Tuesday, August 25, 2009

T-90S MBT's Combat Effectiveness Flowcharts











The above flowcharts have been officially produced by Rosoboronexport State Corp and Nizhiny Tagil-based Uralvagonzavod JSC and clearly state the obvious. By the way, despite three days of persistent queries sent to the Ministry of Defence's Public Relations Branch, not a single soul has been able to explain exactly why the T-90S MBTs taking part in this year's Republic Day Parade were labelled as 'Bheeshma', while those T-90S MBTs rolled out on August 24 have been labelled as 'Bhishma'. Your guess is as good as mine. In addition, no answers are forthcoming as yet on what exactly is the 'indigenous' content of the HVF-built 'Bhishma', given the fact that both the ERA package and the composite armour panels along with the 12.7mm HMG are being imported off-the-shelf from Uralvagonzavod JSC, while the powerpacks and tracks are being jointly sourced from Russia and Kazakhstan. There also exists another such set of flowcharts comparing the parameters of the OPLOT-M, T-90S and the Arjun Mk1 and needless to say, the conclusions regarding the T-90S are extremely distressing--Prasun K. Sengupta

62 comments:

Aadi said...

Thanks Prasun..

Aadi said...

Prasun, one more thing can you explain more about the contract which has been signed by the Pak army? I can't find out any news about this Oplot-M contract.

rahulka said...

Prasun, did you miss something? There are only 11 charts here, you said 15.

Anonymous said...

"There also exists another such set of flowcharts comparing the parameters of the OPLOT-M, T-90S and the Arjun Mk1 and needless to say, the conclusions regarding the T-90S" -- Those are the Charts that most of us are eager to see & on what rationale Arjun is being side-lined by the army.

Typhoon said...

Question thats springs to mind from these charts, is the difference between the tanks actually significant and what is the error of the analysis?

When looking at the graphs presented there appears to be no signifificant difference between the performance of the T-90S and the other tanks of the 2nd group. Which I imagine would have been the marketing intention of Rosoboronexport.

very interesting though, keep up the excellent blog Parsun!

Anonymous said...

True to your word Prasun. Thanks for this info. I wonder what my Fofonov will have to say about it.

Anonymous said...

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

1 i)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?

5)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?

6) any information about the Chinese YJ-12 and YJ-22 supersonic anti-ship missile

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

8)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???????

9)WILL INDIA BUY Heron 2/Heron TP?HOW MANY Heron UAV INDIA HAVE??

Anonymous said...

To Anon @ 7:06: Fofanov is a strange character although I believe he is contributing as Anonymous.I am not sure why he is not allowed to reveal his name as it seems he also used the Blog name Zil to convey some weird message.Shame really, the guy seems to know a fair bit from his association with the Russian military.

Anonymous said...

prasun,where is mig35 info?

Anonymous said...

why these Flowcharts are missing their most likely opponents Alkhalid, AlZarrar, T-99G

Anonymous said...

Prasun K Sengupta said...both the ERA package and the composite armour panels along with the 12.7mm HMG are being imported off-the-shelf from Uralvagonzavod JSC, while the powerpacks and tracks are being jointly sourced from Russia and Kazakhstan

what about the Gun and different sights, digital hunter-killer fire-control system,thermal imaging sight

How good it is when facing the Oplot-M MBT

Anonymous said...

Hi Prasun,
I heard before MAKS-2009 that, PAK-FA/FGFA AESA radar will be unveiled at MAKS-2009.
Did you see this radar? What is your comment on this?

smith said...

Hi Prasun,

There is a news that Israeli navy has dropped plans to purchase U.S. made warships and instead is exploring the possibility of a home-grown military shipbuilding industry this is due to the costs for the LCS ships skyrocketed to $637 million, and costs for the corvettes were estimated at $450 million, both deemed prohibitive to the Israeli navy.

Why don’t we offer them to build the ships here in India as we both have very close ties especially in Defense Sector even joint ship building and Design Bureau?

What are your views on this sir Sir?

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/132104

Anonymous said...

Hi Prasun ji,
What happened to you? You said you will reply to the comments after 24 hours. I just wish you didn't get H1N1 (that's the "international word" now a days). Keep well, do well, work well, post well and reply well. Take care.
Your's well wisher.

Prasun K Sengupta said...

To Rahulka: There are 55 slides in all. The missing four you're referring to relate to the T-90S performance parameters in comparison to the PT-91M and T-72CZ/MZ that are not quite relevant at the moment.

