Monday, October 26, 2009

Russian Approaches To Combat Helicopter Survivability


Gaurav said...

Nice Pics

ABHINABA said...

Nice article.

Now, please disclose about the present status of the Kamov Ka-50-2"Erdogan" .

Is the whole project replaced by Ka-52 "Alligator"?
What types of mission sensors were offered for the Ka-50-2"Erdogan"?
Why HAL did not thinking about the Vikhr(laser guided anti tank missiles) for it's LCH? because it was reported that the laser guidance is virtually jam-proof.

hacker said...

thanks prasun da
But see this link
this link says about NIRBHAY cruise missile

1.can you tell about the CRUISE MISSILE program of DRDO?
2.The T-72M1CIA updated by DRDO does it have 1000hp engine and is poland selected for the tender to supply 1000hp engine for CIA?

NJS said...

Does india have any future project on anti-ship ballistic missiles (long range )like chinese version.

Does our Army / IAF have plans to induct barack 8 for medium/long range air defense purpose.

Astra is basically AAM version , does it will be used for SAM version , as like Python/derby which is used for both SAM/AAM.

Prasun K Sengupta said...

To ABHINABA: The Ka-50-2 Erdogan project is DEAD. What is being offered to India is the Ka-52 Alligator. As for sensors for the Erdogan, whatever the Israeli aerospace industry had developed at that time was offered. It is not for HAL to specify which anti-armour guided-missile woill go on board the LCH or Dhruv WSI. The choice is left to the end-user--the Indian Army and IAF. The IAI-built Lahat laser-guided anti-armour missile has already been integrated with the Dhruv ALH.

To hacker: The only cruise missile R & D project of the DRDO that has received funding for is that for the ADM and its submarine-launched version. The Nirbhay will be used as a cruise missile simulator, or unmanned target drone. That is the only reason why Russia agreed to supply the NPO Saturn-built 36MT turbofan for this project.
The T-72CIAs have the same 1,000hp and related gearbox as that on the T-90S. The Polish Wola-1000 engine is being offered for Phase 3 of thr T-72M1 upgrade project, and not for the T-72CIAs.

To NJS: The Indian armed forces do not plan to operationally induct any ASBMs, although the Shourya could well be modified and employed as an ASBM.
All three Indian armed services will induct the Barak-8, while the Barak-8ER will be inducted into service by the Indian Navy and IAF as well.
There are no plans to modify the Astra BVRAAM as a SHORADS/SL-QRM as the Maitri SR-SAM project is already progressing well with MBDA.

Nava said...

Is the Jumper based on the Barak 8?

(I think that, all due respect, your deference to authority RE X band shipborne radars and the Barak 8ER's ASBM defense capabilities are unfortunate. "Doubt everything" is an injunction I try to live by...)

Nava said...

Should be "is unfortunate".

Prasun K Sengupta said...

To Nava: Only time will tell (by 2012) whether or not the Barak-8ER will be capable of intercepting ASBMs. I don't know whether or not Israel has such land-launched BMs to act as surrogate targets dor the Barak-8ER's test-qualification phase in Israel, but I know of two such land-launched systems (one ballistic and one cruise) that will be made available in India once the Barak-8ER's test-flights get underway in eastern India. Until then, one is more than welcome to 'keep doubting'. I'm not forcing anyone to do anything otherwise.

Prasun K Sengupta said...

To All: Can anyone point out what's missing in the following analysis at:

Gaurav said...

Not sure what Shiv Aroor is trying to imply but it is good indian forces are exercising with Americans and seeing some of the best weapons in action this will only give the Indians visibility into the technology as well as the capabilities.
If someone has a product they will try to make money(sell) from it.

Sparsh said...


