Sunday, August 9, 2009

BEL-Made Hardware For Upgrading MBTs & ICVs















136 comments:

Anonymous said...

Prasun,

A few questions on the T-72 upgrade:

The package for ongoing CIA T-72 upgrade is the above posted BEL one with ERA developed by DRDO?

Is there any upgrade planned for the FCS other than TISAS which is a partial one? Also do they plan to use new gen ERA (eg. Kontakt-5) compared to the 1st Gen currently?

Has the IA decided on new engines for the T-72?

indranil said...

1)So India does have Tank gunnery and driving simulators.
2)How come these guys use pentiun 3processors for BMS? It went out of market half a decade ago.

Prasun K Sengupta said...

To Anon@2:11AM: The TISAS was specific to the gunner, next comes the commander's aids, i.e. 360-degree panoramic sight and related digital vectronics. I'm not aware about the DRDO's ERA tiles being classified as either 1st gen or 2nd gen or 3rd gen. Three powerpacks (comprising the engine AND transmission) are on offer from Russia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, and a joint Polish/German industrial consortium.

To Indranil: Yes, and for the Arjun Mk1 all three MBT turrets of the platoon gunnery simulators are networked so that one turret can be configured to oppose another, something like dissimilar combat. I wouldn't worry about Pentium 3 processors as even the core avionics computer and digital map generator developed for the Tejas LCA use INTEL 486 processors.

Anonymous said...

Prasun,
Can the c-130 Super Herc be converted into a tanker? Is it a MRTT or just cargo plane?

Prasun K Sengupta said...

The C-130J-30 that the IAF has ordered will feature a stretched airframe for greater internal volume. And just like the IL-78MKI-90 it will be equipped with a roll-on-roll-off floor for various 'quick-change' configurations, meaning it will be able to accommodate two detachable internal fuel tanks of the type (but different dimension) on board the IL-78MKI-90, as well as 12 passenger seats in an executive/VIP configuration. So, the answer is yes, it can serve as MRTT and once the AW-101 VIP helicopters are delivered to the IAF, you will see such helicopters being refuelled in mid-air by the C-130J-30, in certain cases. In fact, this was one of main evaluation points (the AW-101's higher cruising speed and its ability to being refuelled in mid-air by the Hercules) that made the IAF tilt in favour of the AW-101. The only other such helicopter with similar characteristics is the Eurocopter EC-721 Cougar. Both these helicopters are also, consequently, excellent CSAR platforms.

Aadi said...

Prasun, nor able to maximize the first picture "advanced land navigation system for AFV" . Please do the necessary.

Vasiliy Fofanov said...

So that you get a glimpse into the real Soviet war doctrine and subsequent weapon development programmes, I have referred our discussions with my friend a retired KGB Col.Klimov.Should hear from him directly.

Anonymous said...

these look like screen shots, are they?

Prasun K Sengupta said...

To Vasiliy Fofanov: Many thanks. But I've already have had access to such data resources since the early 1980s and continue to do so from the Russian Army's Armoured Warfare/Armoured Vehicles R & D Directorate, as well as from the Command and Staff Colleges and Armoured Warfare training institutions from South Asia and Europe, rest assured.

Anonymous said...

to prasun

israelis testing "iron fist" to protect merkava but india should also get this to protect t90,72

Prasun K Sengupta said...

To Anon@10:17AM: The IDAS has already been selected for the T-90S and therefore going for the Iron Fist APS won;t be a good idea at all. As for the T-72s, they've outlived their utility as MBTs and in my personal view should instead be modified into something like the BMP-T Terminator tank support vehicle and be operated alongsside the T-90S MBTs. For, in tomorrow's network-centric battlespace it is the operational tempo that will play a pivotal role in securing and maintaining battlespace dominance.

Anonymous said...

to prasun

what you think about this tank

http://img443.imageshack.us/img443/9695/tjorniritnsd9.jpg

seems to be superior to t90

Anonymous said...

prasun,in black eagle tank picture crew cabin is seperated from ammunition

smith said...

Hi prasun,

I am the regular visitor to your blog from the beginning of this blog. Your blog has been very informative.

I had an question sir that why Indian army have maintained such a huge number of absolute tank inventory of T55s and T72s till now. Even when they planed to modernize the armored regiments with T90s back 10 years ago? Why they haven't planed to use these huge number of absolute inventory as what the Israel has done by modifying their MBTs (manufactured or captured) into armored personal carrier or support vehicles for future MBTs or to say for future war scenarios for e.g. T55/54 converted to Achzarit or Merkava into Namer? Why don’t we modify them, T55 into a vehicle like Achzarit or T72 into the BMP-T Terminator tank support vehicle and operate them alongside with the T-90S MBTs this would replace the current absolute APCs and support vehicles instead of importing them also there will be the room for more MBTs which will be inducted in coming years (be it the T90s or Arjun MK 1&2).

smith said...

continuing with my previous post: these heavy modified APC could also be operated in the insurgency operations or tackling terrorism in Kashmir which is very similar to city like warfare where these terrorists take a hold of a building and attack on army personnel’s with heavy fire from AK 47 and hand Grenades where these APC can be brought to the cover of our forces and get closed to the target also these APCs can operate Remote Control Weapon System (RCWS) to knock them out. Even in the jungle operation like one happened in the forests of Gurez Valley where security forces were looking for the militant group that had sneaked into the valley. This may save hundreds of life of our soldiers. Technically speaking these intruders don't use heavy weapons like anti tank weapons be it gun or missile or rocket as they have to move swiftly.

What are your views prasun

Prasun K Sengupta said...

To Anon@7.55AM & 7.57AM: That model, as you know, is the Black Eagle technology demonstrator originally designed by the St Petersburg-based Kirov Plant and unveilled in September 1997 as the Chiorny Oriol (Black Eagle). However, after its second appearance at Omsk in 1999, this representative MBT simply disappeared as it was seen to be demonstrative of all the correct lessons learnt by Russian MBT designers the hard way, especially after the catastrophic destruction of several T-72Ms in the Middle East in 1991, and of the scores of T-80BVs lost in Chechnya throughout the 1990s. The principal lessons learnt included the following:
1) The peculiar placement of the autoloader carousel in the T-64, T-72, T-80 and T-90 MBTs had a severe negative impact not only on MBT structural survivability, but also on crew survivability.
2) This called for the ammo stowage bustle and its autoloader on a radically redesigned turret rear compartment (something which Ukraine has also done with its Oplot-M MBT design to fulfil a Pakistan Army reqmt).
3) The need to incorporate a digital hunter-killer fire-control system that included a commander's independent 360-degree panoramic sight.
Now, had the Russian Army decided to integrate such a turret with the existing hulls of the T-80U or T-90S (which also could have included a 1,200hp multi-fuel engine), then today they would have had an extremely lethal and competitive MBT to market worldwide. Hell, Russia could even have asked India to pump in some R & D funds up-front (as was the case with the Su-30MKI programme) so that such a radical T-90S variant could start rolling off the assembly line at Nizhny Tagil by early 2001. But for some mysterious reason, Russia deliberately decided to stick to the T-72-derived T-90 hull-and-turret design. As a consequence, the T-90S had to and still has to needlessly but inevitably compete with the likes of Ukraine's T-80UD, T-84 and now the Oplot-M; Slovakia's T-72M2 Moderna; and Poland's PT-91M. Now, all that is left of potential export prospects for the T-90S are (excluding India) countries like Venezuela, Algeria and Libya, all of which are not likely to use them for tank-versus-tank battles, but more for internal security and constabulary operations. And in the meantime, Ukraine can now claim that it has been the first to take the T-80 family to its mature conclusion by developing the Oplot-M.

Prasun K Sengupta said...

To Smith: Hi! Several T-55s were converted into APCs, the Taymour being one of them from OFB. But these were principally exported to Afghanistan. There are also a few hundred T-55s that were upgunned in the early 1980s (with the British L-7 rifled-bore cannon)with Poland's assistance and it is these tanks that are now being used by the recce and scout platoons attached to the Indian Army's mechanised infantry formations. Regarding the T-72Ms and T-72M1s, my personal view is that they should be modified into tank support vehicles or tank destroyers like the BMP-T Terminator. Even the upgraded T-72CIA Ajeya MBTs packed with ERA tiles will not withstand the firepower of modern-day shoulder-launched LAWs (I saw this way back in 1993 in Sweden during a firepower demo when an AT-4 effortlessly pierced the side-armour of a T-80BV fitted with ERA). On the other hand, it today battlefields, be it in flat terrain or undulated terrain or even in built-up areas, the MBT faces a diverse range of anti-tank threats, ranging from non-line-of-sight anti-armour missiles to SACLOS anti-armour missiles and LAWs. Therefore, it is imperative that any contemporary MBT today should always be accompanied by a BMP-T-type vehicle to sanitise the MBT's operating areas by seeking, engaging and destroying hostile infantry forces equipped with anti-tank weapons. That is why several European armies are now upgrading their ICVs and equipping them with the very same type of thermal imager-equipped commander's panoramic sight as that to be found on the MBT. One Serbian OEM has even developed a raisable mast-mounted thermal imaging LORROS (long-range recce-cum-observation sight) that can go on board the command variants of T-72 and T-90 MBTs.

Prasun K Sengupta said...

To Smith: Usage of tracked APCs for counter-insurgency operations in hilly terrain will not be conducive. However, even 4 x 4 wheeled APCs like the BRDM-2 can be sufficiently modified to serve as rapid intervention vehicles in built-up areas and such vehicles can also be equipped with remotely operated and turret-mounted weapons as well as surveillance sensors. But in Kammu & Kashmir, especially in the countryside, whenever internal security forces close-in on a built-up structure, there are various other hand-held barricade-breaching weapons and tools, plus other options such as 20mm anti-materiel rifles that can be put to use with far better results instead of using APCs to knock-down man-made structures. In the jungle areas, very thick forests prevail over hilly terrain and therefore it will be impossible to deploy wheeled or armoured APCs within such forests for search-and-destroy operations. Therefore, such operations will always be manpower-intensive.