To Anon@1.07AM: The flowcharts comparing the Oplot-M with the T-90S and Arjun Mk1 were prepared more than three years ago after it was comfirmed that Pakistan had inked a Letter of Intent with Ukraine's Kharkiv Morozov Design Bureau to develop the Oplot-M. No one is sidelining the Arjun Mk1 or Mk2 for now, since there's ample time available before the FMBT prototype emerges by 2017.

To Typhoon: Even if you factor in a 15% error it will emerge that the T-90S lags behind its Western/Israeli counterparts. And don;t forget that the 55-calibre 120mm smoothbore cannon is already available from Rheinmetall, whereas a corresponding cannon from Russia or Ukraine has yet to emerge, while the Chinese have opted for the 140mm/48-cal solution for the ZTZ-99G MBT.

To Anon@4:59PM: There's no Al Khalid Mk2 in the offing at the moment. As for the rest of your queries almost all the answers are in the open domain. As for the BMS and its force-multiuplier effect, it all depends on the digitisation of the battlespace (area of operations). There are three levels of battlespace digitisation involving GIS overlays for the mechanised infantry/armoured formations, field artillery brigades and related signals formations. Only when all these three are overlaid into a synthetic digitied map is one able to wage knowledge-based combined-arms warfare. In India's case the digitisation effort involving all its designated battlespaces began in 1997 and the Northern Command's area of operations was the first such successful effort, which was commissioned only in 2005. Battlespace digitisation of all fronts along India's western borders will be completed only by 2012.

To Anon@6.06AM: The official rollout of the definitive tandem-seat MiG-35 prototype was postponed at the last minute to late September. Hence, no photographs have emerged as yet on the first such aircraft. However, as I explained in my previous thread, a fair bit of info on the avionics architecture was made available. What also emerged from MAKS 2009 was that contrary to popular expectations, the amount of composites to be employed for fabricating the fuselage of both the MiG-35 and the PAK-FA (mind you, not the FGFA), will be kept to 35% only. This is quite disappointing for both the IAF HAL, especially since the Tejas LCA has already attained the 76% mark and logically both the IAF and HAL expect this figure to go even higher when it comes to the FGFA.

Prasun K Sengupta said...

Another interesting fact to come out was how both the Indian Navy and IAF totally fucked-up by selecting Phazotron JSC's Zhuk-ME for the MiG-29K/KUB and the to-be-upgraded MiG-29B-12, when it should have selected the V Tikhmirov Scientific-Research Institute of Instrument Design-developed Bars-29 version of the NO11M Bars PESA (on board the Su-30MKI). Had the Bars-29 been selected then the Ryazan Instrument-Making Plant Federal State Unitary Enterprise would have offered fantastic technology-transfer synergies to HAL and BEL (due to the higher production volumes involved). Compared to the healthy financial status of Ryazan Instrument-Making Plant Federal State Unitary Enterprise, Phazotron JSC is a far poorer state and consequently this is affecting the series-production of the Zhuk-ME. In any case, the IAF should have standardised on the NO11M Bars/Bars-29 combination instead of inducting into service two different generations of X-band airborne multi-mode radars.

Prasun K Sengupta said...

To Anon@9:19AM: All elements of the fire-control systems are being imported in completely knocked-down condition and will be assembled from the component-level onwards. This so-called ToT for the T-90M only involves the domestic casting/moulding/machining and fabrication of the hull and welded turret, plus the 125mm cannon. That's all. The buck stops there. The CVRDE and HVF have been given a free hand to improvise and integrate the ceramic-based and NERA armour panels into the T-90M's hull and side-skirts.

Prasun K Sengupta said...

To Anon@12:05PM: What was actually showcased by the V Tikhmirov Scientific-Research Institute of Instrument Design in full-scale model form was the Irbis-E PESA, and a front-end AESA array along with wing-mounted X-band or L-band T/R modules. You can view first-class photos of these exhibits at: http://igorrgroup.blogspot.com/
While it is possible for the AESA array to be integrated with the back-end avionics of the Irbis-E or NO11M Bars (for the Su-35BM and Su-30MKI), for the FGFA it will have to be a totally redesigned suite as far more advanced processors will be available by the time such AESA radars for the FGFA enter series-production. In any case, it would be unwise to enter into arguments over whether such a radar or even the Bars or Irbis-E can track and engage 15/4 targets or 20/8 targets since greater emphasis needs to be laid on the radar's ability to perform at least four simultaneous functions like tracking and engaging targets, real-beam ground mapping in the SAR mode, and limited directional jamming. In the IAF's case, engagement of four targets per Su-30MKI will more than suffice since overall airborne battle management and airspace surveillance will no longer be performed autonomously by the Su-30MKI (as was the case before) but by the A-50E PHALCON AEW & C platform.

