Sunday, November 8, 2009

M-SAMs of China, Pakistan & India Detailed + Spotlight on HQ-12/KS-1A
















Southwest of Kunming, one can find the latest evidence of the ongoing modernisation of the Chinese PLA’s air defence network. With the large amount of efforts underway to modernise the air defence network through the inclusion of long-range strategic SAM systems like the S-300PMU1, S-300PMU2 and HQ-9, the appearance of a cheaper, short-range complement designed to replace the HQ-2 and supplement the long-range assets is a logical development. The KS-1A can serve as a close-in area air defence system to complement the more advanced systems, as well as performing as a gapfiller to preclude the need for additional, expensive strategic SAM systems. The KS-1A represents the current configuration of the KS-1 SAM system. The KS-1 was developed in the 1980s as a replacement for the HQ-61 SAM system. Due to reasons which have not been publicly disclosed at this time, the KS-1 did not enter Chinese military service when development was completed in 1994. A likely reason was the poor manoeuvring capability of the missile. It could only engage targets with a 5g manoeuvring capability, making the KS-1 largely ineffective for defending against new-generation combat aircraft.

The PRC’s 2nd Aerospace Academy, now known as China Academy of Defence Technology, or CADT, (also known as the China Changfeng Mechanics & Electronics Technology Academy) of the 7th Ministry of Machinery Industry (now known as CASIC), in 1981 began developing a 57.5km-range tactical endo-atmospheric interceptor missile called the KS-1, which was meant to intercept incoming tactical ballistic missiles. The first test-firing of the missile took place in 1989 and the KS-1 system was first publicly revealed at Le Bourget during the 1991 Paris Air Show. All R & D work on the KS-1 was concluded in 1994, following which series-production of the M-SAM rounds began at the Gui Yang-based Guizhou Aerospace Industry Company Ltd. The KS-1’s TWS-312 engagement control centre (ECC) and its SJ-231 missile guidance system (that includes the C-band HT-233 active phased-array tracking-cum-engagement radar) were series-produced by the Xi’an-based Shaanxi Tianhe Industry Group. The latter two were mounted on TAS-5380 8 x 8 heavy-duty cross-country vehicles. The KS-1 employs a single-chamber dual thrust, solid-fuelled missile, weighing 886kg, and comes equipped with a track-via-missile (TVM) guidance system under which mid-course correction commands are transmitted to the guidance system from the ECC. The target acquisition system in the missile acquires the target in the terminal phase of flight and transmits the data using the TVM down-link via the HT-233 radar to the ECC for final course-correction calculations. The course-correction commands are then transmitted to the missile via a missile track command up-link. A control actuator system is located at the tail end of the missile behind the propulsion system. The HT-233 radar carries out airspace search, target detection, target track, identification, missile tracking, missile guidance and electronic counter-countermeasures (ECCM) functions. The HT-233 radar is automatically controlled by a digital weapons control computer housed within the ECC, and cable link is used to connect the SJ-231 to the TWS-312, which is the only manned station in a KS-1 Battery and it provides the human interface for control of all automated functions. The ECC communicates with all KS-1 Fire Units as well as with higher-echelon command headquarters, and has on board an Air Situation Display console and Tracking Display console that adopt customised BITE technologies, and have embedded simulated training software for engaging more than 100 airborne targets in various flight profiles, all of which can be used for operational training in peacetime. HT-233 radar, operating in the 300MHz bandwidth, has a detection range of 120km and tracking range of 90km. The radar antenna has 4,000 active ferrite phase shifters. It can detect targets in azimuth (360°) and elevation (0° to 65°). It can track some 100 airborne targets and can simultaneously engage more than 50 targets when used in conjunction with a Brigade-level ECC (which can handle automatic command-and-control of three subordinate KS-1 Regiments). In some cases a KS-1 Fire Unit receives early warning of enemy ballistic missile launch, along with direction and time-of-arrival data. Target engagement can be carried out by the HT-233 in manual, semi-automatic or automatic mode. When the decision has been made to engage the target, the ECC selects the Launch Battery or Batteries to be used and pre-launch data is transmitted to the selected missile via microwave line-of-sight data links. The target position data is downloaded to the missile to aid the missile’s target acquisition. After launch, the missile is acquired by the HT-233 radar. The missile’s track command up-link and the TVM down-link between the missile and the HT-233 allows the missile’s flight to be monitored and provides missile guidance commands from the ECC’s weapons control computer. As the missile approaches the target, the TVM guidance system on the missile is activated and the missile is steered toward the target. As the missile’s closest approach to the missile is reached (50 metres), a proximity fuze detonates the directional high-explosive blast fragmentation warhead. The missile’s engagement zone is between 300 metres and 27km in terms of altitude, while it has a slant range of between 7km and 50km, and a maximum speed of 1,200 metres/second. The KS-1 Fire Unit includes a 6 x 6 TAS-270A vehicle housing a slewable oblique under-rail suspension dual launcher carrying two missile rounds. The Fire Unit can deploy in three ways: the vehicle mode, the trailer mode, and the stand-alone mode. It carries two ready-to-fire missiles, is capable of remote operations, and is 360-degree slewable.