Anonymous said...

to prasun

Russian MBT designers the hard way, especially after the catastrophic destruction of several T-72Ms in the Middle East in 1991
-------------------------------
you have to acknowledge that those
EYEraqi t72 had no night fighting capability

and most of them were destroyed in aerial strikes by apaches,a10 and oither aircraft not in tank to tank battle

for your satisfaction i will upload videos for that

Anonymous said...

indian navy mig29k in indian colours

http://www.flightglobal.com/assets/getAsset.aspx?ItemID=30374

Prasun K Sengupta said...

To Anon@4:54PM: I never claimed that most of the Iraqi T-72s were destroyed in tank versus tank engagements. Irregardless of whether any tank is destroyed by aerial fire or field artillery fire or tank fire, tank survivability and crew survivability features should be up to certain standards, which the T-72Ms and T-72M1s weren't by 1991. And as the Russians themselves discovered, even the T-80BVs were inadequately protected sideways against RPG/LAW-type weapons. Therefore, you can see the lengths to which Ukraine has gone to accord protection to the Oplot-M MBT which has been developed for Pakistan.

Anonymous said...

to prasun

even the T-80BVs were inadequately protected sideways against RPG/LAW-type weapons.
----------------------------------
very true

tanks can't hide from air launched anti tank munitions and missiles

but this is also true that in 2006 merkava4 was destroyed

biggest weekness in merkava4 armour is its rear and the bottom and in the rear there is a hatch to bring the troops inside the tanks and this is what the pelestinians came to know about

pelestinians came to know about this weeknees of merkava4 from israeli web sites and they used this vital info in 2006 and destroyed isreali tanks by using rpg and mines

indranil said...

Hi Prasun!
There is a lot of talk about hit survivability on this blog. But frankly how many tanks in the world can survive a hit by a modern AT missile?

indranil said...

I am unable to understand the use of modified APCs in a tank hunting role. I mean wont these lightly arrmoured vehicles be more vulnerable than a tank?

smith said...

Hi Prasun,

Thanks for reply.

Tarmour AFV looks like a pillbox, it’s a tank and it doesn’t have the slope armor? I did some google on it but there is insufficient information or pictures that may show the tank from all sides so that one can get look at its features. Also would like to know whether it is still in use in Afghanistan and in Indian army if any.
If at all possible for you please guide me to the appropriate site if you know any for the Tarmour AFV, it will be delightful if you pen down some more information on it also on the future development of ICV or APC Tracked and Wheeled or Robotic one with DRDO, CRVDE or any agencies in India.

I also want to know that why haven’t Indian Army gone for the HAPC (Heavy Armor Personnel Carrier) like Israel? It will be very useful in near future combats because of its characteristics of having extra protection with little expense on the old inventory also the examples have been set by the Israeli Defense Forces by using them very effectively in the combat zones while Russian are also developing different types of HAPC.

Also what are your views on such vehicles if used in current or the future warfare? We have been developing all new ICV to phase out the current Russian BMP. The ICV is a light vehicle which will be very useful for quick deployment as it is easily transportable by our transport aircrafts (IL76) but aren’t HAPC will required as they provide real protection to infantry when they are deployed in the formation with MBTs. How would you have composed our Armored, Mechanized Infantry and Paratroopers Regiments if you get the chance?

Tarmour AFV:
http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=145107
http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=4325&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=40
http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/land-forces/47701-new-heavy-apc-indian-tarmour.html

Unmanned robotic ground vehicles being developed:
http://www.thehindu.com/2008/12/17/stories/2008121760721400.htm

Anonymous said...

There is a lot of talk about hit survivability on this blog. But frankly how many tanks in the world can survive a hit by a modern AT missile?
---------------------------------
none

smith said...

To
Anonymous said...

There is a lot of talk about hit survivability on this blog. But frankly how many tanks in the world can survive a hit by a modern AT missile?
---------------------------------
none


Why people forget that tanks don’t operate alone they operate with APCs which carries infantry soldiers who takes care of these modern AT missiles also the same weapon (modern AT missiles) are carried by these APC they are for support role where the MBT takes care of enemy MBT The APC takes care of its infantry while the infantry takes care of enemy infantry who are armed with modern AT missiles.

Its same as the vulnerability of an infantry solders in the battlefield as there are hundreds of weapons to kill them like pistols, rifles, mines, grenades, missiles, bombs, even biological, chemical, nuclear etc. please let me know how many foot soldiers can hold their grounds with that hit.

NONE

But still they are on the field with thousand of protection gears or techniques (warfare) to make them less vulnerable. This doesn’t mean that they are absolute now or less effective in today’s warfare. Same is with any weapon they evolve (with there gears or techniques in using them) with their threats.

Please correct me if I am wrong Prasun.

Anonymous said...

what tank and soldiers can do if there is no airforce to proctect them from enemy aircrafts

Anonymous said...

Perish

Prasun K Sengupta said...

To Anon@5:04AM: Firstly, it is absolutely ridiculous to use ANY MBT in a terrain and for operations it was never meant to be used for. Till today, no MBT has been designed to engage in guerrilla warfare that that too in built-up areas in urbanised terrain. Even heavily armoured vehicles or infantry combat vehicles if employed in this manner will suffer the same fate. Whenever mobility and freedom of manoeuvre are highly restricted any vehicle, no matter how up-armoured they're, will suffer catastrophic destruction from IEDs (which can be designed using up to six or eight 130mm artillery rounds all hooked up to form a unitary landmine). That's why now a wide range of ROVs equipped with all-qweather surveillance sensors as well as weapons like automatic three-barrel grenade launchers and anti-materiel rifles are being introduced into service in large numbers for counter-guerrilla warfare in urbanised terrain.

Anonymous said...

Hi Prasun,
I read the news in "theasiandefence" blog that Malaysian Air Force received Su-30MKM. It says "The aircraft has the same aerodynamically perfect airframe, state-of-the-art engine with the Thrust Vector Control (TVC) and the most advanced digital fly-by-wire system."

Recently our Defense Minister said, there are some problems with Su-30MKI FBW.
So with respect to MKM, does it mean that Su-30MKM's FBW is better than MKI's FBW?
Do Su-30MKM has anything better than Su-30MKI? What are the possibilities of using and understanding of Su-30MKM by PAF? Now a days, it seems, many of the Muslim nations are turning against India, buying or already bought some of the best weapons/ships/fighter planes, etc., and signing defense agreement with Pakistan.

Prasun K Sengupta said...

To Indranil: In terms of MBT survivability, it has clearly emerged since the early 1980s that covering the MBT's frontal arc and sides with ERA tiles was only a short-term 'band'aid' undertaking, as advances in the designing and shaping of kinetic-energy penetrators made of DU or tungsten carbide for APFSDS rounds, coupled with the increase of cannon calibres (from 44 right up to 55) have made the cannon extremely potent and the only two demonstrated countermeasures are: additional add-on armour; and active defence systems. These two options apply to MBTs when operating in open cross-country terrain against other MBTs as well as against PGMs launched from field artillery howiters or combat aircraft. But of course, if one MBT were to be sequentially or simultaneously attacked by, say 15 to 20 LAW or guided anti-armour missile rounds, then of course the firepower balance would tilt heavily against MBTs. Which then brings us to your second point. MBTs don't need to operate with APCs modified for anti-tank roles. It would be suicidal to do so. What we're talking about here is the need for a 'tank support vehicle' (either a heavily armoured ICV--not APC--or a hevaily armoured MBT housing a remotely operated turret equipped with twin 40mm cannons firing APDS rounds, automatic grenade launchers, and ATGMs like the Nag or Milan 2ER or Konkurs-M) that will neutralise the threats posed to an MBT by RPG/LAW/short-range guided anti-armour missiles, thus freeing the MBT to concentrate on hunting for and engaging hostile MBTs. This is what combined arms warfare is all about.

Prasun K Sengupta said...

To Smith: You could get more data on the Tarmour from the OFB's website as it is OFV that is the principal production/exporting authority for this vehicle. Regarding HAPCs, the Indian Army is not in favour of them as it believes it is not reqd. Instead, it rightly needs a HICV (like the souped-up Bradley or Warrior) equipped with add-on armour plates. To this end, the BMP-2 will not be suitable even when equipped with the Kliver turret. But if the Abhay could be up-armoured with add-on ceramic armour plates and equipped with something like the Kliver turret, then it could perhaps qualify as a HICV. I'm told that the Army's HQ Training Command has already drawn the appropriate lessons for past combined arms exercises designed to test the efficacy of the planned Brigade-sized Battle Groups in high-tempo combined-arms operations. Consequently, the GSQR for the HICV is now being drafted by the Army HQ's Directorate of Mechanised Forces, following which customisation of the Abhay HICV will begin with Israeli industrial inputs. That explains why there's been no additional info released by the DRDO on the Abhay's R & D programme for the past 18 months.

Prasun K Sengupta said...

To Anon@8:46AM: What will happen to the tank is exactly what happened in 1971 at Longewalla. As for the foot-soldiers, they might as well put their heads in between their legs and kiss their arses goodbye!

indranil said...

Why is that western tanks dont use ERA whereas most Russian tanks use them? Is it because superior armour tech or some other reason?

Prasun K Sengupta said...