Prasun K Sengupta said...

To Smith: My thoughts exactly, since several Israel-origin sensors and weapon systems are already being integrated with India-designed and built warships like the Project 15A/B DDGs and Project 17A FFGs and Project 28 corvettes. Therefore, the IDF can choose between any of the three above-mentioned warship designs. W wouldn't be surprised at all if, viewed from a techno-economic matrix, the IDF-Navy decides upon such an option as being the optimum one.

Prasun K Sengupta said...

To Anon@7:09AM: Nothing of that sort, actually. Had to attend to a lot of paperwork concerning a flying training school I'm planning to set up in southern India in the near future, and a propeller repair workshop in Malaysia. Also went on board the first Pakistan Navy F-22P frigate (PNS Zulfiqar) that was in Port Klang, Malaysia, on a goodwill visit last Thursday.
Anyway, the thing to watch out for is how exactly the negotiations regarding the final pricetag for INS Vikramaditya's refit-cum-modernisation work out. A small hint here: the pricetag does not only involve the aircraft carrier, but also three other as-yet undisclosed platforms whose supplementary contract was inked in January 2004.

Anonymous said...

To Prasun Sir:

Can you confirm whether Eurofighter's CAESAR Radar is on offer for LCA Mk 2?

If yes what about the Indian MMR? Any progress on that front or it has been scrapped?

Anonymous said...

to prasun

so please tell how the bars29 superior to zhuk me

and in just one more year zhuk ae radar will be available

Anonymous said...

to prasun

any idea about how many times the mig29 had engine replacement since induction in IAF or mig29 still uses the original set of rd33 supplied with mig29

Anonymous said...

A small hint here: the pricetag does not only involve the aircraft carrier, but also three other as-yet undisclosed platforms whose supplementary contract was inked in January 2004.
----------------------------------
what was that

Prasun K Sengupta said...

To Anon@12:02PM: Yes, the Caesar is on offer for the Tejas LCA Mk2 as this aircraft's front-end avionics bulkhead will be redesigned for greater volume (don;t forget, the IRST too will have to go in there). In addition, the starboard side just in front of the cockpit area will have to accommodate the actuated in-flight refuelling probe, all of which will not be there on the Tejas LCA Mk1. As for the MMR it will be just a R & D venture aimed at giving ADA the capability and experience to design and develop an integrated navigation-and-attack system, plus develop various customised algorithms reqd for developing an airborne radar's various modes of operation (for air combat and ground attack).

To Anon@12:17PM: The Zhuk-ME is an unknown product and it remains to be seen how exactly it will perform under operational conditions. I'm not too optimistic about it since earlier the IAF had serious problems with the reliability of another Phazotron-built product--the Kopyo on the MiG-21 Bison. In addition, the Bars PESA is fairly well-established in IAF service for the past seven years and is supported by a fairly adequate in-country product support infrastructure, which will further reduce the direct operating costs per flying hour of every Bars-equipped combat aircraft. Furthermore, the Bars has the capability of being upgraded in terms of using the same back-end avionics LRUs while being retrofitted with a front-end AESA antenna, something which cannot be done with the Zhuk-ME.

To Anon@12:29PM: That's easy. The original RD-33 had a total technical service life of only 700 hours and as per Soviet/Russian practice had a life of only seven years since the Soviet/Russian MiG-29 pilots were reqd to log in only 100 flight hours a year. In the IAF's case, each MiG-29 pilot flew an average of 25 hours per month, thereby logging 300 flight-hours per aircraft. Which means every in-service MiG-29 had to be refitted with new-build RD-33s after every two-and-a-half years of flight ops. The same applies to the MiG-29Ns of the Royal Malaysian Air Force, and other MiG-29s of the air forces of Bangladesh and Myanmar.

Anonymous said...

Prasun, Good to see you are back, and eagerly waiting for your comments.
I read this news in NYTimes this morning www.nytimes.com/2009/08/30/world/asia/30missile.html?_r=1


How long this fooling by Pak is going on? If this could happen, then Pak would have altered some other sophisticated US weapons also, right. Anyway, I am smelling something stinky here.

Anonymous said...

Prasun K Sengupta sir am sure that you would have read the news “U.S. accuses Pakistan of modifying Harpoon for land-attack” and” Pakistan rejects US allegations of modifying US-made missiles”. Prasun K Sengupta sir, given you detailed articles about Pakistani missile, My question to you is, was this a harpoon or Babur SLCM or C-602? Please provide some more insight into this issue and Pakistan‘s land attack capabilities?