My apologies for not replying to your earlier post addressed to me about Capt. Subbarao. Here is an extract from the memoir of John Dean:

"But let us be frank: every nation that can afford it wants to know what others are doing in various vital fields, and U.S.-Indian relations were no exception to this truth. In short, situations arise in which U.S. agents get caught in flagrant violation of the law, and vice-versa to Indian officers. Let me say here that the job of certain members of the staff is to penetrate certain secrets of the host country, and foreign countries do the same in their contacts with the United States. My job as ambassador was to avoid situations where "incidents" became an obstacle in the relationship between our country and the host nation in order to preserve the over-all trust in mutually beneficial cooperation. Failure meant the deterioration of the relationship. In 1987. the Indian Navy had leased a Soviet nuclear submarine. The purpose of the lease was to train the Indian navy in the use of such a technically advanced naval vessel. The reactor unit was sealed and the spent fuel was to be returned to the Soviet Union. Mr. Gandhi had assured President Reagan that "this specific submarine on lease from the Soviet Union would not be used in any manner in the event of any hostilities." Prime Minister Gandhi had assured President Reagan in writing that there was "no ground for any apprehension". Naturally, our navy wanted to know more about the submarine leased from the Soviet Union to India, and this led to a covert operation to obtain detailed plans and drawings of this vessel.

The incident occurred when an Indian Navy Captain was arrested at Bombay International Airport before boarding a flight for the United States in possession of detailed technical data on the Soviet nuclear submarine. Apparently, Indian Intelligence had tracked the Indian naval officer - or was he a double agent - and, in any case, I was asked to meet with the Prime Minister who confronted me with the facts. I did my best to smooth ruffled feathers, and fortunately Mr. Gandhi was sufficiently experienced in international relations to know that information on the Soviet vessel was a legitimate target for our Intelligence agencies. I urged that the apprehension of the Indian officer before leaving India with the drawings should not adversely impact on over-all U.S.-Indian relations. At the same time, I protected vis-a-vis Washington the American official who had been in charge of this case at the Embassy. He left the post quite rapidly, but has enjoyed an interesting career after his service in India."

Anonymous said...

Prasun da,

Is the Ka-52 Alligator successor to the Ka-50 Werewolf ?What are the differences between the two ?How does the Ka-52 Alligator fare in comparison to AH-64 Apache which is also being offered to India?

Will the Barak-8 be tested against supersonic cruise missiles like the Bramos or Klub or any Israeli supersonic cruise missiles?Will you please write in your blog about the Barak-8's test-qualification phase in Israel,if it has taken place?

Prasun K Sengupta said...

To Gaurav: Thanks for taking the trouble to respond to my poser. Kindly allow me to elaborate further:
1) " If that's not getting into the heart of a sales pitch, I don't know what is. I'd heard that this sort of thing happens, but had never seen it for myself. Come to think of it, I don't remember seeing a Boeing person in Agra at Cope India,..."
The issue of Boeing or Lockheed Martin or any other aircraft manufacturer engaging in product marketing campaigns either before, during or after an bilateral air exercise does not arise at all since there is already an excisting venue--Aero India--during which such hands-on marketing campaigns are carried out both when the aircraft is on static display, and when flying demonstrations are carried out. In addition, after the conclusion of successive Aero India expos, aircraft manufacturers have ROUTINELY stayed back for as long as a week, conducting flying demonstrations on a no-cost no-commitment basis. As to whether the India-based mass-media agencies was in the know of such routine practices is another matter altogether. The same also holds good for most of the products that have been brought as exhibits during successive DEFEXPO expos. After the conclusion of such expos, the foreign exhibitors stay back in India for another two weeks for giving product (including live-firing) demonstrations of products like shoulder-launched LAWs (such as those from Spain and Russia), small arms, and night-vision devices.
2) "The one thing that isn't ambiguous in the slightest is the wheeling-dealing part of it."..."It's what one Indian Army Major, who seemed surprisingly aloof to the general euphoria at Babina on Monday, said to me while the Javelins were being fired. "They are seducing us with their weapons," he said, his eyes carefully following the missile as it whooshed perfectly towards its quarry."
Here, it must be borne in mind that the entire schedule and content of any bilateral exercise is JOINTLY articulated by both participants--the host armed service and the visiting one. There is no such thing as a unilateral marketing demonstration (especially since the 'targets' are provided by the host armed service). As the live-firings were carried out with participating Indian Army personnel, it stands to reason that such firing demonstrations were specifically asked/requested for by the Indian Army, with the US Army being responsible for giving briefings of an operational nature, while the OEMs (Raytheon and Lockheed Martin) being responsible for answering queries of a technical-cum-industrial nature. This is standard operating procedure and even when Indian Army personnel have gone to Russia over the past two years for bilateral exercises, OEMs like Izmash, KBP and KBM have taken advantage of such opportunities to give live-fire product demonstrations/technical briefings. Therefore, just singling out the US for 'seducing' the Indian armed forces with live-fire demos and accompanying mktg materials (like product DVDs, brochures etc) is, in my view, uncalled for. I only wish the India-based mass-media accorded equal coverage to similar marketing activities that are routinely conducted by non-US weapons manufacturers during bilateral military exercises, both within India and abroad.