To Anon@10:50AM: The RMAF has now begun receiving the last six Su-30MKMs and the last of them will arrive in Malaysia by the end of this month. They were supposed to arrive early last year, but the RMAF at the last minute decided to 're-interpret' the written contract's terms and conditions and insisted on the last six Su-30MKMs being uploaded with the applications software for the THALES-built Damocles LDP PRIOR to the aircraft's arrival in Malaysia. The contract, on the other hand, had clearly specified that such software uploading would take place in Malaysia AFTER all 18 aircraft had been delivered.
As for the fly-by-wire flight control system of either the Su-30MKI or Su-30MKM, they're both of the same standard and are identical. There's no fundamental design flaw with the fly-by-wire flight control system of either the Su-30MKI or Su-30MKM. In case of the fatal Su-30MKI crash late last April, the problem was due to 'human error' related to both a deficiency of cockpit resource management skills of the aircrew, and a previously unforeseen reqmt for installing early-warning mechanisms to forestall or provide warning cues of power supply failure to both the mission computer and the digital flight-control computer. Both these problems can be resolved by inducting into service the vital cockpit procedures trainers and undertaking minor re-engineering works on the cockpit. By the way, two weeks ago the RMAF Chief made an unscheduled official visit to India, where he was briefed about all this.
In terms of performance parameters, the Su-30MKI is far too superior as of now since the Su-30MKM is not yet armed with R-77 BVRAAMs, does not have on-board data links to communicate with AEW & C-type aircraft, and lacks the kind of HUMS avionics that's on board the Su-30MKI.

Prasun K Sengupta said...

To Indranil: The easiest and most common answer any informed Russian will give is: financial reasons. That apart, the technological leapfrog being witnessed in favour of larger calibre cannons combined with greatly refined designs of KE penetrator rods has far outstripped the technological advances in ERA-related R & D. That's why Germany's Rheinmetall and France's Nexter Systems are quite happy to stick to the 120mm main gun (with 55 and 52 calibres, respectively) for now, although both have already developed and demonstrated 140mm cannons and their related APFSDS rounds. In addition, the new-generation active protection systems now on offer not only provide more reliability, but are also easier to install and impose comparatively lesser weight penalties.

Prasun K Sengupta said...

To Indranil: Even for the T-90S it is indeed possible to install add-on armour instead of ERA tiles, but to compensate for increased weight the powerpack will have to be uprated to deliver about 1,250hp, instead of the 1,000hp available now. The Ukrainians have already developed 1,200hp engines (already on the Al Khalid) and are developing 1,500hp powerpacks. Therefore, the Al Khalid MBT can definitely compromise on its mobility in order to cater to increased add-on modular armour/active protection systems reqmts should the need arise in the near future. For the T-90S, on the other hand, if an uprated powerpack is not forthcoming, then it has to make do with only an on-board active protection, and forego the option of add-on armour installation, especially on its sides.

indranil said...

1)So what you are saying is that gun/projectile tech is ahead of armour tech unless designers are willing to pay heavy penalties in terms of weight. Does that then justify the principle of hit avoidance instead of hit survivability?
2) Is India planning for uprating of the t90 engine?

Prasun K Sengupta said...

To Indranil: Yes. Gun/projectile technologies have outstripped integral armour tech and this trend is likely to continue with the introduction in future of 140mm or 152mm cannons. The same goes for greatly improved shaped-charge and tandem warheads of anti-tank LAWs and guided-missiles. But the way out of the technological impasse (for vehicle protection without compromising on hit survivability) is the availability now of active protection systems like the Arena, IDAS, Iron Fist. etc. This does not mean that hit avoidance-related technologies will not become obsolete. Warning devices like laser warning systems, radar absorbing IR signature-defeating camouflage systems/paints and decoy dispensers will remain on board.

Prasun K Sengupta said...

To Indranil: The only two available options for acquiring uprated powerpacks for the T-90 are from Russia and Ukraine. Russia's Klimov Corp has to date developed only a 1,250hp gas turbine (originally for the T-80), whereas Ukraine can supply diesel engines rated between 1,200hp and 1,500hp, and is in fact offering the 1,200hp engine for retrofit on India's T-72M1s, compared to the 1,000hp engine (same as that on the T-90S/M) being offered by Russia for the improved T-72M1.

indranil said...

So then a traditional Russian tank with an autoloader carousel with a good APS will can be justified as a good tank design.

Prasun K Sengupta said...

No. Not quite. Let me put it this way: the hull of the T-90 (minus the autoloader) mated with the turret of the Black Eagle (containing the autoloader, hunter-killer digital fire-control system, laser/radar warning system, and an active protection suite), and equipped with ceramic add-on armour on the frontal glacis, turret-top and both sides of the hull to protect the roadwheels and crew compartment, a 1,300hp powerpack, and a 52-calibre 125mm smoothbore cannon should do the trick.

Anonymous said...

How much time it takes to load a tank with all its supplies ?

Which is faster to load ? Arjun / T90 ??

indranil said...

Thanks for the info on the powerpack options. But then is India considering uprating the T72 and T90 powerpacks? If they are then I think the Ukranian option is the only alternative as gas turbine engines are known to be fuel guzzlers and also leave plume of hot engine exhaust with a pronounced IR signature.

smith said...

Hi Prasun,

Thanks for reply

There is news about Unmanned Ground Vehicle tested by CRVDE. Do you have any thing else on it. Whether this Unmanned Ground Vehicle development was taken with the constant involvement of army (end user) and the Factory people (producer) or the same process have been followed which was used to develop the previous armaments.

Also would like to know what power pack (engine) is going to be used in ARJUN Mk 2. I still don’t understand why we are not able to develop our own tank engines. What are the difficulties we are facing? Why the private sector companies are not involved. Where else they got the experience in this sector. e.g. Kirloskar, L&T, Mahindra, Ashok Leyland, Tata Motors. They all have a world wide access to the resources and also the human resources with great experience.

I would like to know sir that why we are not going for R&D or developing our own engines (steam turbine, gas turbine, turbojet, turbofan or even the diesel engines) which are the most vital systems for our aircrafts, tanks, and ships why we depend heavily on the foreign partners. Just think that tank, helicopters, ships, without these systems they will be useless. Why don't we produce these subsystems (most vital) first instead of producing the main weapon system? Why there is no special design Bureau who can work on the engines or bring together different R&D houses and institutions to work on the same. The country like us should invest heavily on these technologies as we know that no one in the world be it Russian, German, Japanese, USA etc. will handover you these vital systems completely they will keep the known how of the most critical part with themselves for example blades for aircrafts engines or propellers for ships, no mater what relation do we have with them they are not going to fully hand over you these critical techs.

Why are our attempt to make Kaveri engines fly our LCAs have been failed? Are we scrapping the project (Kaveri) which could fly our future MCA?

Also check the Kirloskar site, one of its broacher got the Ural-375 truck picture on it. Does Ural use the kirloskar supplied engines.
http://kirloskarapps.kirloskar.com/kirloskar/web/CONEXPO_SL90.pdf

.

ZIL said...

Prasun,

Vasiliy is no longer able to post his comments freely on you blog, so I'll say it for him: the post from Tuesday, August 11, 2009 12:52:00 AM signed "Vasiliy Fofanov" wasn't written by him. I dont know if you can do something to prevent this kind of things in the future, but if you can - please do. Thank you.

smith said...

Prasun,

Is there going to be an Auto loader in arjun mk1&2? If yes what kind of Auto loader and who is going to design one.

smith said...

Prasun,

Is it possible for India to produce artillery guns as we have gained the knowledge for making rifle gun barrel for Arjun. Would it be a difficult task for us to develop the smoothbore barrels if needed?

As the future development of the tanks will focus on crew survivability and technology may also lead to more tank guns with autoloaders, mounted in remote controlled turrets be it a light or heavy vehicle, are we going to have some one (like ARDE) to specialized on turret designing be it for tanks, mobile artillery or naval crafts. The only name we come to know in this area internationally is Bofors (BAE subsidiary).

Is ARDE moving forward on future gun form the current 120mm rifle gun of Arjun.

Prasun K Sengupta said...

To indranil@2:02AM: Only the T-72M1s will be re-engined, not the T-90s. The Russians, Ukrainians, Polish and Croations are in the fray for supplying the diesel-based powerpacks (engine and gearbox). The conventional wisdom of gas turbines being gas guzzlers, though true, does not negate its prospects for practical applications. With revised operational logistics procedures, the issue of battlefield logistics support for gas turbine-equipped MBTs can be easily addressed. One also has to note here the fact that the Indian Army's Aviation Corps presently lacks medium-lift utility helicopters ans this imbalance will be adressed only by 2012 when the Army's Combat Aviation Brigades begin emerging and being equipped with helicopters like the Dhruv ALH and Mi-17V-5-type helicopters. Only then will it be possible for the Army to vastly enhance and improve its battlefield logistics capabilities. When that happens, fuel supplies for any gas turbine-equipped armoured vehicle will become the least of one's problems. As for IR signature mitigation for such vehicles, there are several mature technologies available today to address this issue.

Prasun K Sengupta said...

To Smith: The unmanned ground vehicle from the DRDO is a technology demonstration testbed as of now. As far as operational requirements go, the Indian Army wants to field a remotely-operated version of the tracked CMF-72 mine-clearing vehicle, based on lessons learnt from the post-OP Parakram mine-clearing challenges encountered in 2002-2003. At a later stage, customised unmanned BMP-2 ICVs will be fielded with mast-raisable LORROS thermal imaging sensors for battlefield surveillance, recce and scout roles in support of mechanised ground formations.
For the projected Arjun Mk2, a 1,500hp engine is being developed. But mind you, even this engine will have imported content as most of the vendors involved in developing various components of the engine all have foreign joint venture industrial partnerships and licenced-manufacturing alliances. Personally, I don't think anything is wrong with this approach as long as the desired results are obtained in a time-bound manner and within earmarked budgetary allocations. The reasons why the DRDO failed to develop the Arjun Mk1's 1,500hp engine are quite simple: the DRDO did not have any in-house expertise in this area and due to its total lack of experience in project management in the 1970s, it even failed to sub-contract the R & D effort to either public-sector companies like BEML, or private-sector companies like Kirloskar Cummins. It even arrogantly rejected a French offer in 1973 to co-develop a 1,500hp engine, and it did this again in 1984 by refusing an offer GE to co-develop a customised gas turbine engine and its gearbox for the Arjun Mk1! Secondly, the DRDO ALSO failed to put in place a parallel R & D effort to develop the transmission system and even for the Arjun Mk2 there's no existing R & D effort aimed at developing the transmission system. It must also be borne in mind that during the days of the licence raj in the 1970s the private sector was hardly taken into confidence by the DRDO for such ambitious weapons R & D projects. Another problem is the lack of an industrial roadmap that embraces the acquisition of dual-use core technological competencies and production engineering know-how. For example, had the Indian Railways invested in hydropneumatic suspensions for railway coaches in the early 1980s (even by going for joint venture licenced-production alliances with foreign companies), by the late 1980s or early 1990s such suspension systems would have been easily available for the Arjun Mk1 and attractive financial terms and conditions. But this was not thought of at all and instead the DRDO tried to reverse-engineer the suspensions designed and obtained from Textron Systems and failed miserably. In the end Kirloskar Engineering stepped in and came up with a suitable hydropneumatic suspension system.