Is Pakistan navy interested in J-11?

Will PN’s Perry class ships carry ESSM and RAM?

Anonymous said...

Prasun no information is available about HIT is developing an MRAP six-wheeled vehicle. Prototype is ready and being currently tested???????

Anonymous said...

A small hint here: the pricetag does not only involve the aircraft carrier, but also three other as-yet undisclosed platforms whose supplementary contract was inked in January 2004.

----

Prasun,

May I know what are the 3 undisclosed platforms. My guess is that 2 of them are akulas, but can't guess the 3rd one.

Please let us know the experts guess or any known info.

Thanks

Prasun K Sengupta said...

To Anons@8:00PM & 1.51AM: The story is indeed incorrect, since the Harpoons sold to Pakistan in the 1980s were sub-launched UGM-84As and ship-launched RGM-84As, with the P-3C-carried air-launched ones being delivered only in the mid-1990s. Furthermore, the US-supplied Harpoons contain closed-loop fire-control systems which means the on-board navigation and attack system is tamper-proof and the target recognition algorithms cannot be modified by anyone except the OEM. The April 23 test-firing involved a ship-launched land attack variant of the C-602/Babur cruise missile, whose deliveries began in November 2008. This test-firing was part of the weapon's induction process involving final systems validation on the launch platform (warship).

Prasun K Sengupta said...

To Anon@8:27AM: The three platforms in question are the three SSGN attack submarines to be assembled in India for the Indian Navy. And no, they will be much smaller in size than the Akula-3s. The cost escalation for refitting the INS Vikramaditya is only a quarter of the figure that is now being negotiated, with the remaining three-quarters being related directly to the increased cost of the three SSGNs. That is precisely the reason why the previous General-Director of SEVMASH has not yet been indicted by any Russian court for kind of financial embezzlement, as he had nothing to do with the mismanagement of funds already made available by India. It was Rosoboronexport State Corp that had bungled internally by not forwarding the progress payments due to SEVMASH, and instead diverted them to Amursky Shipyard for expediting the construction of the Akula 3 SSGN (INS Chakra) and for supplying the pre-fabricated sections of the pressure hulls of the two follow-on Arihant-class SSBNs to the SBC at Vizag. Actually, the money already paid by India should have gone for the SSGN project, since India had already agreed with Russia in 2003 to pay for the three Arihant-class SSBNs with the extra money available to India after the resolution of the Rupee-Rouble debt repayment mechanism struck during the days of the USSR. But Rosoboronexport has been unable to stick to its side of the deal due to its internal administrative and financial mismanagement. Therefore, naturally the per annum cost escalation factor for the SSGN construction programme now has to be accommodated. This is what the fiasco is really all about. Everything else one reads in the public domain is pure shadow puppetry.

Anonymous said...

Prasun K Sengupta said..The story is indeed incorrect, since the Harpoons sold to Pakistan in the 1980s were sub-launched UGM-84As and ship-launched RGM-84As, with the P-3C-carried air-launched ones being delivered only in the mid-1990s.

The April 23 test-firing involved a ship-launched land attack variant of the C-602/Babur cruise missile, whose deliveries began in November 2008. This test-firing was part of the weapon's induction process involving final systems validation on the launch platform (warship).

Thanks for clearing it up sir

warship used is F-22P? or A-90B sub?

Abhijoy said...

So Prasun da, what did you think of the F22P? Impressed? IMO its a pretty small ship and nothing too threatening tech wise. Those C803's make me slightly uneasy though.

Also i remember reading somewhere a while back that the Zhuk-ME is specifically optimized for sea surface searching. Of course that begs the question as to why the MiG-29B-12 would require it.

Abhijoy said...

Here found something...

http://igorrgroup.blogspot.com/2009/08/prospects-of-russian-af.html#comments

[Check the comments]

As posted by Igor Djadan,

"1) Bars cannot have full scale sea modes for a simple tech reason: it has only vertical polarization, which isn't optimal for a sea surfice searching. It's rectify only on Irbis with its two-axis turning of the gimbals.

2) At its known configuration with 10 m groung max resolution Bars just cannot has ground moving target identification mode. And in reality this mode wasn't exist in booklets (2003). However, I'm sure it could be rectified and indeed has rectified on one of hardware/software upgrade. I dont see any fundamental tech reason to not have 1 m max resolution (on 10-20 km at least) and ground I&T mode for Bars."

Maybe that explains a bit. Again you can never be certain about these things. But Igor does tend to be quite factual and reliable. Either way im hardly qualified to judge or dissect most of these things. This is where you come in Prasun da. :)

sbm said...