Prasun K Sengupta said...

To Sparsh: Many thanks for taking the time to reproduce the extract from the memoir of John Dean. However, in the extract I don't find any mention of Capt (ret'd) B K Subbarao by name. Secondly, the extract speaks about an 'Indian Navy Captain', which means that the officer concerned was a SERVING officer. Subbarao, on the other hand, had already retired from the Indian Navy when he was detained in Mumbai. Therefore, there is nothing to even remotely suggest that the officer involved in espionage was Capt (ret'd) Subbarao. On the other hand, it could well mean that the espionage incident involved another SERVING Indian Navy officer from the Navy HQ's Submarine Warfare Directorate, the details of which have not yet been made public by the Govt of India. You need to dig deeper into this issue and only then will you realise that 'assumption' is often the mother of all fuck-ups.

Prasun K Sengupta said...

To Anon@8:17PM: Yes, the side-by-side seating Ka-52 Alligator is the successor to the single-seat Ka-50 Werewolf. The Ka-52 Alligator is Russia's official contender for the IAF's attack helicopter procurement programme. How does it fare against the AH-64D Longbow Apache? Can't say, because, unlike the Apache, the Ka-52 is not in series-production and as yet is an unproven machine in actual combat. However, as the article I reproduced above proves, the Ka-52 has a highly survivable airframe, but can be further improved by incorporating fly-by-wire flight control systems using the MIL-STD-1553B digital databus (as was proposed in the Ka-50-2 Erdogan offer) and high-speed rotor blades.
Yes, the Barak-8 will be tested against supersonic cruise missiles like the Kh-41 Zubr (ship-launched version of the Moskit) and the Club-N/S but such tests will be conducted at the ITR in the Bay of Bengal, and not in Israel.

Anonymous said...


The blog owner in his
post while commenting on this Outlook article in the comment section admitted the analysis as the most objective and brilliantly exposed the organisational deficiencies prevailing within the AEC.

Whereas the author of this article, Subbarao, copied verbatim the sentences from this website,, and all the information discussed are just open source and just repeated from the AEC website.

I leave it to your conscience to decide what was so analytical in that that has to described as 'most objective' and 'brilliantly exposing'.

Anonymous said...

hello prasun, bein oof topic agn.
there has been a lot on the news abt NATO's opns in afghan.US asking more troops and Europe denying it! what is ur opinion. the EU wants a legitimate afghan govt to support send troops but US investing in corrupt karzai who has all the warlords smuggling drugs on his side. why do you think US is in afghan and who is likely to gain from us failure to establish a functional democracy in afghans.why is the europe backing out.

Prasun K Sengupta said...

Anon@12:34PM needs to bridge the gap prevailing between 'information' presented at the AEC website, and the 'analysis' done by Capt (Ret'd) B K Subbarao. Open-source information availability does not automatically translate into cogent or coherent and logical conclusions, as procven by your ill-conceived and ignorant comment.

To Anon@1:16PM: I guess Europe has realised at last that Afghanistan never had a tradition of practising democracy! Afghan tribal groups never had a sense of national identity and it was for this very reason that communism had to be 'imported' and forcibly imposed on Afghan citizens as the unifying ideology. The same was the rationale for the existence of Iraq's Baath Party (to forcibly downplay the Sunni-Shia sectarian divide) and continues to be so for Syria's Baath Party as well. Today, post 9/11, there's no unifying ideology in Afghanistan and therefore whosoever is in power has to decentralise power through the provincial warlords, that's the reality, which even the Obama Administration seems to have realised at last. Therefore, expect NATO/ISAF forces to butt out of Afghanistan in future, but the US forces will stay there not so much to protect any Afghan govt, but to carry on with their anti-terror strikes into Pakistan, which have already been underway since 2002 with US special operations forces and Predator/Reaper UCAVs frequently engaging in pre-emptive strikes as deep as 100km within sovereign Pakistani territory.

hacker said...

thanks prasun da
can you tell me more about the ADM cruise missile program i can not find any thing about that?
if the T-72MI CIA is fitted with 1000hp engine so why to consider polish offer of 1000hp engine as we are making T-90 under tot so we will not have any problem getting the engines?