Prasun K Sengupta said...

To Smith: When it comes to aerospace R & D it must be borne in mind that one gets returns on one's investments only thtough large production volumes. This in turn happens only when one begins investing in the civilian aviation sector and then follows it with military spinoffs. Thus, in India's case the R & D efforts should not started with the Kaveri turbofan, but with smaller turbofans capable of powering 14-seaters like the Saras, followed by turbofans for regional aircraft like the India-Russia IL-214 MRTA. Had this happened, an evolutionart R & D pattern would have emerged and all the necessary in-house test-benches, engine test facilities (even for high-altitude) would have been created (as the commercial orders for the finished products would have amortised all the R & D costs). Instead, by going straight for the Kaveri and Tejas LCA in vain hopes of achieving technology leapfrog, a sustainable R & D/production engineering infrastructure that is also financially viable could never be established. To me that's the reason why the Tejas LCA powered by the Kaveri may never become a reality and that is also the reason why the IL-214 MRTA is also destined to suffer the same fate. In contrast, look at how Brazil's Embraer is developing the rival C-390 MRTA and is emphasizing on promoting it first as a commercial air cargo aircraft and later as a military transport. Therefore, one can safely conclude that the C-390 will achieve overwhelming international marketing success way before the IL-214 MRTA enters the fray.

Prasun K Sengupta said...

To Smith: The Ural-375 was re-engined (from a petrol to diesel engine). Backin the late 1960s and throughout the 1970s almost all motorised vehicles imported by the Indian armed forces from the USSR had petrol engines. If India asked for Made-in-India trucks to be used for towing hardware like Dvina V750VK SAMs or carrying S-125M Pechora SAMs, the Soviets then blandly said either India imported the ENTIRE system (all Soviet-built) or nothing at all. Only in the early 1990s did India begin re-engining of such vehicles of Soviet origin.
The Arjun Mk1 does not have any autoloader. For the Arjun Mk2, after due deliberation, it was decided by the CVRDE that it would tie up with France's Nexter Systems to redesign the Arjun Mk1's turret and equip the Arjun Mk2 with an autoloader similar to that developed for the Leclerc MBT.
Regarding in-house development of futuristic field artillery howitzers, the challenges are far greater than those faced when developing gun barrels for MBTs, simply because unlike the MBT's barrel, a howitzer's barrel must be be more longlasting and be capable of persistent, sustained firings. The whole damn production know-how was obtained by OFB way back in 1988 from Bofors (now SKS Defence, belonging to BAE Systems). But for reasons only too well known this licenced-production programme is still not being activated. In any case, the Army's current reqmt for 155mm/52-cal howitzer calls for it to be motorised and airmobile (both by IL-76MD, or thr to-be-acquired MRTT or by the C-130J-30), therefore it now makes no sense to procure any additional towed field howitzers. As of now no one in India has given any thought to developing a 155mm/52-cal cannon that can be used for the FMBT, for field atillery howitzers, or for navalised turret-mounted main guns. Only BAE Systems, Lockheed Martin. Rheinmetall Defence and Nexter Systems have active on-going R & D projects in this promising area.

indranil said...

1) I had read somewhere (don't recall where)that a locally modified T72 engine uprated to 1000hp has already been selected for the T72 upgrade. Do you have any info?
2)Why did the Indians go for a rifled main gun in the Arjun when most MBTs have a smoothbore gun?

Anonymous said...

hey prasun,can you tell whether the living standard in malaysia for common people is better than india and per person income is better or not compared to india

thanks

Prasun K Sengupta said...

To Indranil: The DRDO was actually trying to develop a new turbocharger for the existing 840hp engine of the T-72M1. But the effort was called off as the DRDO was unable to develop it and presumably 'forgot' to develop the newer transmission. The Indian Army went for a rifled-bore 120mm main gun for the same reasons the British Army adopted the same type of gun for its Challenger 1/2 MBTs.

To Anon@4:38PM: Are you kidding? With the exception of Singapore, Cambodia and Vietnam, all other countries in Southeast Asia are in the dooldrums and they have been so since the late 1990s. There are huge inequities when it comes to national wealth distribution, and there's also a huge infrastructure drought prevailing in the rural areas in these countries. The educational and healthcare systems are also prohibitively expensive as locally available English-educated human resources are hard to come by in these countries. Frankly speaking, these countries will find themselves facing even greater challenges in the years to come in terms of their inability to graduate into knowledge-based societies.

indranil said...

Oh right! I just wanted to know what are the advantages of a rifled main gun over a smoothbore one and vice versa.

smith said...

Hi Prasun,

Thanks for giving your precious time to reply my comments.

As you said that “For the Arjun Mk2,after due deliberation, it was decided by the CVRDE that it would tie up with France's Nexter Systems to redesign the Arjun Mk1's turret and equip the Arjun Mk2 with an autoloader similar to that developed for the Leclerc MBT” which as per my knowledge indicates that the Arjun tank autoloader will be of bustle type and not the carousel one which is a great news for the tanks future, my question is will it be able to load the main gun from any degree or the gun has to be at specific degree for loading and also the tank need to be at specific slope or gradient. Also the auto loader will be monitored and controlled by the computer to select the ammo type, will it be provided to the gunner or both gunner and commander. And what if the autoloader fails to function in the battlefield (in extreme case) will it be possible to the tank crew to load the main gun manually (is CVRDE is also going to look after this option also). The ammunition stored in the current Leclerc MBT is recognized automatically by two bar code sensors fitted on the conveyor does that means that the ammo (APFSDS rounds, HEAT rounds, HESH rounds and the missile to be fired from the main gun) needs to be stored in a specific manner in Arjun.

The Arjun MK1s turret looks similar to Leopard 1. Does the Arjun MK2 turret will have slopes like the Leopard 2? Is CVRDE is considering to remotely control the commanders 12.7mm heavy machine gun which will ensure the commander to safely operate from inside the turret in a battlefield condition (or close combat with enemy infantry soldiers). Do you have any news on the new honeycomb design non-explosive and non-energetic reactive armour (NERA) armour is reportedly being tested on the Arjun.

indranil said...

What are the advantages and disadvantages of rifled and smoothbore main guns?

Anonymous said...

Prasun,
the PAK-FA testbed will be unveiled tomorrow @ MAKS 2009.

Kunal said...

hello prasunji..i have been regularly following your blog and observe that this is the best blog on indian military affairs..this is the first time i am posting a comment..dear sir i would like to know about the recent tests of the Nag ATGM..it was successful on stationary targets, but the news on the hindu did not clearly spell out whether it was succesfull on a moving target? now this is the major area of concern..further does the nag have effective counter measures (in the vehicle and or missile itself) for effective electronic counter measures jamming? your reply shall help me relieve a question pestering me since the time this news came out..very warm regards

Anonymous said...

it looks to me from discussion here that india is in bad shape as PA has T-80UD ,AlKhalid,and is buying T-84 india is stuck with t-90S which is inferior to them. IA really needs arjun in thousands if they want any chance to do damage in quick succession

Prasun K Sengupta How good is their Al zarrar upgrade to T-59/69 compared to IA’s T-72s ???

Anonymous said...

Prasun

Is USA concedering to sell the Predator Drones to Pakistan??

I am asking this beacause this news


India voices concerns over drone sale to Pak

Indian External Affairs Minister S M Krishna has reacted to a possible arms deal involving sale of US drones to Pakistan. Krishna has emphatically told America that an arms sale would create instability in the region adding that in the past, such weapons have always been used against India.

Pakistan has drawn up a big list of military purchases from the United States

Anonymous said...

Prasun any information about the IL-78MKP-90 for PAF when they will be delivered??

Anonymous said...

Prasun

How mamy Mahindra Marksman will be purchased?

any information about them and weapon they can carry?

Prasun K Sengupta said...

To indranil: The smoothbore is definitely a better option when firing APFSDS rounds as there is lesser wear-and-tear of the barrel when compared to rifled-bore guns. However, the latter is considered equally lethal when firing APFSDS rounds. But if one fires APFSDS rounds equipped with DU KE penetrator rods from an existing 44/48-calibre smoothbore cannon (120mm or 125mm), then the smoothbore option is the superior one as DU penetrator rods have a 25% greater armour penetration capability than similar rounds equipped with tungsten-carbide-built KE penetrator rods. On the other hand, the 55-calibre 120mm main gun from Germany's Rheinmenatall assures armour penetration even when firing APFSDS rounds equipped with tungsten-carbide-built KE penetrator rods.

To Smith: The short answer is that the Arjun Mk2's autoloader will be virtually the same as that on the Leclerc. On the Arjun Mk2 the well-proven concept of modular add-on NERA armour blocks on the turret and sides has been adopted. Again, a practice similar to that adopted for the Leclerc and Challenger 2. The .50-cal machine gun will be manually controlled by the MBT commander.

To Anon@12:35PM: The definitive MiG-35UB will be rolled out tomorrow by United Aircraft Corp's Sokol Aircraft Factory at Nizhny Novgorod (and not at MAKS 2009). As I had always claimed earlier, the MiG-29M2 that was painted over as the MiG-35 (due to Russian stupidity) has never been the definitive MiG-35. By tomorrow the mystery will be solved at last. Two separate groups of mediapersons have been invited for the MiG-35 rollout ceremony: one from India and the other from the rest of the world. I'll be there as part of the latter group.