Prasun,
What do you think of Santhanam's revelations ?

It confirms what was known but does it mean that the Indian deterrent is based on large fission and boosted fission weapons instead ?

If so what're your yield estimates ?

Regards
Sanjay

Prasun K Sengupta said...

To Anon@11:10AM: The first F-22P on April 23 was still in Shanghai. It will arrive in Karachi on September 5, one day before Pakistan Armed Forces Day. The C-602 was fired from one of the ex-Royal Navy FFGs.

To Abhijoy: The F-22P series of FFGs are optimised for littoral warfare and for this type of mission the armaments package is quite good. The C-802As on board have also been fitted on a Bangladesh Navy FFG as well (BNS Osman, I reckon). But its HQ-7N SHORADS gives it only a modest air defence capability.
Regarding the Zhuk-ME, it is a multi-mode radar and as such, like the ELTA EL/M-2032, is capable of air search, limited ground moving target indication and surface search for maritime strike. However, for all-weather ground attack (against moving targets) and maritime strike, what is reqd is the real-time surveillance of a large swathe of surface, something which is conducted much more efficiently by a dedicated SAR like the ELTA EL/M-2060P pod-mounted system. However, the NO11M Bars PESA does have a ground target detection mode (i.e. capability to pick out metallic objects of a certain volume) and way back in 2004 this mode was employed by one of the IAF Su-30MKIs to detect and localise the wreckage of an Indian Navy Kamov Ka-28PL helicopter that had crashed over mountainous terrain in central India.

Prasun K Sengupta said...

To Dr Sanjay Badri-Maharaj: Well, Santhanam's statements were hardly surprising, as there's definitely a compelling need to test at least another two thermonuclear devices to be absolutely certain about the design integrity of such devices. Consequently, for the time-being its just fission and boosted-fission devices that will go bang with certainty. To me, however, this is not the main/principal problem. To me the main headache arises over the Govt of India's inability till this day to evolve a fully functional nuclear command-and-control system. For as long as India's nuclear weaponisation is 'politico-bureaucrat-driven', the DAE and DRDO will simply not trust the Strategic Forces Command to handle fully armed ready-to-launch n-weapons. To me this is the most critical choke-point within the decision-making and command-and-control processes and unless this is resolved, I don't foresee any prospect of a fully equipped & ready-to-launch sea-based survivable second-strike capability being operationalised on board any kind of SSBN in the years to come.

Prasun K Sengupta said...

The dude writing this story (at: http://www.ndtv.com/news/india/indias_first_stealth_fighter_to_fly_soon.php) goes to Zhukovsky, gets a self-gratifying joyride on a Su-30MK testbed, and comes back with a revelation saying that "India's first stealth fighter will take to the skies in less than four months". Little does he realise that the corporate joint venture between Sukhoi OKB, United Aircraft Corp (UAC), NPO Saturn and HAL has yet to be inked before joint R & D on the FGFA could even commence. In all probability, like many others of his ilk, he's totally confused and can't tell the PAK-FA from the FGFA. A simple question to Alexey Fedorov or the visiting IAF VCAS over the differing MTOWs of the FGFA and PAK-FA would have revealed the obvious. How can the FGFA take off in less than four months when the AL-31FP turbofan with 20% higher thrust rating (already confirmed by former HAL Chairman Dr Ashok Baweja last December) has yet to emerge? When the AESA of the FGFA will not be available until 2014 from V Tikhmirov Scientific-Research Institute of Instrument Design? And since the PAK-FA is a single-seater and the FGFA will be a tandem-seat design, does it mean that within less than a year HAL has already modified the PAK-FA's design into the FGFA? What on earth is this dude trying to say?
As the C-in-C of the Russian Air Force disclosed at MAKS 2009, the PAK-FA 'may' be rolled out by the year's end, but it will fly only next year and that too powered by the uprated 117S variant of the AL-31F (the same variant powering the Su-35BM), since the AL-41's development has yet to be completed.

Anonymous said...

Prasun ji.
You are 100% right on Mr. Vishnu Som. This guy is just a show off. He knows some "cute English Words" and just publish his articles without much homework. Those who follow PAF-FA/FGFA program understand that it will take another one year to develop the Russian version of 5th Gen fighter.

Anyway, about the US accusation of tampering missiles delivered to Pak, I feel that NY Times will not publish any articles, especially news of this such sensitivity, without any authenticity. I am pretty sure about that. So the question is, what US missiles Pakistan modified. May not be Harpoon, may be some other missiles.

Anonymous said...

Prasun,

Does India have either S300 or S400 series in service for air defence or ABM use.