Prasun K Sengupta said...

To hacker: The illustration of the ADM and info on it are at:
For Phase 3 of the T-72 upgrade the Wola-1000 is being upgraded wth SESM automatic transmission as a complete powerpack. The existing 1,000hp powerpack from Chelyabinsk Plant has totally different performance characteristics.

Anonymous said...

Prasun da,

Does the AH-64D Longbow Apache also has a highly survivable airframe like the Ka-52?Does it also have the MIL-STD-1553B digital databus fly-by-wire flight control systems? The Apache,being a proven machine in actual combat stands a very good chance to be selected?What do you think?

How will the DRDO obtain the Kh-41 Zubr supersonic cruise missile to be tested against the Barak-8?Will the Russians allow the Kh-41 Zubr to be tested?
The Kh-41 Zubr,being a highly maneuverable missile with a very high supersonic speed and a very low sea-skimming profile(3-5 meters above sea -level during it's terminal stage), will provide a very good target for the Barak-8.In fact it is the best supersonic anti-ship missile in the Russian inventory after the Yakhont(which is like the Brahmos).If the Barak-8 comes out successful then it will be a huge boost to anti-cruise missile system that India is trying to develop in order to take on the Chinese cruise missiles.What do you think?

Thank you.

Anonymous said...

How many attack helicopter does IAF plan to induct?Are they planning to have them in 20 and 30's or in 200 or 300rd?

hacker said...

Thanks prasun da
can you please look at this picture

Is this the recently tested PRITHVI is of PRITHVI3 variant(its fins remover from the middle)
can you please tell about the other AGNI2AT,AGNI3A,AGNI3B,AGNI3C and AGNI3SL

The picture says that

AGNI1:- RANGE-850KM at 1000kg PAYLOAD
AGNI2:- RANGE-3300KM at 1000kg PAYLOAD

upto these we know
now for the new missiles

AGNI2AT:- RANGE-4000KM at 1500kg PAYLOAD
AGNI3TD:- RANGE-5500KM at 1500kg PAYLOAD

what do you know and what is your opinion about these missiles?


Prasun K Sengupta said...

To Anon@8:45PM: The version of the Apache being offered to the IAF is the Block 3 version that incorporates several structural improvements based on the lessons learnt by the US Army during OP Iraqi Freedom. As the IAF is scouting for a proven dedicated attack helicopter which is available off-the-shelf, the Apache, objectively speaking, stands out as the only such machine available and which is in series-production, and has built-in growth potential.
There's no need to buy the Kh-41 Zubr as its flight profile can be easily mimmicked by missiles loike the BrahMos or the Kh-31A.

To Anon@7:55AM: The total projected reqmt of dedicated attack helicopters is 48 for the IAF. But the Indian Army too requires such attack helicopters for its projected Combat Aviation Brigades, but the Army will likely be forced by the MoD to go for the LCH in a big way. This is fine by me, but I find it repulsive that in this day and age the IAF should insist on operating dedicated attack helicopters, or even battlefield utility helicopters. It is now fairly well-known that during OP Vijay and even prior to that in the late 1990s, the IAF's Mi-17 aircrew were severely reluctant to fly to the BOPs located close to the LAC (though the Army's SA/315B Lama/Cheetah pilots were more than willing to fly such sorties and they eventually did). Thee exists a deep pervading operational and intellectual mis-match between the IAF helicopter aircrew and their Army counterparts when it comes to frontline rotary-winged combat support.

To hacker: The Prithvi-3 does have fins on-board as it is not a ballistic missile, but a battlefield support surface-to-surface missile powered by actuated/steerable rocket nozzle.
I'm not aware of the existence of missiles like AGNI2AT, AGNI3TD, AGNI3A, AGNI3B, AGNI3C, or AGNI3SL and it is highly likely that these are all the figment of someone's over-enthusiastic but unwarranted imagination.

F said...

Prasun, Afghanistan not having a history of democracy is not the main problem. After years of war, the ordinary Afghan welcomed with opened arms the presence of foreign troops hoping this would lead to change. To be fair to Karzai, the US squandered a chance to rebuild a new Afghanistan with a strong central government in 2001/02 when it delegated the task of nation building into a secondary role and funded the warlords. Like in Iraq later, nation building and social/economics changes were initialy not part of the plan. Despite warnings from the EU, Karzai and the State Department, the Pentagon continued to back and fund the warlords, this in turn weakened Kazai in the eyes of the ordinary Afghan.