To Kunal: Many thanks for your compliments. Actually, there's no such complication for the Nag ATGM as its imaging infra-red sensor locks-on to its target before launch and therefore the target, even if it decides to move or manoeuvre, will have no adverse impact whatsoever on the Nag ATGM as the missile's IIR sensor is integrated with a proportional navigation system similar to that used by shoulder-launched VSHORADS missiles.

Prasun K Sengupta said...

To Anon@11:47PM: The PA is procuring the Oplot-M version of the T-84 precisely to counter the Arjun Mk1s. The only way the Al Khalid or Al Zarrar MBTs will be able to take on the Arjun Mk1 is by using APFSDS rounds equipped with DU kinetic-energy penetrator rods. And if such rounds are used against India's upgraded T-72M1 CIAs and T-90S, then these MBTs too will not stand a chance of surviving a direct hit. That may well explain why active protection systems are being procured for the T-90S MBTs. Procuring thousands of Arjun Mk1/Mk2 MBTs is not the solution. Instead, a fleet of 600 Arjun Mk1s and about 800 Mk2s should suffice, thus leaving the existing T-72M1s to be modified into BMP-T Terminator-type combat support vehicles.

Anonymous said...

hey prasun you must be in russia now

Anonymous said...

Prasun can you confirm details about the IL-78MKP-90 for PAF from at MAKS 2009??

smith said...

Hi Prasun,

prasun are you in russia now for MAKS 2009? If yes please get us the details on the show. Also there is the news that PAK-FA T50 testbed will be unveiled please get some updates I am eager to know more.

How much is it true that after MiG lost out to Sukhoi for the PAK FA requirement, it is still continuing to carry out design work on an advanced light fighter Mikoyan Liogkiy Mnogofunktsionalniy Frontovoi Samolyet (Light Multi-function Frontal Aircraft) not the same as T50 PAK FA. This project also has supporters within the Russian air force as a complement to the larger T-50 also India has show some interest in the project before going to PAK FA. Saturn is also looking at an engine version to power this single-seat fighter while the St. Petersburg-based Klimov Company which is also the part of Russian Aircraft Corporation MiG, or RSK MiG, a Russian joint stock company is developing the engine for MiG LMFS. Could you write some more material on this as nothing has been out much on this project and the current status?

Is that true that after a bad experience with the LCA slow development and difficulties, India sought a partner in Russia for the MCA program most probably MiG (LMFS).

What close air defense Indian tanks and armoured vehicles have or will have in scenario like Longewala where Pakistan armored faced the defeat due to lack of such capabilities? Does Tunguska like weapon system accompany with the armored columns?

Anonymous said...

to smith

Is that true that after a bad experience with the LCA slow development and difficulties, India sought a partner in Russia for the MCA program most probably MiG (LMFS)
-------------------------------
u r right,its better to go with Mig/Israel for mca rather than doing it alone

Chinese are using mig for their future 5 gen fighter

Prasun K Sengupta said...

To Smith: Believe me, the T-50 PAK-FA is still some years away from official rollout. At MAKS 2009 the Russian Air Force is only ordering Su-35S, Su-27SM and Su-30MK2. As for buying MiG-35 or even the LMFS, the Russian Defence Ministry is not spending even 1 cent on them! India was never interested in the heavier PAK-FA, but in the lighter twin-engined FGFA. The LMFS was proposed to India as far back as 2005 and the IAF immediately rejected it since no Russian state funding for R & D was available for this aircraft. Nothing has changed since then. As of now it is Sukhoi OKB that will co-design the FGFA with HAL. The LMFS ios therefore dead from both the Russian and Indian side. In any case, the RAC-MiG subsidiary of United Aircraft Corp is in a sad state and it has not yet made any progress payment to Phazotron JSC for starting production of the Zhuk-ME radars for the to-be-upgraded IAF MiG-29B-12s. So this upgrade project too looks set to get delayed. Both RAC-MiG and Phazotron have already spent all their money on the MiG-35 prototype development and don't have any spare funds.
The Tunguskas or any other air defence systems of the Corps of Air Defence Artillery don't move along with the armoured columns as these systems (Tunguskas and Strella-13Ms and Kvadrats) are divisional assets and as such are in the rear areas, not on the frontline.

To Anon@7:25AM: There's no contact whatsoever between RAC-MiG's OKB and China. In fact, China has just signed a long-overdue contract with UKRAINE (not Russia) to procure six Zubr amphibious assault hovercraft and has also offered to buy from Ukraine the entire production line of the turbofan that was originally developed by Ukraine for the Yak-130 LIFT. Looks like the deal will definitely go through and this engine will power the L-15 Falcon LIFT developed by CATIC of China.

Anonymous said...

Prasun, any news on the rollout of the Mig 35. Pics wouls be greatly appreciated.
Thx

Anonymous said...

Russian news agency 'Interfax' informed yesterday, that NIIR 'Fazotron's Zhuk-AE AESA radar has finished an important stage of its flying tests. According to NIIR's chief designer Yury Gus'kov in these tests all air-to-air and air-to-ground radar modes were checked. The testing pilots were very impressed with radar's capability. 'In its last test the radar has disclosed and tracked 3 flying targets on the distance of up to 148 km. All modes of the radar were tested, including in tail-on engagement and close combat ' – said Gus'kov.

Prasun K Sengupta said...

Actually, the MiG-35UB incorporates ALL the airframe modifications/upgradations that are seen on the MiG-29KUB parked at the expo site. About 35% of the airframe is built of composites. But contrary to what is being claimed of the Zhuk-AE AESA radar, there's still a lot of work to be done in terms of systems integration in order to turn the MiG-35 into a fully functional weapons system. Triple ejector racks of the type seen on the Rafale are also on offer for the MiG-35, as will be the AASM PGM. The RLG-INS is the same Sigma-95 from SAGEM as that on the MiG-29K, Su-30MKI and Su-30MKM. Elettronica-built internal EW jammers are also installed. Also, the Klimov RD-33-3OVT turbofans will give the MiG-35 a degree of supermanoeuvrability greater than that of the Su-30MKI.

Anonymous said...

common prasun just post the pics

Anonymous said...

to prasun

about spyder SAM there are two variants one is SHORT RANGE and other is MEDIUM RANGE

and two different types of radars are used so whats the name and detection range of these radars?

thanks

Prasun K Sengupta said...

To Anon@11:17AM: Why? Got used to receiving everything on a silver platter for free, is it? Hang on for a few more months, or hours!

To Anon@11:23AM: The radars used for the SpyDer are only for early warning, not for fire-control or target illumination. As such, any existing 3-D gapfiller radar can be used along with both variants of the Spyder. For the Indian Army and IAF the Rohini and EL/M-4106 will be used.

Anonymous said...

Hi Prasun,
I have couple of queries.
i) Pakistan has been begging for the Predator drone technology. It seems US Govt may consider this after Pakistan's eye-washing actions against so called Pak-Taliban. What is the situation? Does the Obama Admin provide the drone technology to Pak? I am sure that will end up in China's hand and it will be used against India. So in that scenario what India could do?
ii) I read, at the MAKS-2009, Sukhoi will demonstrate Su-47, instead of PAK-FA. Does that mean, United Aircraft Corp will be more concentrating more on Su-47 than PAK-FA?

Thank you.

Prasun K Sengupta said...

To Anon@12:05PM: The PAF hasn't asked for Predators, but the Reaper. But that request has repeatedly been turned down, be it for UAV or UCAV. The only other option is the Chinese WZ-2000 but this is still undergoing flight-tests. But in terms of acquiring such UAVs or UCAVs, the PAF realistically expects to get them only from China, and not the US.
The S-47 Berkut is only a technology demonstrator and will never be series-produced. It is just like the BAE Systems-built EAP and MBB/Rockwell X-31. On the other hand, the T-50 PAK-FA and the FGFA will be series-produced by United Aircraft Corp.

Anonymous said...

to prasun

are the air launched club family missiles also on offer with mig?

Anonymous said...

Don't know why some oldie a**holes at "Bharat Rakshak" feeling pain in their annals over Mikoyan bureau surviving or not if Mig looses MRCA contract?

smith said...

Hi Prasun,

As you said “India was never interested in the heavier PAK-FA” this is because we already had Su 30 MKI we just need an aircraft to replace the ageing MiG29 and Mirage 2000 so the IAF was interested for he lighter twin-engined FGFA if I am right. If this is true then what will MCA project of ADA and DRDO for and IAFs Medium Multi-Role Combat Aircraft (MMRCA)? As today’s technology gives the product the life span of almost 40 years if they are continuously modernize with upgraded kits. Which means that the 126+ fleet of MMRCA and the FGFA will last for the half of the century these all are the medium combat aircraft and the LCA1 & 2 which are the light combat aircraft they too will be there for 40 years and the SU 30 MKI heavy combat air craft which will be also there for almost 40 years also the Indian Navy will have the Mig29k as a medium combat aircraft (MCA) while the naval version of LCA for 40 years. So is the MCA project for the future to replace the MMRCA and the FGFA or just MCA and FGFA are the same projects with different names in both countries, India and Russia? It’s quite confusing can you please arrange these current and future projects to bring out an idea of IAF Fleet (LCA, MCA and HCA) and its other options also, its interesting that all of these are Multirole which should bring down the need for separate fleet of bomber, ECM, Reece, Interceptor etc. (MiG 23, 27, 25, Jaguar).

Also RAC-MiG and Phazotron have already spent all their money (profits made from the sale to Syria, Libiya, Malaysia) on the MiG-35 prototype development and don't have any spare funds that means they must be in deep s**t if they don’t get the contract for MMRCA. Are there any possibilities that the Russian government will step up and plead India to bail them out for the current situation? Also it is notable that Mig 35 is much perfect after Gripen to win the contract as the Grippen is small and single engine and also the cost effective product but it comes in the light combat aircraft category as basically. Even we can get more critical technology for our future aircraft development from Russian which would be not possible with others and also update the MiG 35 according to our requirement with help from Israeli French or Indian industries which could be difficult with others.