I read freequently that China has them.

Your comments please.

Thanks

Anonymous said...

hey plz chk below

Posted by munir
http://www.defence.pk/forums/wmd-missiles/17415-nice-reading-about-babur-raad-h2-h4-etc.html

and

posted by Prasun K. Sengupta
http://trishulgroup.blogspot.com/2008/12/babur-lacm-raad-alcm-detailed.html

are exact

Anonymous said...

they are using yor article sir.

Prasun K Sengupta said...

To Anon@7:50PM: The EUMA inked between the US and Pakistan firmly ensures that any such tampering is not possible at all. In any case, the Harpoon, in operational terms, will be the least effective weapon employed for land attack, given its limited range when compared to the C-602. Therefore, no one sane naval commander will employ a ship-launched Harpoon or even a C-802A or MM-40 Exocet Block 2 for land attack.

To Anon@9:44AM: No, India doesn't have them. Only China and Vietnam do.

To Anon@2:54PM: Nothing wrong with that. Anyone is free to use or reproduce whatever has already appeared in this blog before, as long as the source is mentioned. Must give them due credit for at least reproducing it and discussing it. It should be encouraged.

Anonymous said...

Prasun sir,
I read in this post of yours where you suggested that the navy could choose "the V-22 Osprey equipped with the same Northrop Grumman-developed mission sensor package as that on the E-2D hawkeye 2000" as its carrier based AEW&C platform.

SU-30MKI went to redflag last year where IAF had a lot of fratricides due to datalink incompatibility of western/NATO AWACS & the MKI.

Here's my question; The fighters on our aircraft carriers will be of russian origin; they cannot be data-linked with NATO AWACS. Do you still think it is wise to induct an American AEW&C?

Prasun K Sengupta said...

To Anon@11:58AM: That report about Ex Red Flag 08 you're referring to was written by the same dude that I referred to above (the one that just loves to undertake self-gratifying joyrides on various combat aircraft). And if you read that post at LIVEFIST carefully (with my answers), you will realise that the Su-30MKI DOES NOT have the Russia-origin operational data link (ODL), contrary to what this very same dude had claimed (based on what he had read on an earlier edition of Jane's Avionics). In fact, the ODL on board the Su-30MKI is of Israeli origin simply because the ODL will be used for communicating with the A-50E PHALCON AEW & C platform. That is why even companies like Gripen Int'l and Lockheed Martin publicly stated (in on-the-record Show Daily interviews given during Aero India 2009) that their respective M-MRCA offers of the JAS-39 Gripen IN and F-16IN Super Viper will have on board the very same ODL that is now on board the Su-30MKI, in order to ensure full inter-operability with existing IAF manned airborne platforms.
I even challenged this dude to prove that the Su-30MKI had Russia-origin ODL, but till this day this dude hasn't bothered to reply back to me, either in my blog or anywhere else. Well....he can't, simply because he does not have access to the contract documents of the Su-30MKI, while I have direct access to them. I know each and every component on board the Su-30MKI right down to their industrial part-no.
Now, to answer your question about data-linking between non-US-built IAF platforms and US-built platforms, the problem doesn't arise at all since the Israel-origin ODLs are built to NATO specifications (unlike the Russian ODLs) and are therefore fully compatible with those on board US-origin platforms. Therefore, two-way data-linking and communications is a non-existent problem and is a non-issue. Only the Indian Navy MiG-29Ks will be unable to be data-linked since the MiG-29Ks use the Russia-built ODL.

Prasun K Sengupta said...

To Anon@11:58AM: So by now, you should have realised that the problem faced by the IAF when exercising with the USAF was not about the data-linking. Instead, the problem was with the incompatibility between the formatting and mission protocol of the tactical information distribution system of the IAF and USAF. While the USAF uses NATO-standard JTIDS terminals on board its combat aircraft, the IAF Su-30MKis used an entirely different and customised tactical information distribution system whose encryption source-codes could not be shared with the US due to reasons of OPSEC, and also because India is not a NATO member-state and is therefore not obliged to adopt NATO standard operating procedures and protocols.

Anonymous said...

Prasun Sir,
Thanks for that post, it is
enormously informative.
Let's have more such!
Thanks

Anonymous said...

Prasun,

Thanks for the earlier replies.

Since China has S300 series system for air defence and may be missile defence purpose, does India has any thing to nutralize these (SEAD), if situation demands?

Thanks a lot.

Anonymous said...