If the US had forced Islamabad to develop FATA by pouring in cash to fund schools, roads, etc, instead of turning a blind eye to the Pak government's abuses towards its own people, perhaps thing wouldn't be so bad now in Pakistan?

With regards to acoustic signatures, how does Scorpene compare to the Type 212 and Type 216? Or against older designed SSKs like the Vastergotland and Upholder? As part of their sales pitch, DCNS is proud to say that the Scorpene was built using some of technology used on French SSBNs. The problem is, French SSBNs and the Rubis SSNs were the nosiest boats in NATO.

Prasun K Sengupta said...

To Faris: Objectively speaking, the vase (Afghanistan) was already broken way back in the early 1980s when the US and Saudis sought out and nurtured provincial warlords (the Karzai brothers included) in order to create area-specific and decentralised insurgencies against the Soviet occupation forces. Having done this, such a strategy effectively balkanised Afghanistan territorially. The post-Soviet withdrawal era say such provincial warlords only consolidating their strengths with the help of unlimited funds originating from the Golden Crescent. Now, all of a sudden even if one tries his level best to imposed centralised guided democracy, the strategy will never work. The only workable formula is to have a conglomerate of ruthless, cold-hearted collective dictatorship comprising the Hazaras, Pashtuns, Tajiks and Uzbeks, whose leaders are committed to nation-building through an equitable share of the economic proceeds. That's the cold reality. The same was the case in Iraq, where a collective Revolutionary Council used sheer force and severe torture-induced fear to play down the Sunni-Shia sectarian divide using the Baath ideology (the same formula continues to gbe iomplemented in Syria as well, with great success).
As for FATA, the long-enduring rules clearly forbid the federal govt in Islamabad from interfering in ANY aspect of the ways of life there. This was the arrangement arrived at when FATA merged within the republic of Pakistan. That's why any attempt to domesticate or frce the inhabitants of FATA to become upward mobile socially will be totally rejected, as the folks there do not want to emerge out of the time-warp. Any attempt to forcibly push them forward will only result in separatist tendencies breaking out in the open, as can now be seen. The problem in Pakistan is either Afghanistan-induced or US-induced, but is of Pakistan's own making. Just read the official slogan of the Pakistan Army, which reads as "protecting the Islamic Republic and Carrying Out Jihad in the name of Allah". That alone should explain what exactly are the aims and objectives of the Army. That's why, the NATO forces instead of fighting battles inside Afghanistan, should instead turn eastwards and go deep within Pakistan's Northern Areas, which is federally administered territory, where no foreigners are allowed entry (except the Chinese), be it for tourism or for earthquake relief.

Prasun K Sengupta said...

With regard to the Scorpene's acoustic signature, it should be comparable to those of its German counterparts as both are optimised for operations in littoral waters and shallow depths. The Swedish and Royal Navy SSKs like the Dutch SSKs, Russian SSKs and Japanese SSKs were all optimised for operations in deeper waters.

Prasun K Sengupta said...

To Faris: Anyway, all three armed services of Malaysia last week submitted their priorities for RMK-10 (2011-2015) and the RMAF has projected as its No1 priority the acquisition of six LRMR/ASW aircraft (like the Boeing P-8A or Airbus A319MPA), and not MRMR/ASW platforms like the C-295MPA or ATR-72MPA. Priority No2 is acquisition of six additional Su-30MKMs so that a second Su-30MKM squadron can be raised. Priority No3 is the acquisition of a squadron of multi-role agile fighter (MRAF) for which the JAS-39 Gripen NG is the favourite. Procurement of AEW & C platforms has been postponed to RMK-11. For the RMN procurement of a single brand-new multi-role support ship is imminent, with the main contenders being South Korean models (from Hanjin or Daesun) and China's CSTC-built Type 071 LPD.

Anonymous said...

In what ways will be a Gripen NG be superior to the Tejas Mk2?

Anonymous said...

^^ are you kidding? None!

will the tejas Mk 2 have canards?

Anonymous said...