Is there any system that goes with the armoured columns on the frontline or should be there any system to be developed for same as the tanks have to face more things on ground and they are not basically right weapon to engage the enemy in the air?

Anonymous said...

to prasun

In any case, the RAC-MiG subsidiary of United Aircraft Corp is in a sad state and it has not yet made any progress payment to Phazotron JSC for starting production of the Zhuk-ME radars for the to-be-upgraded IAF MiG-29B-12s. So this upgrade project too looks set to get delayed. Both RAC-MiG and Phazotron have already spent all their money on the MiG-35 prototype development and don't have any spare funds.
--------------------------------
how much its cost to build mig35?
30-50 million

and a billion dollar contract has been signed to upgrade indian mig29 but out of this 1 billion some amount has to go into russian pocket as profit cuz no country work on loss

if this profit comes out to be 60-80 million they used it on building mig35

and the remaining amount will be used on production of radars and other things

mig29 upgrade has already been delayed 8 months by indian side cuz IAF till now has not specified the avionics needed to be installed

Anonymous said...

Hi Prasun,

I have a question, may be silly, but I curious to ask you. What would be your ideal choice among MRCA contenders given the India’s situation.

Thanks

Anonymous said...

I have a question, may be silly, but I curious to ask you. What would be your ideal choice among MRCA contenders given the India’s situation.
-----------------------------

i give his answer,more su30

Anonymous said...

Prasun,

the mig35 you saw,was TVC installed or not?

Anonymous said...

Hi Prasun,
Many thanks for your replies.
I read the recent interview with Russian Ambassador by Business Standard. In that he says, "Indian Navy's appetite constantly changing". Let me quote him "What is important for India is also the time of delivery. But the point is that if India wants additional equipment, the carrier will cost even more. So if both sides stop and decide, okay no request from India and no increase in price from our side, then we can finalise price and delivery."

What's wrong with IN? Why was IN very short-sighted when they wanted to buy such a huge war machine? Do you think this "short-sightedness" is a weakness in "the plan for future" of IN?

Meantime, Def_Ind_Daily reports, Russian side kept on increasing the price knowing that, IN desperately want the Aircraft Carrier. The delivery will be after 2013! CAG says, INS Vikramaditya will not have air defense system until 2017!

So what is the future of INS Vikramaditya? Whose probs delayed the delivery? IN, Ind Govt, Russia?

Meanwhile, China is going really fast in developing its first aircraft carrier, Varyag and it should be out by next year. I read somewhere that China is going to use Su-33 on its aircraft carrier.

Considering the recent problems with Mig-29 (I am not sure whether the naval version has problems), do you think Su-33 is better than Mig-29?
Thanks in advance.

Prasun K Sengupta said...

To Anon@5:33PM: No Club missiles for the MiG-29K. Only the Kh-35 and Kh-59ME anti-ship cruise missiles.

To Anon@6:16PM: Let me guess. For the very same reason that convinced them all this while that the Su-30MKI was being indigenously built by HAL? That the AL-31FP turbofans were being built indigenously by HAL using locally sourced raw materials? This is what happens with nerds who can't figure out that even the licence to assemble turbofans delivered in semi-knocked-down condition constitutes ToT.

To Smith: The Light Combat Aircraft is LCA in name only. In reality, the definitive Mk2 variant will become the M-MRCA just like the JAS-39 Gripen IN. It is for this reason that I remain unconvinced about the requirement for importing M-MRCAs of a new design. If the operational reqmt just calls for arresting the diminishing nature of the IAF's operational fleet of combat aircraft, then the straightforward answer ought to be to increase the fleet strength of the Su-30MKI. It is just plain stupidity to induct fourth generation M-MRCAs starting 2012 and begin inducting fifth generation M-MRCAs like the FGFA just six years later. As for the MCA proposal, it is just a proposal from ADA to compete against the FGFA. This is because ADA will have no rationale to exist after the Tejas Mk2 LCA has been developed and will have to be disbanded. In order to prevent this, the MCA is being proposed by the DRDO to help ADA exist. The FGFA's R & D efforts will be run entirely by HAL, without any unputs from ADA or DARE or LRDE or any other DRDO-owned lab.
As for the future survival of RAC-MiG, it must be borne in mind that there is no way any weapons importer can make progress payments directly to any Russian weapons manufacturer. Whenever India inks any weapons procurement contract with Russia, the contract is inked by India's MoD and Russia's Rosoboronexport State Corp, not with the Russian OEM. Therefore, in the case of the MiG-29 upgrade contract, the MoD is paying progressive payments to Rosoboronexport, not to RAC-MiG. It is then up to Rosoboronexport to re-transfer the funds to RAC-MiG. Now, whether this happens without hindrance is a big question, since Rosoboronexport's funding distribution priorities are not the same as that for RAC-MiG or Phazotron. Therefore, while there's no delay in payment disbursement by India, when it comes to redistribution of this payment by Rosoboronexport to various Russian OEMs, there's a huge time-lag. It may sound bizarre but that's exactly how the Russian military-industrial financing system works. It is completely opaque and unreliable. Therefore there's no guarantee till this day that all the money India has paid for INS Vikramaditya so far has actually been re-transferred by Rosoboronexport to SEVMASH shipyard.

Prasun K Sengupta said...

To Anon@5:25AM: As I explained above, you may think that the Russian military-industrial infrastructure functions in more or less the same way as those of Europe, Scandinavia or North America. Nothing is further from the truth. That's why till this day the long-promised final assembly line for the IL-76 or IL-78 in Voronezh has still to fructify. That's why China decided to order the six Zubr hovercraft from Ukraine, and not from Russia. That's why Algeria refused to take delivery of the MiG-29SMT. That's why Malaysia has already grounded all its MiG-29s and now wants to trade them in return for acquiring six additional Su-30MKMs. As far as Russian aircraft-building priorities go, only the Su-30/Su-34/Su-35 production lines at KnAPPO, IRKUT and NAPA are active, and will remain active for both the FGFA and PAK-FA projects. None of the existing RAC-MiG industrial facilities have been given any kind of state funding to stay alive. That being the case, I don't see how India can commit 'Harakiri' by opting for the MiG-35.

To Anon@7:18AM: Should this needless exercise of acquiring fourth-generation M-MRCA continue, and should the GEF414 turbofan be selected for the Tejas Mk2 LCA, then my personal choice for the imported M-MRCA will be the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet. But should the EJ-200 turbofan be selected for the Tejas Mk2, then I would be inclined to opt for the F-16IN Super Viper as the imported M-MRCA of choice. In terms of life-cycle costs it has already been established by IAF HQ that both the F-16IN and JAS-39 Gripen IN are offering the most competitive figures. However, if the GE-built F414 turbofan goes on board the Tejas Mk2 LCA, then procurement of the twin-engined Super Hornet becomes an attractive financial proposition.

To Anon@10:37AM: Yes it was.

To Anon@12:03PM: In hindsight, the Indian MoD's decision (the Navy never decides on such issues, it can only make recommendations) to go for a refurbished aircraft carrier from Russia was wrong. Way back in 1984 when it was left to Navy HQ to decide whether and how to acquire its second aircraft carrier, it did so (for INS Viraat) in a record eight months! In hindsight, things would have proceeded a lot quicker had the MoD ordered a brand-new aircraft carrier to be built by SEVMASH, instead of acquiring a refurbished and modified hull. Had this happened, a price tag of US$2.5 billion for a brand-new ship would have been perfectly justified. As for the MiG-29K I have no doubt that it will excel in its performance just as it has been designed to do so. But whether Rosoboronexport or Rosoboronservice India will be able to guarantee trouble-free through-life product support remains to be seen.

Anonymous said...

to prasun

i would like if india acquires the spare part technology for mig29,29k and make those spares in india that would be good

and navy is also buying more mig29k can you please tell is zhuk ae going to be incorporated in those mig29k
or will they be produced at the same plant?

Anonymous said...

hamas acquired the stinger missile but when they tried to fire the missile on Israeli Apache it showed "FRIENDLY AIRCRAFT" and after firing it did not hit the target

same thing can happen if pakis fire amraam it becomes redundant against f18

but also if f18 fires amraam against f16 it also become redundant against paki f16

Hapi said...

hello... hapi blogging... have a nice day! just visiting here....

Prasun K Sengupta said...

To Anon@3:18PM: Is this a bed-time story you're narrating? FYI there are no IIR-based IFF systems in existence to distinguish between different aircraft types, leave alone friendly or hostile. Same also applies to AMRAAM-type BVRAAMs. They don't have integral IFF transponders. Such transponders form part of only fire-control systems, and as for shoulder-launched VSHORADS, RF-based IFF transponders mounted on backpacks are available only from Raytheon, CETC of China, RADWAR and THALES.

Anonymous said...

to prasun

what do you think of this

The Kh-35UE is fitted with a new engine, smaller in length than the original turbojet, providing additional fuel space. The intake design has also been revised. The maximum range is extended to 260km (162.5 miles). The weapon is also claimed to be fitted with a dual mode seeker, providing both active-radar guidance and passive homing.

http://sitelife.aviationweek.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/5/6/5543f61a-bef8-45b1-a676-f021b673968c.Large.jpg
-------------------------------
is this missile also on offer along with kh58mk2?

sachin_sathe said...

prasun,

i think the Mig-29k would hav far lesser problems than the fulcrums in IAF as IN would have already started stocking-up on critical parts & would also benefit from the parts-warehousing contract.