By the mid-1990s the 2nd Aerospace Academy began R & D work on developing two distinct derivatives of the KS-1: the ground-based 58km-range KS-1A variant that was to be optimised for use against manned combat aircraft and cruise missiles; and the 80km-range shipborne, vertically-launched HQ-9 long-range surface-to-air missile (LR-SAM) system (using the HQF-91 missile round) that was optimised for use against both manned combat aircraft and supersonic anti-ship cruise missiles, as well as tactical ballistic missiles. To make the KS-1A a cost-effective yet lethal M-SAM, it was decided to do away with the TVM guidance mechanism and instead, adopt the command-link guidance approach. Under this, the HT-233 radar (using an integral IFF transponder, a spectrally pure TWT transmitter, two-stage superheterodyne correlation receiver for channels, high-speed digital signals processor, real-time engagement management computer, secure guidance command up-link, and a radar data processor) would accurately track both the airborne target and launched missile, while a flight/trajectory control computer inside the SJ-231 would calculate the required flight-path corrections for the missile, which would then be transmitted via a data-link to the missile’s on-board digital flight control system (including a digital autopilot, telemetry command receiver and decoder, and a transponder) for bringing the missile as close as 50 metres to the targetted aircraft, following which the proximity fuze will trigger the HE fragmentation warhead. Presently, one KS-1A Battery can simultaneously engage three targets with missiles, and comprises 36 missiles, one SJ-231 ECC station and one HT-233 radar (for 3-D target search, detection, acquisition, identification and engagement; clutter rejection and missile guidance), one optional YLC-18 S-band 3-D mobile tactical air defence radar (with a 250km-range), three power supply vehicles, six 6 x 6 missile launcher vehicles (that are dispersed to launch sites located up to 10km away from each other, with the launch platforms being microprocessor-driven and controlled through an electro-mechanical servo system), six missile transporter-loading vehicles, one tractor, one missile-test vehicle, three missile transport vehicles, one electronics maintenance vehicle, two tools vehicles, and one power supply vehicle. When networked with a Brigade-level ECC, a kill probability of not less than 90% of small-formation airborne targets (less than four aircraft whose airspeed is not greater than 700metres/second) can be achieved (when ripple-firing two missiles against a single target), and more than 95% when the target’s speed is not greater than 560 metres/second and the intruding airborne target density is not greater than four aircraft a minute. In terms of performance, therefore, the KS-1A is in the same league as (but much cheaper than) Raytheon’s RIM-162 Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile (ESSM), while being superior to the 45km-range BUK-M2E of Russia’s Almaz Antey Concern. The improved KS-1A was publicly revealed at the Zhuhai Air Show in 2000. It is a command-guided missile with a range of 57.5km, capable of intercepting targets at altitudes of up to 27,000 metres. One identified KS-1A site is found southwest of Kunming in southern China at the following coordinates: 24 54’ 51.79” N 102 33’ 47.22” E. The KS-1A SAM system is deployed at a prepared site similar in layout to those constructed for the S-300PMU1 and HQ-9 SAM systems. A raised berm in the centre of the site is present to mount the SJ-231 engagement radar station and the TWS-312 Air Defence Command System’s Battery Control Centre engagement radar. Surrounding that berm are six square pads, each containing a single TEL. There are various structures present, ostensibly to house support equipment, power generation vehicles, and command-and-control facilities. The visible components appear to be connected via cables, potentially providing the system with a measure of communications security. The KS-1A enjoys a 15km increase in effective range over the HQ-61, and as such represents a relatively significant improvement in air defence capability.

The KS-1A M-SAM is extremely flexible in employment and deployment. It is best employed as a Regiment. However, its three Batteries can be employed for independent tasks if required. This is called the Autonomous Mode. The three Batteries can be deployed in various geometric formations, as suited to the vulnerable area/point being protected and the extent desired to be sanitised from hostile airborne threats. Similarly, the Battery can deploy its launchers in a way as to be optimal for target engagement as the threat is perceived ab-initio, or as it evolves during combat. Cross-country Mobility enables quick re-deployment and the radar-based sensors can be so positioned as to achieve the optimum kill zone. The KS-1A Batteries can protect static, semi-mobile as well as mobile assets. These may be critical national assets in the hinterland or large mobile armoured formations (either Integrated Brigade Combat teams or Armoured Divisions) thrusting into enemy territory. The Regimental ECC and the Battery-level ECCs must be deployed in a manner, which will provide a clear line-of-sight (LOS) to the Batteries, which may be placed up to a maximum of 30km away from each other. This requires the mast of the microwave communications antenna (on the radars, ECCs and Firing Units) to be raised to the required appropriate height. The YLC-18 radar must be sited while keeping in mind the screening constraints. The radar’s antenna must be aligned accurately by knowing its position and orientation with respect to the north. This information is made available to the YLC-18’s mission computer from a fibre-optic gyro-based autonomous land navigation system (ALNS). Care should be taken to align the YLC-18’s antenna with the ALNS and the system must be calibrated. The levelling of the YLC-18’s antenna needs to be accurate in order to avoid any tilt, which would introduce a bias. The SJ-231 is also provided with ALNS to measure its latitude, longitude and orientation with respect to the true north. This information is required by both Battery-level ECC and the YLC-18’s mission computer. The M-SAM Firing Units operate automatically and are remotely controlled by the Battery-level ECC, which may be up to 1.5km away. Control is effected via microwave LOS radio or line-cable links. The YLC-18 automatically starts tracking targets at a distance of around 250km providing early warning to the KS-1A system and its operators. The target track information is transferred to Regimental ECC, which automatically classifies the targets. The three HT-233s start tracking targets around a range of 100km. This data too is transferred to Regimental ECC, which then performs multi-radar tracking and carries out track correlation and data fusion. Target position information is then sent back to the HT-233s, which use this information to acquire the prioritised targets with the help of the Battery-level ECC, which can engage a target(s) from the selected list at the earliest point of time, and is is assigned the target in real-time by the Regimental ECC. The availability of missiles and the health of the missiles are also taken into consideration during this process. Fresh targets are assigned as and when intercepts with assigned targets are completed. A single shot kill probability (SSKP) of 98% has already been achieved by the system taking into consideration various parameters of the sensors, guidance command, missile capabilities and kill zone computations. There are a number of possibilities for deploying the KS-1A in autonomous Battery-level mode and in Regimental-level mode for neutralising the threat profiles with optimally defined multi-target engagement scenarios. In the Regimental-level mode there are a number of proven configurations to defend vulnerable areas depending upon the nature of the expected threat pattern and characteristics of the threats. Similarly, up to four B batteries in autonomous mode can be deployed to defend vulnerable areas/points.