Why does Smith adopt such a name Smith and then hide it and call himself Anonymous?The repeated "Sir" gives the show away anyway!Must be a cadet from some dehati school?

sachin_sathe said...

hi prasun,

given the rapid shortfall in nos would it be feasible to buy/lease Su-27sm/sm2 configured for as much commonality as possible with Su-30 MKI i know this sounds stupid but sincse Su-27 is single seater it might be possible to push flanker nos & thus IAF's fighterfleet nos in a short time. Also the use of Su-27 with the A-50E phalcon (aided by same odl as Su-30) it would then leave some Su-30MKI's for deep penetration strikes using PJ-10 and other stand-off munitions (integrated under deep upg) and shift the jaguar fleet for local close air support.
wht do u think?

Also on Igorr's blog he indicated tht the final version of BARS would be an AESA version if so the how would it compare to say IRBIS-E,CAESAR,etc?

regarding the second line of subs is it a feasible to install VLS capability as well as a nuclear energy based AIP such as the Thermo Electric Generator (TEG)
wht r ur thoughts?

Anonymous said...

Also on Igorr's blog he indicated tht the final version of BARS would be an AESA version if so the how would it compare to say IRBIS-E,CAESAR,etc?
--------------------------------
this will depend on peak power of the upgraded bars and equipping that with AESA antenna but most probably the back end processing/power consumption will be from irbis e radar replacing totally BARS and its components

right now bars radar has peak power of 7kW,i am pretty sure mki upgraded to AESA standard can provide enough power so that radar can have peak power of 15kW,

and this would well match the IRBIS E detection range but will be more effective at long range target discrimination

CAESER is already outclassed by irbis e,

and when irbis e operating with aesa antenna at 20kW peak power so you can easily imagine what would that be

Anonymous said...

Prasun Sir,
It has just been said on TV that ISRO has provided a special plane to help search for Andhra Pradesh CM YSR Reddy's helicopter which has supposedly made a forced landing in a dense forest.

Any idea of which plane they're talking about? Sensors/Equipment aboard? What does ISRO use it for?

Thanks!

Prasun K Sengupta said...

To Anon@12:01AM: For both SEAD and DEAD air campaigns the IAF has adequate capabilities and assets to neutralize ground-based LR-SAMs like S-300PMU1/2s. Air-launched cruise missiles like the BrahMos can be employed against the LR-SAM and MR-SAM launch sites.

To Sachin Sathe: The Su-28SM is still a generation behind the Su-30MKI and if at all the idea is to induct more combat aircraft then it might as well as be a new-generation type like the Su-30MKI, instead of falling back on a legacy platform. IRKUT Corp can easily ramp up production of Su-30MKIs at any time as its existing facility at Irkutsk is underutilised.
The AESA variant of the NO11M Bars will undoubtedly be superior to the Irbis-E PESA, as will the Caesar AESA. But a simple visual comparison of the MIRES AESA from V Tikhmirov Scientific-Research Institute of Instrument Design, with those from EADS (Caesar), THALES (RBE-2), Raytheon (APG-79), Selex Airborne Sensors (Vixen 1000), ELTA Systems (EL/M-2052) and Northrop Grumman (APG-80) will reveal the following:
1) Russian OEMs remain far behind the their Western counterparts in terms of reducing the volume of both PESA and AESA radar suites.
2) The absence of any form of braided-cables (for electrical wiring harnesses) remains astounding.
3) The terribly low MTBF figures for existing PESA radars.
As far as improving the range of the Bars or MIRES, it is absolutely unnecessary in the Indian context since the IAF's combat aircraft will no longer be conducting autonomous air campaigns, given the fact that the A-50E PHALCONs will be responsible for threat assessments and airborne battle management. Therefore, the airborne radars need not have a detection range of more than 150km. Only those countries without AEW & C capability (like Algeria or Venezuela) will require long-range PESA/AESA radars, but not India.

Prasun K Sengupta said...

To Anon@1:06PM: It could be a Do-228 equipped with a side-looking airborne radar. It would far be better to use a Su-30MKI equipped with the EL/M-2060P SAR pod to quicker detection of distinct man-made metallic objects on the ground.

Anonymous said...

Prasun Sir,
Yes two Su-30MKI fighters equipped with the EL/M-2060P SAR pod have been deployed. Apparently they'll continue the search until dawn so an IL-78 has also been deployed for refueling.

Prasun K Sengupta said...