As far as the MMRCA concerned i think it is a waste of money (especially now tht they hav wasted 9 yrs). I think if rapidly gaining nos is the top priority then an Su-27SM modified to hav maximum parts & equipment commonality with Su-30MKI might be best choice(it can be procured of the shelf relatively quickly).wht do u think?

btw the first definitive pic of indian MSMG is finally out.Link below.
http://static.indianexpress.com/m-images/M_Id_101545_defence.jpg

sachin_sathe said...

i also think tht the possible cracks had started to emerge in USSR by 1984 which along with Financial conditions(in India) might hav stopped MoD from going for a new Carrier from Sevmash shipyards.but u may never know real reasons.

As far as future carrier wing goes the FGFA and a Navalised UCAV version of the very first artistic rendition of MCA(tailless version) would probably be the ones and Mig-29K\Kub would be used only till these start becoming a reality with navalised LCA being used for advanced training.

Regarding the VSHORADS program we may in all probability end up seeing SPYDER spplemented by an astra BVRAAM based version with both sharing the seeker and command/control modules along with radars which may explain scrapping of Maitry programme(Why waste twice the money on similar product development when u can fully exploit one which is already in service & has a future where as Maitry was an India specific development & its chances of export were slim to say the least).wht do you think?

Anonymous said...

navalised LCA being used for advanced training.

-------------------------------
firstly LCA is not ready yet and navalised LCA is far from reality and even if it flies it will take 5-6 years from frist flight to operation

Anonymous said...

to prasun

That's why China decided to order the six Zubr hovercraft from Ukraine, and not from Russia. That's why Algeria refused to take delivery of the MiG-29SMT. That's why Malaysia has already grounded all its MiG-29s and now wants to trade them in return for acquiring six additional Su-30MKMs
-----------------------------
china buys from ukrain just because their products are cheaper compared to russia and chinese can get whatever they want from ukrain

but after some time you will see a exact chinese copy of "ZUBR" for sure

and as far as malaysia is concerned they are impressed with su30mkm which is multi role compared to mig29,and its just like the same tradeoff india did with su30k to get mki and same thing UAE doing trading off mirages with rafales

don't know much about the algeriam mig29smt what was the problem with those mig29,but algerians claimed that inferior parts were used in those mig29 but this can be true that russians used those parts which were already built and were in storage rather than building new ones but this is also true for indian "hawk trainer" in which the previously built parts were used instead of new ones,but as far as the quality of mig29k is concerned these are top notch and IN has no problem with mig29k

and yes the il76 production line is f**ked up

but india can get those malaysian mig29 for very cheap price and those mig29 are inflight refuelling capable just to fill up the gap

Anonymous said...

Regarding the VSHORADS program we may in all probability end up seeing SPYDER spplemented by an astra BVRAAM based version with both sharing the seeker and command/control modules along with radars
--------------------------------
even AKAASH SAM becomes excellent when supported by "AEROSTAT RADAR"
which has detection range upto
450km and several weeks of uninterrupted operation

and the rohini radar being at ground doesn't give low level detection range more than 20-25 km but the aerostat radar hovering at 20000 feet provides low level detection range of over 100km and very long range of medium and high altitude detection range

due to this akaash true potential can be used to maximum

Anonymous said...

Prasun,
Why can't India buy the whole MiG production lines, if they are in sad state ?

How can India get a new aircraft carrier for such low price of $2.5b ? Ia new aircraft carrier would cost around $5b

Anonymous said...

to anon @ Friday, August 21, 2009 10:33:00 AM

Why can't India buy the whole MiG production lines, if they are in sad state ?
------------------------------
what is mig by the way?

or for that matter what is dassualt,LM,BOEING,sukhoi?

klimov company which produces rd33 engines is separate company so are those companies which produce avionics and so are those companies which produce the optical systems,targeting and weapon systems

so MIG company basically deals with the airframes of its mig series of fighters all other things in the fighter come from different companies,so mig company just do the integration of different systems on mig airframes

same is fate of western companies like f16/18 in which LM/boeing deals only with the aiframes and all other systems like engines,radars,EW,weapons come from different companies

these companies like mig/sukhoi/LM/boeing just do the integration work of different systems on their airframes

so right now mig is at bad state but not the other companies assotiated with MiG.

Anonymous said...

Since July 4, 2007 TAPOiCh was included into the United Aircraft Building Corporation[4], and as from 2010 to 2012 will start the production of 24 Il-76MF cargo planes for China, in the cooperation with JV AviaStar of Ulyanovsk, Russia.

The Tashkent plant makes Il-76 transport planes and Il-114 turboprops. Those planes are not manufactured in Russia. The plant's assets have been assessed at $132.5 million, with $88.5 million in debt as of January 1 of this year. Its net loss in 2006 was over $4.4 million. The state owns 51 percent of the plant, the workers own 10percent, the Uzbek Ministry of Foreign Economic Relations and the National Bank for Foreign Economic Activity owns 6.7 percent, and 25.6 percent of the plant's stock is for sale.

The plant has been a problem for Russia. At the end of last year, it announced that it would not fulfill a contract to supply 38 Il-76 military transport planes and Il-78 refueling planes worth more than $1 billion on a contract with Rosoboronexport and the Chinese Defense Ministry due to a $400-million shortfall in funds. The Chinese were offered more modern Il-76MF models made at the plant in Ulyanovsk, which plans to begin mass production of the Il-76 in 2010. The Russian Ministry of Industry and Energy estimates that 6.4 billion rubles will have to be invested to implement that production. Therefore, it would be more expedient to take overproduction in Tashkent. Kommersant has learned that the Tashkent plant is also being considered to participate in a Rosoboronexport contract to build ten Il-76MD-90 and two Il-78 models for Venezuela in 2009-2010.

Anonymous said...

to prasun

None of the existing RAC-MiG industrial facilities have been given any kind of state funding to stay alive. That being the case, I don't see how India can commit 'Harakiri' by opting for the MiG-35.
---------------------------
having said that MiG just deals with airframes development/testing/certification and systems integration of different systems on airframe

so MiG is neither concerned with the avionics,engines,weapons development/production of these systems for its fighters nor its concerned with the serial production of mig fighters and this is the headache of UAC

Anonymous said...

to prasun

That being the case, I don't see how India can commit 'Harakiri' by opting for the MiG-35.
---------------------------------
indian navy going for 30 more mig29k with aesa radar and for MRCA only 18 aircrafts to be built abroad and rest in india

so these 18 aircrafts can be built at the same place where the 30 mig29k will be produced

Pierre Zorin said...

What's the news on India's own aircraft carrier?Is Fincantieri involved with any other ADS project?Seeing the French are doing the same sorta things like the Russians,isn't it better to involve the Italians in Submarine project?Another question is instead of nuclear submarines why didn't India opt for AIP equipped submarines seeing the numbers have depleted rapidly?By now India could have had 3-4 AIP submarines instead of further delays with Scorpene.

Pierre Zorin said...

Prasun do you have any information on why Sea Harriers were not retired and the newer generation Harriers inducted?Britain apparently had a few for India?
Also I don't understand why Indian Airforce wants to be the United Nation of aircraft and not simply induct more su30mki perhaps add su35 and then await FGFA instead of wasting time and money on MMRCA because the time to induct them will see the IAF with only mig 21s and smaller quantity of su30mki with Mirage and mig 29 and Jaguars all in upgrade hangars!The only way to thwart Chinese and Pakistani invasion it seems is to engage the US which will also buy time to upgrade the existing combat hardware.I am no defence expert just an enthusiast but don't understand some of the strange decisions Indian government makes.Such a great nation of people, the largest democracy yet so indecisive and slack with matters of leadership!

Pierre Zorin said...

Does anyone have access to the proper MiG 35 that was supposed to have been unveiled at the Sokol factory?I can't find any photos other than the MiG 29 OVT marked MiG 35!

Anonymous said...

Believe it or not Ukraine is turning out to be a rogue state much more dangerous than those we hear mentioned everyday.Ukraine has no dedicated foreign policy other than competition with Russia,much like the Pakis,and they think nothing about supplying arms and weaponry mainly inherited from the USSR and then tweaked for modern use,to rogue nations.In fact security threat has doubled for the rest of the world because the Ukrainians have been subvertly supplying small and large arms and technology to Pakistan, China, Iran, North Korea and spurious arms dealers who are potential conduits of terror organisations.

Anonymous said...

1)Is Pakistani Al-Khalid-II based on ZTZ99 main battle tank (MBT)?

)Are Al-Khalid-II and ZTZ99 MBT comparable to Arjun MK-I/II MBT?


2)Is there any information about the Strategic version of Uqaab UAV?

3)How many Falco UAVs Pakistan needs? They have purchased 25 directly that were assembled in Pakistan and now they have started the local production of these UAVs

4)How many Spyder SAM are ordered by the IA and how many by IAF? Any details about delivery schedule?

Anonymous said...

to Anon above

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=4046009

Al-Khalid-II," is in its very early stages, and little information has been revealed. It will have modular armor package and the turret may feature a wedge shape, similar to that of the latest versions of the Chinese ZTZ-99/Type-99. Sensors and available ammunition types also are likely to be improved and the power-pack up-rated to a 1,500 horsepower unit, integrated battle management system (IBMS), which allow tanks within a formation to exchange target information like current Al-Zarrar MBT and Al-Khalid MBT and , have increased detection and situational awareness capabilities, a cornerstone of the modernization efforts.


Al-Khalid-I already uses Active Threat Protection System. This is the Ukrainian "Varta'' electro-optical jammer, which bears a strong resemblance to the Russian/Ukrainian Shotra-1

Anonymous said...

PF purchased 25 Falco UAVs out of which 14 were delivered/ assembled in 2008 and another 11 were delivered / assembled this year and are operational with PAF.

Now PAF have TOT for unlimited Numbers as required from local production


PAF’s Selex Galileo Falco can laser-designate targets

Paf is also negotiating for improved Falco UAV with substantially extended wingspan from current 7.22mto 14 meters and increased takeoff weight from 490kg to 750kg and increased payload from 70kg to 120kg with endurance increase from current 15 hours to 18-20 hours. This will be powered by the 75hp UEL rotary engines.