Indians should not be comparing yourself to China, your at same level as Pakistan. Look at HDI stats and GDP per capita figures. India is the Saudia Arabia of Asia, in terms of love for foreign weapons. However the Saudi monarchy have atleast tranformed the lives of its people with oil money, has India done same with its riches?

Prausn, Look at your own blog, livefist etc, all you do is discuss foreign weapon purchases.

Anonymous said...


When we getting more foreign weapons?


Why dont you admit India needs to spend less on defense to improve lives of its people? You think you need the weapons to deter the "mighty" Pakistan. India and Pakistan two nations that failed its citizens, you can laugh at one but seeing that India has more active insurgent groups then any other nation show me India is not that a model of success.

Prasun K Sengupta said...

No, no canards.

To Anon@1:16PM: I can't speak for others but I myself have never tried to compare India with China or with any other country. And FYI Pakistan's per capita GDP is higher than India's as it hosts 1/10th the population of India! How come you missed that? And there's nothing to compare between China and India, even when it comes to off-the-shelf imports of weapon systems by both countries, as China can only import weapon systems of 1980s design like the Type 636 Kilo-class SSKs while India is free to import weapons two generations ahead like the Scorpene SSK. When it comes to import optiins available for products like AESA radars, there's absolutely no chance for any comparison as in this case China has no options to exercise. Therefore, you're right, one cannot compare apples with oranges. But one thing I cannot fathom is why of all other countries you've settled down on Saudi Arabia as the yardstick vis-a-vis India.

Prasun K Sengupta said...

To Anon@1:21PM: You seem to be either daydreaming or orbiting in Cloud 9! Show me one country that has spent less on defence to successfully improve lives of its people. Also, can you show me any one country sharing a common border with India which DID NOT fail its citizens? Can you also show me one any one country sharing a common border with India which DOES NOT HAVE any active insurgent groups? AS for your remark "You think you need the weapons to deter the "mighty" Pakistan," It is not what I think, it is you projecting your own thought and perceptions on to my shoulders. Because the reality is exactly opposite to what you've stated.

Anonymous said...

Yaun class submarine has long been speculated to have AIP. No definate proof, does not mean it does not exist, remember militaries tend to be secretative.

China last year started to test its own X band AESA radar.

China has deployed 2 AESA AWACs planes. China is way behind the West and Russia, but ahead of India. Remember Scorpene submarine has been delayed by many years, by time it goes into service, China will have something comparable. When India does decide to buy and place in service the MMCRA program, China would have deployed J 10B with AESA radar. Russia, Germany, Isreal have been supplying components and know how to China, I very much doubt China is two generations behind India in certain fields.

Anonymous said...

Me again.

Prasun, China spent less on military during the 1980s to rebuild its economy. Deng's budget cuts stopped many weapons development programs. I gave you a solid example of a leader taking decision to improve the nation at expense of military. This was at a time when Soviet Union stationed over a million troops on northern border and was much more isolated by regional powers then today.

ActionAid congratuales China and criticises India

Prasun, I been reading your blog, for a year, never commented but I thought why refrain myself now. One thing that is an issue, is that you give an authorative opinion on subjects you lack knowledge on, but never cite that you are unsure. Its good you talk about Indian military but start talking about other militaries, thats where you fail.

sbm said...

Prasun, just one teeny weeny correction - Pakistan's per capita GDP is no longer larger than India's.

It hasn't been so for some time.

Also note that comparing the Indian GDP to China is not so useful either as China revised its eco base year to 2007 while India makes do with a curious mix of 1993 and 1999 ! The need for India to revise the base year is vital to get a true comparison.

Data collection and analysis for the Indian economy is an exercise in complete frustration comparable only to trying to analyse the MoD's decision making process !

Prasun K Sengupta said...