In all its deployment patterns, the KS-1A offers a multi-target and multi-directional area air defence capability. All its ground-based and airborne components are integrated in a plug-and-flight architecture under which the software-based integration of all hardware-based elements permits the autonomous management of various functions such as programmable surveillance, target detection, target acquisition, target identification and tracking, threat evaluation, threat prioritisation, interception assignment and target engagement. Depending on the operational scenario—whether to defend a vulnerable area or vulnerable point—the KS-1A’s operational deployment pattern can be selected from either of the three above-mentioned types. In all the three patterns, up to four KS-1A Batteries (with 48 ready-to-fire missiles and four SJ-231 stations) can function together seamlessly even when deployed over a wide area and are linked to a Regiment-level ECC by secure microwave line-of-sight data links as well as mobile troposcatter communications terminals. When an entire Regiment of KS-1A M-SAMs is deployed, use is made of a YLC-18 ‘gapfiller’ airspace surveillance radar to provide a single integrated airspace picture to the Regimental ECC. The YLC-18 and four SJ-231 stations can be networked with a Sector Operations Centre (SOC) via a DA-6 tactical internet controller using either underground fibre-optic links or land-mobile broadband, multi-channel, beyond line-of-sight, digital troposcatter communications terminals. This same type of systems architecture using the above-mentioned tools can be employed to develop an integrated, hierarchical air defence network that seamlessly integrates the M-SAM, E-SHORADS and VSHORADS into one monolithic guided-missile-based air defence system. To make the HT-233 radar virtually invulnerable to hostile electronic jamming, a number of ECCM features have been incorporated, including narrow transmit and receive beams, very low sidelobe antenna, automatic frequency selection mode, interference analysis and mapping, and randomness in frequency, space and time.--Prasun K. Sengupta

62 comments:

Samer said...

really interesting , So you can confirm that the naval HQ-9 is in fact not a derivative of the Land HQ-9 (which is based on the S-300PMU)? and is in fact a derivative of KS-1A

Anonymous said...

prasun
does that mean any permanent member of UN can do proliferation and there is no body to stop them ?
then what stopped russia to supply thermonuclear design and nuclear fissile material to india ?

what are chances of india getting a permanent seat in UN with veto power in the decision which is to be taken in 2010?

Anonymous said...

hello prasun
there is news of IA buying javelin ATGM
NAG is also a ATGM
the main difference between them is that javelin is hand launched so it is more mobile and has less weight
where as NAG is vehicle launched and and has more weight
can't DRDO make a handheld version of NAG like the javelin ?
is there any news about HELINA and integrating NAG and HELINA with millimetric wave (mmW) seeker?

Typhoon said...

Im always suprised that many of the medium and short range air defence systems developed by nations like China, Isreal and India etc have opted not to impliment the lessons Russia learned though combat testing of the Kub system.

Despite the application of modern electronics these designs still seem rooted in 1970's air defence complex design.

Prasun K Sengupta said...

To Samer: The HQ-9's ship-launched and ground-launched variants are identical. They're far more advanced than the HQ-12/KS-1A and there's no evolutionary link between the HQ-9 and HQ-12/KS-1A.

To Anon@4:32AM: That's right. The P-5 have the power to make and break any rule. The USSR too blatantly engaged in WMD proliferation with the PRC in the 1950s. And the successor state Russia continues to be actively involved in India's nuclear submarine programmes. But India has never asked anyone for any off-the-shelf supply of readymade nuclear warheads or weapons-grade fissile material. There's no pressing need for that.

To Anon@4:40AM: Anything is possible provided the reqd R & D funds are made available to the DRDO. Without this, the DRDO can hardly be expected to produce results of the kind one witnesses in Europe or the US, where specialised companies have been developing such weapons for several decades. The only reason China has been able to develop a homegrown family of ATGMs is due to the steady and unrestricted availability of funds reqd for not only developing such weapons in-house, but also obtaining such technologies from abroad by employing every possible means, i.e. technology buyovers and industrial espionage.

Anonymous said...

Sir wiki says Indian Army does not uses RPG but BSF operates RPG .Why IA prefer recoilless rifle instead of RPG when BSf operates it?It is good AT weapon.

Divakar said...

Prasun,

It is good news that the Akash is being considered by IA and IAF. Is there any chance the range will be enhanced to >40Km, so that it can be more effective. Is there any upgrade path defined for Akash. If not, is there any chance these new orders will give a push towards that direction? I read that one of the advantages of Akash is being mounted on a tank chasis and more mobile in NE ares. Are we doing the same with the procured/ co-developed MR-SAM and LR-SAM?.

Thanks.

Anonymous said...

Prasun dada, a Good article.

Where does Akash stand compared to HQ-12/KS-1A? Is HQ-12 is more advanced than HQ-19 ? How can India do to counter this missile KS-1A?

Another question, but not related to your blog, but to the readers of your blog.
Does anyone know who runs the blog "TheAsiandefence.blogspot.com ?" and from where?

Prasun K Sengupta said...

To Anon@9:36AM: I'm not aware of any military or paramlitary agency using RPGs, but the Maoist guerrillas do use improvised home-made launchers and rounds. The Indian Army and BSF use the far more versatile 84mm Carl Gustav LAW, while the Indian Army also uses the Instalaza-built C-90 family of LAWs.

To Divakar: I certainly hope there will be an Akash Mk2 in future, and hopefully the Akash Mk1 can also be reconfigued as a vertically-launched N-LOS system. The Akash Mk1 and Rajendra BLR mounted on T-72M chassis are meant for deployment on the plains and in desert terrain, whereas the truck-mounted variant for the IAF will be the one deployed for base air defence in the northeast. The Spyder SL-QRMs, Barak-8 MR-SAM and Barak-8ER LR-SAMs will be truck-mounted for the IAF, while for the Army the Spyder will be truck-mounted, while the Barak-8 MR-SAM will be mounted on the hull of an armoured vehicle, most probably on the more powerful Arjun Mk1 MBT's hull.

To Anon@9:51AM: The HQ-12/KS-1A MR-SAM was late last year certified to have a slant range of 57km and so it is definitely superior to the Akash in terms of engagement envelope. The HQ-9 is a vertically-launched LR-SAM but has the same engagement radars and command-and-control system as that of the HQ-12/KS-1A. There are several available ways for neutralising them via SEAD and DEAD options.