They've deployed the Su-30MKIs equipped with Litening-2 LDPs, not EL/M-2060Ps. But in my view this CM deserves it since he openly flouted the mandatory flight safety regulations of the DGCA. Such morons deserve to 'disapper' in this manner as he was clearly warned about bad weather and limited visibility. In case the Bell 430 was not equipped with an on-board weather radar or Stormscope then it was doomed the moment it took off in bad weather. Making mkatters worse is the malfunctioning of the emergency locator transmitter and personal emitter beacon, which should have been certified as fully fdunctional by the DGCA during the periodic inspections of the helicopter. Looks like here too the Chief Engineer and QA Engineer responsible for signing off on the maintenance schedule for the Bell 430 did a shoddy job and lied to the regional DGCA authority just for the sake of securing the certificate of airworthiness. Therefore, the DGCA, the maintenance/repair/overhaul authority responsible for the Bell 430 and the 'missing CM' himself should bear the brunt of any and all liabilities. Let this be an abject lesson for all other so-called VIPs that often tend to blatantly disregard rules and regulations, especially the mandatory ones.

smith said...

Hi prasun,

Thanks for giving your precious time for replying all of my comments till date and hence further.

Bharat Earth Movers Ltd. (BEML) had rolled out Bogie Flat Arjun Tank (BFAT) wagons of military rail ordered by the Army. Also the BEML-Tatra T815 VTI 8X8, a terrain vehicle mainly used for tank transportation are the two ways of transportations capable of transporting the current or future tanks for Indian army but what about the air transportation which is also the most vital one, the current IL76 doesn’t seems to be capable enough to carry Arjun.

Ilyushin IL76 payload of 40 tonnes
Antonov An-124 payload 150 tonnes
Antonov An-225 payload 250 tonnes
C-5B Galaxy payload 112.47 tonnes
C-17 payload 77 tonnes
are some of the options to carry the current and the future tanks of Indian Army.

Which would you consider the most suitable option for Indian Army and why?

Please correct if the figures are wrong or I have left any other option.

sachin_sathe said...

prasun

i think it is going to take much more time to get a proper AEW&C coverage(IAF has stated a req of 20 platforms) so for next 7-8 atleast Su-30 MKI will hav to soldier on as a mini AEW&C as the ground based AD system is also going through a make-over thus the querry.

Regarding the russian FGFA i think the indian expertise in constructing an airframe with very high qty of composites will be tapped into(russians are'nt as good as us the last time i checked)
so i think the first FGFA would should take-off & start testing by 2013-2014 and be available for prod by 2019-2020 provided the new engine is delivered for testing in next 2 yrs wht do u think?

Anonymous said...

Ilyushin IL76 payload of 40 tonnes
------------------------
this is wrong paylaod is 50 tons

Prasun K Sengupta said...

To Smith: The existing IL-76MDs can ferry the T-72M1 MBTs and that's exactly how these MBTs and BMP-2 ICVs were first deployed to Leh by the late 1980s. The IAF will most definitely be upgrading the IL-76MDs through a re-engining component (by installing PS-90A turbofans) and an avionics upgrade component. This will enable the IL-76MD to carry a payload of 55 tonnes. As for the new strategic airlifter required by the IAF, the C-17A Globemaster would appear to be the ideal choice.

To Sachin Sathe: Even with modified Su-30MKIs such aircraft will not become AEW & C platforms as the two-man crew will be incapable of performing such manpower-intensive airspace management/airborne battle management tasks. Thus, there is just no substitute for a dedicated AEW & C platform.
Regarding the FGFA, it remains to be seen how HAL will manage the project, especially since almost 70% of the flight-testing and flight/weapons certification phases will have to be conducted in Russia, since neither HAL nor the NAL possess the kind of infrastructure required for doing such work in-country. But in terms of fuselage construction using composites, and development of integrated navigation-and-attack systems and integrated defensive aids suites, India has the upper hand and is in several ways even ahead of Russia, thanks to all the work carried out throughout the 1990s for the Tejas LCA project, at a time when Russia was still trying to recover from the break-up of the USSR. In addition, given the existing high level of R & D cooperation between Indian and Israeli companies, India will also be in a position to introduce several innovative avionics solutions using sensor-fusion technologies, this again being another area where Russia lags far behind its Western counterparts.

smith said...

Why C-17A Globemaster is an ideal choice and not AN124 which has the greater payload capability which is 250 tons which means it can carry 4 arjun tanks at a time or 5 T90 tanks also these are the most reliable and proven platform than C-17A Globemaster as they have operated in the most harsh conditions and operating in all part of the world.

Prasun K Sengupta said...

To Smith: Simple answer: There's no confirmed evidence of the An-124 in series production as of today. Declaration of intentions to re-start the production line for An-124 mean nothing to nobody. Seeing is believing and unless and until a brand-new An-124 is rolled out by either Russia or Ukraine, no one will factor in the prospect of acquiring An-124s in future.