PAF falco UAVs carry Picosar synthetic radar


Pakistan-developed hunter-killer UAV under the name of Burraq UAV and it is in flight-testing phase , it will be equipped with a NESCom-designed laser designator and laser-guided missiles.

F said...

Prasun,

Its still early days, but do you think there's a possibility that the Malaysian army will consider increasing the survivability of its PT-91s by adding bar armour or an active protection suite?

There's been news that PRENTIS is only able to supply 125mm HE and training rounds and this has led to the Malaysian army now considering turning to NORINCO for KE penetrators. Are you aware of this?

Its always annoyed me that the army when for ERAWA knowing full well that its useless against KE penetrators. But as you pointed out, the Russians have refused to supply Kontektt 5 or Arena and Shotra as they consider the export of the PT-91 a violation of the production agreement.

Do you expect any deals to be signed at LIMA this year apart from the Cougar deal? Thanks.

Anonymous said...

to pierre zorin

Does anyone have access to the proper MiG 35 that was supposed to have been unveiled at the Sokol factory?I can't find any photos other than the MiG 29 OVT marked MiG 35!
--------------------------------
or probably prasun was just lying otherwise if there had been a mig35 unvield at sokol plant it wouldhave been known to all

Anonymous said...

Anonymous @ Saturday, August 22, 2009 12:30:00 AM


PA uses tactical Uqab UAVwith 150km range which is locally designed and in future will use Strategic version of Uqaab UAV with 350 Km range. PA also have imported 30 Luna UAVs

Anonymous said...

Can Al-Zarrar MBT and Al-Khalid MBT really exchange target information within a formation by datalink?i guess T-90S/M can also do that?

Anonymous said...

The Jericho III is believed to have a three-stage solid propellant and a payload of 1,000 to 1,300 kg. It is possible for the missile to be equipped with a single 750 kg nuclear warhead or two or three low yield MIRV warheads. It has an estimated launch weight of 30,000 kg and a length of 15.5 m with a width of 1.56 m. It likely is similar to an upgraded Shavit space launch vehicle. It probably has longer first and second-stage motors. It is estimated that it has a range of 4,800 to 11,500 km [5](2,982 to 7,180 miles), and probably significantly greater with a smaller payload of 350 kg (the size of one smaller Israeli nuclear warhead). It is believed that the Jericho 3 is inertial guided with a radar guided warhead and silo-based with mobile vehicle and rail car capabilities.
--------------------------------
if Israel can do this what the heck DRDO is doing with agni3

one can compare the agni3 with jericho3,latter is much heavier and is not operational yet

India better get some advanced technology from Israel

and our DRDO scientists just think from their annals instead using their brains

Anonymous said...

Inter-Continental Ballistic Missile With 7,000 KM Rage War Head On Going

PAKISTAN, ISLAMABAD: Pakistan is contemplating developing an Inter-Continental Ballistic Missile (ICBM) with a 7,000 km range to make the country’s defence impregnable and strengthen the armed forces of the country against any offence. The plan was evolved after Indian plans of Agni IV, the Indian ICBM system with a target range of 6000 km, which caused an imbalance of power in South Asia, extremely well informed defence sources told Business Recorder here on Wednesday.

Sources maintained that preparations are underway for the development of this long range ballistic missile and very soon it would be test fired. It would have the capacity to carry conventional and nuclear war heads. This missile, if successfully test fired, will be a milestone in the history of the country and a major achievement of scientists and engineers of Pakistan.

The possession of this ICBM not only will make Pakistan’s defence impregnable but will also help create a balance of power in the region, which defence analysts believe was disturbed by Indian plans of Agni IV missile with a range of 6000 kilometres.

This scribe contacted high officials of the Defence Ministry who claimed ignorance of this development and refused to comment on this matter. The Director General of the Inter-Services Public Relations (ISPR), when contacted by this scribe also said that he was not aware of the development of the ICBM with a range of 7000 kilometre.



http://www.apakistannews.com/inter-continental-ballistic-missile-with-7000-km-rage-war-head-on-going-133677

http://aaj.tv/news/National/143945_detail.html

Anonymous said...

Prasun any information about the Chinese YJ-12 and YJ-22 supersonic anti-ship missile ???????/

Anonymous said...

why dont india develop a complete upgrade for its T-72s just like Sabra MBT of M60A3 or AL Zarrar MBT of Type-59?

Anonymous said...

Or they can replace current Turret of T-72 with Arjun's turret like M60-2000 where M1A1 120-mm turret, equipped with a 240X4 Forward Looking Infrared Radar (FLIR is placed onto a fully modernized M60 chassis

Anonymous said...

Believe it or not Ukraine is turning out to be a rogue state much more dangerous than those we hear mentioned everyday.Ukraine has no dedicated foreign policy other than competition with Russia
------------------------------
very true

they just want to play in western hands

Anonymous said...

Feodosia's Morye shipyard as co-developer of the Zubr hovercraft with St. Peterburg's Almaz naval design bureau technically is banned from selling Zubr's military technologies to a third party, without Almaz management agreement. China in 2006 was in talks with Almaz on the purchase of six Zubr hovercraft without result.

Management at Ukraine's Morye shipyard, actual production of site of all Zubr-class hovercraft, began talks with Chinese naval representatives in 2008, a naval source told Interfax.
------------------
so this proves why chinese buying ZUBR hovercraft from ukrain and
MR PRASUN was criticizing russia over this

today Ukrainians will even sell their mother for money even knowing that Chinese will copy ZUBR

Anonymous said...

Hi Prasun,
Hope you are back in Malaysia or in India after attending MAKS 2009. Could you please give us a summary of MAKS-2009 for us? I guess there are a lot of people, including me, will welcome and will appreciate your efforts. I am sure you are not bothered by the "junk comments" by some "junkies".

To those people who criticize Prasun Sengupta (PS). I have visited many blogs and forums. But the one I keep visiting is this blog. Because of the comments. Other blog like Asiandefense, livefist, etc mostly do cut and paste. Broadsword though good, Col. Ajai Shukla doesn't bother to provide answers to some of the viewers' comments/queries.

But I noticed that, Mr. PS spends a lot of time to answer a lot of queries from readers. I do not think, any other bloggers have enough patience to answers these comments. I used to ask myself, why should Mr. PS reply to some of the comments (although some of questions will be repetitive) or waste his valuable time for others.

Moreover, most of the time, he has the patience to answer even stupid questions or even clear some of the misinformation. I learned a lot of things related to defense just by going through the comments by Mr. PS.

I am not an expert, but I can feel that most of the answers provided by Mr. PS are 95% correct, if not 100%. I guess, he won't be getting a single penny for this wonderful effort. So guys, when you criticize a person do it critically and at the same time appreciate this person's effort. Hip Hip Hurrah to Mr. Prasun Sengupta. Thank you very much, Mr. Sengupta.

Having said, I have a question.
Recently PLA involved in huge military training involving more than 50,000 soldiers, 100s of tanks and armored carriers. Will you be able to comments about this huge training, even though PLA involved in another training with Russian Army just a week before this massive war simulation? Do you think, it is intended against India?

Thank you.

Anonymous said...

to prasun

brazil MRCA contest the cost of 38 f18e superhornets wlong with assotiated equipment and weapons costing $ 7 billion approvel has been sent to US president

so how 126 f18e for india come at price of 10 billion

Prasun K Sengupta said...

Just got back from MAKS 2009 via London and will reply to all queries over the next 24 hours.

Anonymous said...

Welcome back Prasun K Sengupta

i hope taht we will get some special articles

Anonymous said...

Prasun,
i am Anonymous @ Saturday, August 22, 2009 12:30:00 AM

Plz sir do reply soon

if possible also tell us about the number of Alkhalids abd Alzarrars

Anonymous said...

it is rumored that HIT is developing an MRAP six-wheeled vehicle. Prototype is ready and being currently tested???????

any details Prsun?????

Anonymous said...

Some Chinese news resources tell that one LD-2000 system was transferred to United Arab Emirates by AN-124 lifter in June 2009.The testing in United Arab Emirates lasts 22 days and the system has been working normally for uninterruptible long time running under high temperature and high humidity condition.

Prasun is it true???????

Anonymous said...

WILL INDIA BUY Heron 2/Heron TP?

Anonymous said...

HOW MANY Heron UAV INDA HAVE??

Prasun K Sengupta said...

To Pierre Zorin: Way back in 1993 BAE Systems had officially informed the Indian Navy that it would not be able to provide product support for the Sea Harriers after 1999. By 1998 HAL had already imported from BAE Systems several jigs and toolings reqd to refurbish the Sea Harriers in-country till 2005. In reality, the Sea Harriers should have been decommissioned by 2007 latest. But don't be too surprised at such a state of affairs. Out of the Indian Navy's total inventory of 16 diesel-electric submarines, only six are operational at any given time. Surprised? Well, don't be.

To Faris: The PT-91M design has reached its optimum and cannot be enhanced either structurally or in terms of its armaments suite.

To Anon@8:38AM: In PLA parlance, this exercise you refer to was on a 'very limited' scale and was meant to be in response to internal turmoil/emergencies, and not for countering any external invasion or staging pre-emptive raids into foreign soil. Within the Tibet Autonomous Region the IAF enjoys air superiority and due to this it will be able to strike at will at several chokepoints to disrupt the PLA's rail/road transportation nodes. Therefore, in terms of force projection and force build-up the PLA's plans call for rushing in reinforcements not by road or rail, but by aerial logistics, as witnessed by the massive and rapid mobilisation of the PLA in the aftermath of the Sichuan earthquake.

Prasun K Sengupta said...

To Anon@11:27AM: Yes, that's a JV between HIT and Turkey's FNSS.

To Anon@1:17PM: Very much true. The product comes from NORINCO.

Nava said...

Could I second the question about the existence of plans in India to induct the Heron TP or any other Male UAV?

Nava said...

ava,paAny particular reason you're refraining from answering?