Jai said...

India has just bought more than a billion $ worth of Barak-8 missiles. Read the report here

@ Prasun
Is it true that Akash's ramjet engine is on-board the Barak-8? What else has India contributed?

Anonymous said...

Samer:
KS-1A variant that was to be optimised for use against manned combat aircraft and cruise missiles; and the 80km-range shipborne, vertically-launched HQ-9 long-range surface-to-air missile (LR-SAM) system (using the HQF-91 missile round) that was optimised

I list u there I alwaYs that there was no link between hq9 and ks1 ... But u just stated that above

Prasun K Sengupta said...

To Jai: The procurement contract was signed last April, not just. The Barak-8 will not have any on-board ramjets.

To Anon@11:35AM: The HQF-91 missile is not used with either the HQ-9 or the HQ-16. That was clearly evident on October 1 when the HQ-9s and HQ-16s were publicly displayed.

Prasun K Sengupta said...

By the way, the HT-233 radar photo above was taken by me in 2008 just prior to witnessing a KS-1A test-firing organised by the PLA in inner Mongolia. All other photos of the H-200 radar officially displayed by the PLA or CPMIEC feature only the prototype radar and these photos have been reproduced in print publications worldwide since the early 1990s. This is the first time ever that the operational HT-233 radar has been shown.

Nava said...

Has any country other than Israel or India expressed interest in the Barak 8, to the best of your knowledge?

Prasun K Sengupta said...

To the best of my very limited Barak-8-related marketing knowledge, no one other than India and Israel have so far committed themselves to procuring the Barak-8 and barak-8ER. But at the IAI Pavilion at Le Bourget during the paris Air Show last June, representatives of 'several' countries were seen expressing 'deep/serious interest' in the MR-SAM/LR-SAM family, including Australia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam.

Nava said...

I see. Vietnam seems like a long shot, Australia a No-Go. Singapore and Brazil however... What is Brazil's SAM procurement situation anyway?

All in all, I don't see the Barak 8 having major export success. Naturally, I could be wrong.

Prasun K Sengupta said...

I would definitely be optimistic about both Australia and Vietnam. But Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and Venezuela are in the no-go arena. Singapore is already a given. Myanmar too has expressed interest but that is a long-shot.

Nava said...

Australia? Israeli weapons on such a visible scale? I don't think so.

Why do you consider Singapore to be a given?

Myanmar... well I hope it doesn't come to that. There's doing business, and then there's arming rogue dictatorships with clandestine nuclear programs...

Prasun K Sengupta said...

Why not? The ADF is quite visible with the Heron UAV and its deployment to Afghanistan. Why Singapore? It has been a risk-sharing investor in the R & D project since the inception, for God's sake! Didn't you know about it?

Divakar said...

Prasun,

In order to start the Akash MK2, who should initiate the project? Is it the end user IA/ IAF with requirements? If so, why shouldn;t they fund these kind of projects, insted of just focusing on co-developmenting with some oneelse. With the exprience gained from the Akash MK1, probably MK2 project can be put on fast track.

In the mean time Can DRDO take up aditions like vertically-launched N-LOS system for Akash. Insted of waiting for the funds from MOD, DRDO can divert some of the profits that thay are getting from the initial orders of Akash.

This is just my hope to make some quick progrss. Please let me know your thoughts.

Anonymous said...

Whats the HQ 9 official range? I dont trust wikipedia.

Anonymous said...

I believe Buk series missiles are produced in Chine. Joint Russo-China project named HQ 16.

Anonymous said...

Prasun da,

Thanks for the reply.

Is the integrated defensive aids suite of the IAF's upgraded MiG-29UPGs same as that of MiG-35s ,which include the L-150 illumination warning station ,the SAP-518/KS-418 active radio jamming station (as written in your articles on MiG-35)etc.

Is the OLS-UE IRST sensor same as that of the OLS-K IRST sensor on the MiG-35?

Please tell something about the Zhuk-M2E radar i.e it,s detection range etc.How different is it from the Zhuk-M1E radar?

The army will receive the Barak 8 MR-SAMs by 2017.Why so late?
When will the IAF and the IN start receiving the Barak 8 MR-SAM & the Barak-8ER LR-SAMs?

Divakar said...

Prasun,

It looks like IA is also buying the Barak-8, but what is this Upgraded version? is it Barak-8ER? or some thing different?.

Why did IN has gone for just Barak-8, insted of Barka-8ER, which would have given a better range. Can the regular one be upgraded to ER when required.

Thanks.

Anonymous said...

Video of Akash Missile Air Defence System

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9YpHtSQmfxM

Vikrant Sinha said...

Prasun hi!
Can you tell us what is this GSQR 2020? Is it the follow up Arjun? does the project really exist.

Divakar said...

Prasun,

MOD recently issued a RFI for advanced light tanks. Any idea who are all being considedred. Will there be a field trails and then finilized? or just direct buying based on information? The RFI is for about 300, but what would be the total number? Will there be any ToT with local manufacturing?

What would be your pick and reasons please.

Thanks

Anonymous said...

prasun any idea about which countries are looking to upgrade their F-16 fleets????


http://raytheon.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=1440


Raytheon Eyes International Contract Award for its F-16 AESA Radar

EL SEGUNDO, Calif., Nov. 9, 2009 /PRNewswire/ -- Raytheon Company (NYSE: RTN) moves closer to its first international sale of RACR (Raytheon Advanced Combat Radar) following approval for the company to move forward with technical discussions with at least two potential customers.


Both countries are looking to upgrade their F-16 fleets within the next two years in order to keep their force structure at the cutting edge of today's complex battlespace. RACR is designed for all F-16s and is approved for export.


The program is on schedule to fly production hardware on an F-16 during the first half of 2010.


"RACR continues to exceed expectations in meeting key production and integration milestones and has just wrapped up a series of validation tests at Lockheed Martin's system integration laboratory," said Dr. Tom Kennedy, vice president of the Tactical Airborne Systems business division.