To Anon@1:42PM: If China is already flight-testing X-band AESA (be it for J-10B or FC-20) radar then why did I see visiting PLAAF and COSTIND Senior Colonels hovering around the Irbis-E PESA at Tikhomirov NIIP's booth and asking about possible export licencing approvals during the MAKS 2009 expo last August? If Russia, Germany, Israel have been supplying components and know-how to China then how come Beijing all the time kicks up a fuss over the prevailing EU/North American arms/weapons technology embargoes imposed since June 1989? And whose Scorpene programme has been delayed by many years? In case you're referring to India's, then you need to update your info database, as the production slippage is only for the first two SSKs and that too by only eight months. In fact, fabrication of SSK No3 is two months ahead of schedule! And lastly, as for China's spending levels on PLA force modernisation, even if President Hu Jintao were to directly state what you've claimed (about spending being reduced in the 1980s) to me or for that matter to anyone else (Dmitry Medvedev and Barack Obama included), believe me, there will be no takers of such claims. And talking of the PRC's 'isolation by regional powers', that isolation ended way back in 1972 when Nixon met Mao and it is precisely engagements like these that emboldened Beijing to attack Vietnam in 1979, as the former by then knew very well the practical limitations of Soviet military power projection, even in regional terms.
And regarding your concluding remark: "One thing that is an issue, is that you give an authorative opinion on subjects you lack knowledge on, but never cite that you are unsure", hey, I'm not forcing anything down your throat. But if you have reasons to feel envy or don't want to read what I write or opine about, there's nothing I can do except relegate you to the status of just another trolling entity who wishes to remain 'Anonymous' due to his/her own perceived insecurity/disbeliefs/misconceptions.

To SBM: Bang on Target! I couldn't agree more. Was merely trying to be modest with regard to the 'friendly' neighbour with whom India's cultural and civilisational ties abound!

Pierre Zorin said...

Heard about the Dhruv crash in Ecuador?I sure hope it turns out Pilot error and not any mechanical shortcoming because that will ruin any export chances ever.Shame though whatever the reason for the crash is found to be.Wouldn't even be surprised about sabotage because there are strong pro-American groups within the military who disliked the Indian option from the start.Now Ecuador was thinking about a further purchase and Chile appeared to be interested this happens!

Aaditya said...

Loool man i guess the brainwashed panda is having second thoughts now..excellent reply prasun. :thumbsup:

Prasun there are many obsessed pakistanis (faking to be chinese) trolling on indian defence blogs. Just have a look at Shiv's or Ajai's'll find that supposedly chinese commentators know plenty of hindi words. They're just dumb psychos trying to create misunderstandings between us & the Chinese.

However, there are some high flying chinese guys who think they come from Mars or Jupiter...sigh wateva!

F said...

Prasun, am I right in assuming that the Gripen is the favourite only because of funding and political reasons? From what I've heard, the Super Hornet is the RMAF's main choice, but like the Fulcrums and MKMs the government is again forcing the RMAF to accept a product it doesn't really want. Why go for the unproven Gripen when the Super Hornet has been proven in combat and has had all integration already done and paid for by the US government, it really does not make sense.

About the subs, yes the Upholders and Zwardis like the Kilo were intended for deep waters. But was not the Vastergotland, in line with Swedish navy doctrine, meant for shallow operations?

Prasun K Sengupta said...

To Aaditya: The trouble, or ultimate irony (LoL!) with such 'brainwashed pandas' is that they just don't practice what their paramount leader preached, i.e. separating the truth from the facts. For instance, while it is a fact that between 1977 and 1997 China's annual defence spending saw fundamental restructuring and re-prioritising in terms of reductions of manpower-under-arms within the PLA and the PAP, the truth is that the amount of money saved through such restructuring and re-prioritising was diverted into various force modernisation efforts, which included resorting to large-scale imports of weapons and related technologies from Belgium, France, Israel, Italy, South Africa, the UK and the US. Therefore, while it is fact that spending levels on manpower (and related pensions) were reduced, the truth is that spending levels on the capital account (for weapons procurements) increased dramatically. In conclusion, I guess the 'Pandas' have yet to bridge the prevailing gap between TRUTH and FACTS.

Prasun K Sengupta said...

To Faris: The Super Hornet was being pitched against the Su-30MKM, and was never promoted as a replacement for the RMAF's inventory of F-5E/Fs. Now that the RMAF has already decided to make the Su-30MKM is air dominance heavy MRCA (just as the Republic of Singapore AF has done wth the F-15SG) for two squadrons, the requirement now is for two squadrons of agile MRCAs like the JAS-39 Gripen NG or F-16 Super Viper of the type being offered to India. The existing eight F/A-18Ds are more than enough to act as M-MRCAs and after the F-15SGs, the F/A-18Ds remain the most potent M-MRCAs within ASEAN. Therefore, consideration of twin-engined heavier MRCAs like the EF-2000 or Super Hornet or Rafale by the RMAF is not a possibility.