Once the airframe domensions are altered, the entire game changes, right from the total redesign of the internal electrical wiring harnesses to the repositioning of avionics LRUs within the avionics bulkheads, to the redesign of the environmental control system, and finally, to the complex task of re-writing the applications software for both the FBW-FCS and the navigation-and-attack system. In short, virtually re-starting the aircraft's R & D effort from scratch. Therefore, let us not oversimplify the R & D challenges lying ahead, all of which will be reluctantly admitted and revealed by ADA in the months to come AFTER the revised ASQRs are released by IAF HQ AFTER the higher-thrust turbofan's selection is announced.

To Raghav: It was indeed systems failure that was the 'principal probable' reason for the tragic Su-30MKI crash. The catastrophic and total failure of the quadruplex FBW-FCS was the prime reason. You may have noticed several ill-informed and speculative discourses being conducted in certain India-specific internet chat forums till this day and they all ask how come a redundant (4-channel) FBW-FCS can suffer catastrophic failure. What these ill-informed folks can't figure out is that even for such systems, NOT ALL LRUs of the FBW-FCS have quadruple redundancy. For example, there is ONLY ONE 1MTC manual control signal generator, ONLY ONE SVS-2C-U-30MKI air data computer, ONLY 1 SBKV-2V-1 attitude heading & reference system (AHRS), ONLY 1 BRP-3 flight data transfer unit, and ONLY 1 BSPI-6 analogue-digital-analogue converter. All these LRUs are integral parts of the FBW-FCS and the failure of any one of them will paralyse the entire FBW-FCS. But of course, these ill-informed entities speculating in the dark don't have access to the Su-30MKI's technical manuals (which I do) and therefore tend to hit the wall everytime they speculate without any basis. Forensic efforts are now underway to isolate the fault to a specific LRU (out of the ones I've mentioned above) and only then will it be possible to conclude whether the faulure was due to faulty installation, or maintenance neglect, or a production QC-related problem. All the LRUs I've mentioned above are of Russian origin and are imported off-the-shelf.

To Anon@9:16AM: Are yaar, that remark by Ajai was made in jest. If you take it seriously it can only mean that since the PM's wife is not a servant of the GoI (and therefore not sworn to secrecy under the OSA), she too, like any other well-meaning and patriotic Indian citizen, WILL NOT be allowed even a glimpse of the full-scale ATV and will instead have to make do with a vaguely-fabricated or generic scale-model of the ATV! So, take your pick on what you 'want' to believe.

subroto said...

Hi Prasun,

What is the status of the Indian MMRCA Project? Is the flight evaluation of the fighter jets started? If not then why there is delay....

Prasun K Sengupta said...

To Subroto: The teams of IAF ETPs will depart India to their overseas destinations only next month.

Aaditya said...

To Prasun Sir & Friends:

Dassault will send two Rafales equipped with the new generation active electronically scanned array (AESA) radars for flight trials to India in September, the (french) head of military aircraft, Eric Trappier said.

"India is a marathon, not a sprint," he said, referring to India's international tender for 126 medium range multi-role combat aircraft.

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=4201981&c=AIR&s=TOP

sachin_sathe said...

prasun

Somehow i get a feeling tht the trials of Tiffy and SHornet by ETP personel of the IAF will hav a big say in selection of the engine and thus will determine the path Tejas Mk.2 takes.Wht r ur thoughts?

The MMRCA contest is really heating up with Dassault announcing their intension to bring 2 birds with AESA on-board(i think these probably will be same ones which took part in swiss competition). Tht brings the total of 3 contenders (F-16,F-18E/F & rafale) bringing working AESA's to the field trials & i guess these may well turn out to be the shortlisted entries.wht do u think?

Anonymous said...

“We’re taking Eurofighters flown by the German Air Force for the trials. And the idea is to conduct weapon trials in the United Kingdom using their aircraft. This will give the Indian Air Force a chance to interact with two other forces using the Eurofighter,” said Bernhard Gerwert, CEO of EADS Military Air Systems. He was talking to Express on the sidelines of the Royal Air Tattoo, an air show involving NATO air forces at Fairford, London.

“We see India as a partner rather than just as another prospective market. We want your country to play a role in future EADS programmes.

We’re open to the possibility of India becoming a manufacturing hub for our future exports,’’ Gerwert said.

As a first step EADS will launch its aviation research centre in Bangalore.

“We have already entered into a memorandum of understanding (MoU) with L&T. EADS will recruit 200 engineers in the next two years who will work on avionics and sensors,’’ he said adding that the manufacture of certain critical components could be totally offset to India.

“These parts will come directly to our assembly line like other components reaching us from partner countries UK, Spain or Italy. This will also give India a chance to showcase its technological prowess in handling complex technology,’’ he pointed out.

EADS has also decided to support India’s effort to fly an indigenous Light Combat Aircraft.

The LCA team recently visited Munich and held discussions with EADS to identify possible grounds where the two firms could meet to support the LCA programme. India’s LCA is facing cost and time overruns following a host of technical and technological issues.

According to Gerwert, EADS will help in LCA flight evaluation and tests. We are ready to provide engine technology which no other country will be ready to. The benefits we plan to give India are unparalleled, he said.

But according to IAF sources, Eurofighter is facing a tough flight plan as it costs more than its competitors.

“There are several positives like a modern airframe, avionics etc. We need to wait for the field trials to be over before any conclusion can be drawn,’’

http://www.expressbuzz.com/edition/story.aspx?Title=EADS+looks+for+an+edge&artid=dekFxU7OQKM=&SectionID=oHSKVfNWYm0=&MainSectionID=oHSKVfNWYm0=&SectionName=VfE7I/Vl8os=&SEO=

Anonymous said...

For my HTML illiterate friends here is how you post a link-

<a href="http://put your link here"> XYZ </a>

This would appear as XYZ

Anonymous said...

to anon @ 3:28am
thanks a lot man for the tip.

subroto said...

Prasun,

As per the schedule, Flight evaluation of the fighters must have stated in the month of June 2009.Indian Air force has submitted the Technical Evaluation report of the six aircraft to the MOD long back. Defence Bureaucrats are unnecessary delaying the MMRCA Project.
Now, I smell Fishy about the project.