The program demonstrated various radar capabilities in both air-to-air and air-to-ground modes as well as integration with Raytheon's F-16 center pedestal display. The new color display allows pilots to conduct simultaneous operations and provides a clearer picture of the overall battlespace.


"RACR has 90 percent software and hardware commonality with our combat-proven AESA radar for the F/A-18 Super Hornet. Several U.S. Navy squadrons are already operational in theater with this technology today, while the Royal Australian Air Force is also in flight training with our AESA radar system. This active production line allows us to provide F-16 customers with a high-performing, affordable but low-risk solution while also addressing obsolescence challenges they currently face with mechanical scanned radars," added Kennedy.


Within the past year Raytheon has also installed the RACR radar twice on F-16s at both Lockheed Martin and Edwards Air Force Base. The seamless installation process demonstrated Raytheon's proven modular radar design resulting in an easy upgrade path for customers who need AESA radar capability.


"Raytheon and Lockheed Martin have worked together nearly six years to develop RACR for F-16s in order to meet our customer requirements," said Brian MacDonald, RACR program manager. "The F-16 is an outstanding tactical aircraft, and we recognize the need to support our customers, keeping them relevant in the changing battlespace of today and the future."


RACR is a program in Raytheon's Space and Airborne Systems business. With 2008 revenues of $4.4 billion, 12,000 employees and headquarters in El Segundo, SAS is a leading supplier of sensor systems that provide actionable information for the network-centric battlefield.


Raytheon Company, with 2008 sales of $23.2 billion, is a technology and innovation leader specializing in defense, homeland security and other government markets throughout the world. With a history of innovation spanning 87 years, Raytheon provides state-of-the-art electronics, mission systems integration and other capabilities in the areas of sensing; effects; and command, control, communications and intelligence systems, as well as a broad range of mission support services. With headquarters in Waltham, Mass., Raytheon employs 73,000 people worldwide.

Anonymous said...

Nice detailed article prasun
sir

Why Pakistan’s name is in the title of the article? Are they purchasing KS-1A?

Li Hung said...

nice pictures of akash system.but my only concern is all indian weapons are widely talked about indians,widely available on web but they are not available to those who really need them and that is indian arm forces,but maybe they dont need them,All these weapons are developed just for talks not for induction

Prasun K Sengupta said...

To Divakar: Whenever any agency like the DRDO presents a feasibility paper for developing a weapon system, there are three aspects requiring attention: the operational reqmts of the end-user that dictate the performance parameters; the R & D infrastructure (like test-beds and laboratories) that needs to be set up; and the industrial infrastructure reqd for series-production. In India's case, while the first area is jointly addressed by the DRDO and the armed services, when it comes to the other two areas, the DRDO has been handicapped since the early 1980s simply because it is a lot to ask for from one agency. Hads the DRDOP been tasked with only R & D activities, then the results and solutions would have emerged much faster. But whenever the DRDO was also tasked with helping the defence PSUs to set up series-production facilities and master the industrial engineering aspects, this led to inevitable delays. In terms of the Akash, the actual work began in only 2001, as for the period between 1988 and 2000 the DRDO was starved of crucially reqd R & D funds. Hence things proceeded at a snail's pace. Had the funds been made available throughout the 1990s, then by 1998 the Akash Mk1 E-SHORADS (with 25km-range) would have been ready for series-production. Therefore, if you objectively do an audit of the Akash's R & D phase, it will emerge that the DRDO (in terms of man-hours invested) took only about seven years to procure and set up the R & D/production engineering infrastructure, followed by another seven years (from 2001 to 2008) to fully develop a functional system. All this, for a country that had never before developed such guided-missiles, such a track record is, by my standards, excellent. I couldn't ask for anything more.

Prasun K Sengupta said...

Continued from above....
Now, once the baseline product enters the series-production stage, the idea is to keep the momentum going by churning out improved and enhanced variants and spinoffs. This is where a medium-term and long-term technology core competency attainment/industrial infstructure enhancement roadmap is required. For instance, the Akash Mk1 should be followed by a vertically-launched Akash Mk2 MR-SAM with 40km/50km-range, while a vertically-launched variant of the Akash Mk1 ought to be developed for arming naval vessels like the Project 16A Brahmaputra-class FFGs and Project 28 ASW corvettes. At the same time, the Indian Navy too should opt for the Akash Mk1 for providing shore-/island-based air defence cover for its naval bases and weapons storage sites. The Akash Mk2's design can further evolve but this time as a supersonic air-launched anti-radiation missile, or a vertically-launched non-line-of-sight precision-guided missile capable of engaging high-value static/mobile ground targets. Yet another spinoff could see the Akash Mk2's airframe being used for a helicopter-launched anti-ship missile for littoral warfare. The overall strategy ought to be that of maximising the returns from the baseline R & D/production engineering infrastructure created for the original product, and gradually expanding in terms of sophistication and production volume, all of which will directly contribute to attaining guaranteed operational sovereignty over such weapons, while at the same time contributing to expansion of the country's military-industrial development-cum-expansion.

Prasun K Sengupta said...

To Anon@5:32PM: The officially stated range of the HQ-9 is 80km, while that of the HQ-16 E-SHORADS is 35km, lesser than that of the Buk-M1E.

To Anon@7:19PM: No, the integrated defensive aids suite of the IAF's upgraded MiG-29UPGs will not be the same as that of MiG-35s ,which include the L-150 illumination warning station ,the SAP-518/KS-418 active radio jamming station. The OLS-UE IRST sensor is the same as that of the OLS-K IRST sensor on the MiG-35. The Zhuk-M2E radar's performance parameters are the same as that of the Zhuk-M1E radar, but the Zhuk-M2E also has a SAR mode and ground moving target indication mode. The Indian Army will receive the Barak 8 MR-SAMs starting 2014, while the Navy will receive them by 2012. The IAF and the IN start receiving the Barak 8 MR-SAM & the Barak-8ER LR-SAMs from 2014.

To Vikrant Sinha: There's no GSQR yet formulated for the Arjun Mk2 MBT. The GSQR 2020 is meant for the FICV, and not for the FMBT.

To Divakar: While they're called light tanks, they are in essence tank destroyers. As for tracked vehicles, the General Dynamics/Steyr Daimler Puch's ASCOD with LT-105 turret, the 2S25 SPRUT-SD from Russia (with 125mm cannon) and BAE Systems' CV-90-120-T (with 120mm cannon) are on offer. For the wheeled 8 x 8 tank destroyer variant the Italian Centauro with HITFACT 120mm cannon, Nexter Systems of France's Vextra 105, BAE Systems's Rooikat 105, and the M1128 Stryker Mobile Gun System (MGS) from GM-GDLS Defense Group (with 105mm cannon)are on offer. Mt personal preferances will be the Sprut-SD (with a retrofitted sensor/fire-control system package similar to that on the T-90M MBT), and the Rooikat (but fitted with the HITFACT 120mm cannon). There's no need for licence-building of the chosen vehicles as the numbers are not that big. Licenced-assembly from semi-knocked-down kits will suffice. But the RFI is inadequately drafted as it does not ask for the supporting vehicles like armoured vehicle-launched bridges and armoured engineering/recovery vehicles, plus the command vehicles equipped with LORROS-type surveillance sensors.

Prasun K Sengupta said...

To Anon@8:39AM: In theory, every existing F-16 operator is being targetted.

To Anon@8:51AM: Pakistan is mentioned in relation to its existing MR-SAM assets like the Raytheon MIM-23B Improved Hawk, and not the KS-1A.

To Li Hung@10:12AM: A delusional comment, I guess. Can't imagine what you were smoking when you made that comment.

Anonymous said...

prasun
any news about the light specialist vehicle trials between mahindra axe,tata lsp,ashok Leland and ofb vehicles who won the tender
and
what about the jaguar re engine tender between rollsroyse and honey well is the trails over and who is selected ?

Prasun K Sengupta said...

Don't have any updates on the LSV competitive evaluations. The re-engining of the Jaguar IS by Honeywell and Rolls-Royce were only company demonstrations. They were not IAF-initiated flight trials. The RFP for the re-engining and DARIN-3 avionics suite are still being drafted.

Anonymous said...

Prasun da,

Will you please write something about the integrated defensive aids suite of the IAF's upgraded MiG-29UPGs? How does it compare to that of the PAFs F-16 Block 50/52s?

Will DASH-3 HMD be used on the IAF's upgraded MiG-29UPGs and also on the to-be upgraded SU-30MKIs?

Will PAF be given the fourth-generation AIM-120C-series AMRAAM missiles?
Will the IAF be given the 130 miles range fourth-generation AIM-120D AMRAAM missile if it goes for US aircraft?

What other fourth generation AAMs are in development apart from the AIM-120C/D-series AMRAAM missiles & METEOR BVRAAM ?
What future Russian AAMs will feature fourth generation capabilities?
Does India have plan to develop such missiles with the help of Israel or France?
Can the Barak 8ER LR-SAMs be converted into a fourth generation BVRAAM?

Thank you.

Divakar said...

Prasun,

Really appreciate the detailed reply for both of my questions. I do have the following questions.

Is there any difference between the IAF/IN version of Barak-8 and recently signed Barak-8 for IA.

Regarding the tank destroyers, what kind of advantage that these tank destroyers have compared to the regular tanks like T-90 or Arjun? How are these light tanks employed to hit the enemy tanks in a war scenario, along with the regular tanks. Please help me understand.

By any chance the evaluation process includes the competitive trails? Though it is good, with our bureaucratic process, it takes ages to complete the process and who knows how many times we need the repeat the evaluation process.

Thanks

Anonymous said...

to prasun

can u post more about sura k HMS

Nava said...

AFAIK, Singapore provided funding for the Iron Dome system, not the Barak 8.

Anonymous said...

Prasun ji,

I saw this article in "china-pla.blogspot.com"

The author says "A lot of interesting things were brought up here regarding J-10 and the 4th generation fighter jet project. If you don't already know, 3rd generation in China is 4th generation in the West and 4th generation in China is 5th generation in the West." He continues "The videos say that J-10 is on par with the best of 3rd generation fighter jets, so China's 4th gen plane should also be expected to be on par with the best of 4th generation fighter jets world wide. The news of 4th generation fighter jets came from the deputy commander of PLAAF, so it should be considered pretty solid."

If J10 is 3rd Gen figher (4th Gen equi of West), why do China purchase Su-30MK2 from Russia? Why do China call J10 3rd Gen fighter, instead of calling it just 4.5++ Gen fighters?

Anonymous said...

Prasun K Sengupta said.To Anon@8:51AM: Pakistan is mentioned in relation to its existing MR-SAM assets like the Raytheon MIM-23B Improved Hawk, and not the KS-1A.

But sir Pakistan dont have the Raytheon MIM-23B Improved Hawk

Their only recent SAM purcchase is Spada-2000Plus

SUKHOI-30 MKI said...

Prasun Da,
Which BVR missiles upgraded Mig-29 will have, R-77 SD or the basic R-77RVV-AE.
And which version of R-77 upcoming Sukhois will have?

Prasun K Sengupta said...

To Anon@6:03PM: The integrated defensive aids suite of the IAF's upgraded MiG-29UPGs will be the same as that for the MiG-29K/KUB. One cannot compare it with that of the PAFs F-16 Block 50/52s since the effectiveness is measured not in terms of hardware sophistication, but in terms of the comprehensiveness of the on-board electronic threat library.
No, the DASH-3 HMD will not be used on the IAF's upgraded MiG-29UPGs and also on the to-be upgraded SU-30MKIs. Instead, the THALES-built TopOwl will be.
Yes, the PAF be given the fourth-generation AIM-120C-series AMRAAM missiles but with deficient ECCM capabilities. The IAF will be given the AIM-120D AMRAAM missile if it goes for US aircraft. The Barak 8ER LR-SAMs will not be converted into a fourth generation BVRAAM.

To Divakar: There's no difference between the IAF/IN version of Barak-8 and recently signed Barak-8 for IA. As for light tanks, they will not be utilised for MBT vs Light Tank battles, but rather as destroyers of armoured vehiciels like ICVs and APCs, and will also be utilised for destroying hardened hostile bunkers and other such structures. Therefore, the light tanks will be used mostly by motorised and mechanised infantry forces of the Indian Army. It now remains to be seen if the Army will opt for 105mm cannon or 120mm cannon for the wheeled light tanks. The evaluation process will include competitive mobility and firepower trials and if properly conducted, the whole process should not last for more than 180 days.

To Anon@5:27AM: the Sura-K HMS should be employed only in museums, and not by any pilot. HMDs like TopOwl and Dash-3 are far more lightweight and versatile.

To Anon@12:50PM: Both the J-10A/B and the FC-20 are M-MRCAs and feature glass cockpit avionics and fly-by-wire flight control systems. But the J-10A/B as yet does not feature on-board force multipliers like the IRST sensor and operational data-link (ODL) for communicating with AEW & C platforms. The Pakistan Air Force FC-20s, however, will have the on-board IRST (a China-built reverse-engineered UOMZ-designed OIPS-27) ODL from Saab which in turn will enable it to communicate with the Saab 2000 AEW & C platform. I'm also reliably informed that the FC-20s will have the Vixen 1000e AESA-based radar.

To Anon@4:01AM: Dude, both Pakistan and Saudi Arabia procured at the same time the MIM-23B I-Hawk MR-SAM and Crotale (Shaheen) SHORADS systems way back in the early 1980s. You may not have known about it as you were not yet born at that time.

To SUKHOI-30 MKI: The existing RVV-AEs can easily be upgraded R-77SD when the former go back to Russia for re-lifing. Therefore, over the next three years, this upgrade will take place for in-stock IAF R-VV-AEs.

Anonymous said...

Prasun da,

Thanks for the reply.

How good is the THALES-built TopOwl HMD compared to the DASH-3 HMD?

How good is the Vixen 1000e AESA-based radar compared to the APG-80 or SABR?

Nava said...

"The Barak 8ER LR-SAMs will not be converted into a fourth generation BVRAAM."

No disrespect, but perhaps this is a bit of a backtrack by you...

Anonymous said...

Hi prasun,
Russia Sits Out Delivery of Iranian S-300 Air Defence Systems
http://www.defpro.com/daily/details/446/
where is this going to lead?
why is Russia doing this (expecting more orders from Saudi Arabia in response)
Why has north Korea agreed to talk abt its nuclear program ?what is the regime interested in that could be more important than the nukes?(what is he expecting in return?)

Anonymous said...

Hi Prasun,
What is the progress of the 155mm arty guns procurement?

Prasun K Sengupta said...

To Anon@8:59M: Both Dash-3 and TopOwl are contemporary designs. And both have been flight-qualified to operate with both R-77 and R-73E AAMs. As for the Vixen 1000e, as it is only now entering the flight-test phase, one will know only after another 18 months exacrlt how good this AESA-based multifunction radar will be. As for the Vixen 1000e versus SABR or RACR radars, the US-origin radars are without doubt superior not only due to their advanced design/performance parameters, but also because of their mature and fully validated mission software.

To Nava: No backtracking by me. I had never ever stated that the Barak-8ER LR-SAM will be converted into a fourth-generation BVRAAM. This is what I had stated earlier: "For RAFAEL to continue as a prominent global developer of guided air combat missiles in the aftermath of the Derby and Python-5, it has no choice but to develop LRAAMs in order to compete with the likes of Meteor, FRAAM, and the KS-172. Therefore, as a consequence of this, the next-gen LRAAM from RAFAEL will have to be either ramjet-powered (like the FRAAM and Meteor) or a solid-fuel rocket using high-energy propellant of the type to be used for the Barak-8. Additionally, such a LRAAM will also have to accommodate additional avionics LRUs like small-diameter data-links so that even AEW & C platforms like the A-50I PHALCON or G-550 CAEW & CS can provide mid-course guidance cues directly to the LRAAM. So, in conclusion, yes, RAFAEL is on the right track when doing advanced planning for the next-gen LRAAM and it makes perfect sense to leverage the spinoffs from the on-going Barak-8 programme (like IAI has done with the Jumper N-LOS). Therefore, (I'm speculating here) in all probability, RAFAEL is unlikely to opt for ramjets and stick to the Barak-8-based propulsion system".

To Anon@10:45AM: From what I know, the S-300PMU2s were ordered by Iran from Belarus, but Belarus cannot supply the consignment unless Russia's Almaz-Antey supplies the critical components to Belarus for final assembly. Therefore, now Russia is using this to delay the commencement of delivery but for how long it will continue to do so is anyone's guess. In any case, the Iranians can always acquire the 90km-range HQ-9 LR-SAM from China, or acquire additional S-200s (SA-5s) from some of the CIS republics.
North Koprea wants to convert the 1953 armistice treaty into a permanent peace treaty which will enable it to break out of diplomatic/economic isolation. That is its primary objective. Fpor as long as the UN-mandated armistice treaty remains in force, it only amounts to a temporary ceasefire, and not a permenent end to hostilities. It is more or less as the 1956 treaty signed between the USSR and Japan, which did not officially end the state of war between the two countries. It was only a treaty to maintain the status quo after Japan's unconditional surrender in August 1945. It is for this reason that Japan continues to insist on signing a new peace treaty with Russia that heralds a permanent end to Russo-Japanese hostilities and also returns to Japan the four islands in the Kuriles that were occupied by the USSR. While Russia is desirous of inking such a treaty, it does not want to return these four islands back to Japan.

To Anon@10:52AM: No progress at all! Instead, the Army is scouting Eastern Europe for surplus stocks of 130mm M-46 towed howitzers.

Anonymous said...

wow thanx prasun,ur reply is highly educative as always and am amazed at the level of authority you have on the subject of global affairs.continuing with the topic,i have come across magazine articles wherein korean unification was said to be the goal of both the koreas(acting in unity to defeat pacifist japan {feelings due to the WWII}).what happened of it?how do u think north korea will reconcile with the west?how will china react?
staying with Japan, the japan air self defence forces and the ministry are said to be evaluating the eurofighter.what is exactly that they want it seems they do not want a fighter with a long reach capability or ground attack either(i came across the net but cant substantiate it).they were also oping for the f22.what was that for .what happened to FX progthere were pics of fx mock ups(presuming some design,research ws done for this program with critical radars,rwrs ... being impoted from n grumann)did they really expect to own an f22(at least one with hugely reduced capability lacking certain critical h/w substituted by domestic/mature ones)or did they use it to bargain the total know how ,whys for manufacturing operating...critical components(avionics)not made avilable to them for a mature platform(f16,f18) so that they would have the capability to manufacture all of the aircraft at home and master those tech?

Anonymous said...

Prasun da,

Is the Vixen 1000e same as the EL/M-2052 AESA?How do you rate both of them?

When will the Tejas first fly with the EL/M-2052 AESA? Which HMD will be used on the IAF's Tejas?

Can you please give a comprehensive detail about the new generation Russian AAMs including the upgraded R-77SD? How will they compare with the Western missiles?

Thank you.

Anonymous said...

Prasun da,

Can you please shed some light on the indigenous development of IRST sensors that will go on-board the Tejas? How good it will be compared to PIRATE, LANTIRN, SNIPER and OLS-K IRST sensors?

Can you please the integrated defensive aids suite of the MiG-29K/KUBs?

F said...

Prasun, what are your personal thoughts on the tank destroyer requirement? In theory, these are meant to deal with lightly armoured threats and provide fire support, so the light armour is no problem. But in practice if anything goes wrong, such as a lack of infantry support or engagements with 20mm/30mm guns and shoulder fire weapons, these tank destroyers are highly vurnerable, relying totally on hit avoidance. If you recall, the Rooikat, CV90 and Centauro were offered to Malaysia as an alternative to an MBT. For the Indian requirement, wouldn't a reconfigured BMP [with better sights and a mix gun/missile fit]or something like the 'Terminator' do the job of tank destroying and fire support?

What data link will be used to provide OTHT for the Brahmos? Does the TNI-AL still intend to fit Brahmos on its 2 Amur class SSKs?

F said...

Me again Prasun... You mentioned a while back that the PT-91M has reached its limit with regards to growth potential.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but surely the existing S-1000 1,000hp engine will take the extra weight if a decision is made to up-armour the PT-91M against RPGs and 20mm/30mm rounds by the installation of bar armour to the rear of the engine deck and the sides.

Is there any space in the turret to accommodate the controls and screen of an OWS for the coommander?

There is also a critical need for a thermal to be provided for the tank commander as at the moment the PT-91M only has a hunter killer capability in daytime.

Is there enough power supply at the moment for the future installation of an APS and OWS?

PRETIS, was awarded a contract in 2005 to supply 17,601 125mm M86 HE, M88 kinetic energy [KE] penetrators and training rounds. Is there any truth to a report that tungsten core KE penetrators will be sourced from NORINCO?

In addition to report that RUAG was selected to provide a simulator, there was also a report that the Polish ETC-PZL Industries simulator, Jaguar 3 maintenance simulator and OBRUN gunnery simulator had been ordered.

Lastly, way back in 2002 when the Ukranian T-84 was a contender for the Malaysian army, was the Ukranian bustle loader offered?

IPE said...

Sir I have a doubt.
Earlier it was stated that LOH will be indigenously developed by HAL. Now some recent report suggests that they want to develop it along with the company which will will win the contract for army's 187 heli's procured directly. What is the truth in it?

Nava said...

I must admit that I'm confused. Do you have new information about Rafael opting for a different path RE future BVRAAMs? Because you claim that Rafael is likely (not certain, so I apologize if I misrepresented your "forecast")to develop its future LRAAM using the Barak 8's propulsion. Would this not amount to converting it into a 4 Gen BVRAAM?

BTW, WRT the Barak 8's future export prospects, one should note the recent
(350M USD) sale of Heron UAVs to brazil and reports that Rafael is planning to "set up shop" there in a major way.

Prasun K Sengupta said...

12:34PM: I don't think the ROK is in any hurry to be reunified with the DPRK, especially after witnessing the severe economic problems incurred by the FRG when it re-united with the GDR. All that the ROK is now doing is trying to keep close tabs (and possible make friends with) the 1,500-odd members of the ruling elite in Pyongyang, who in essence control everything in North Korea.
With regard to Japan's quest for a new-generation F-X MRCA, although the TRDI has been doing some in-house R & D work on a fifth-generation MRCA, the JASDF will in all probability go for the Boeing F-15SE heavy MRCA, while the domestically developed MRCA will likely follow as a tactical MRCA in case a decision is made to support the national aerospace industry by not importing the F-35.

To Anon@7:11PM: How can they be the same when they have been designed and developed by entirely different OEMs? The Tejas Mk2's LSPs will be the first to fly with the EL/M-2052. Both the Mk1 and Mk2 variants of Tejas will have the Dash 3 HMD.

To Anon@7:17PM: There is no sanctioned project as yet in India to develop IRST sensors or conformal fuel tanks for the Tejas. The Tejas Mk2 will use fully imported IRST sensors.

To Faris: The so-called tank destroyers are in essence mobile field artillery systems meant to be used for either staging ambushes or for conducting battlefield recce. They will never go on a direct faceoff with any MBT. Instead, they will be employed against dug-in motorised infantry forces. And if adequate tactical air mobility is available (via C-130-type or Mi-26T-type transports) then such vehicles can be effectively employed for attacking hostile forces from the rear by adopting vertical envelopment manoeuvres. I remember going to PD for witnessing the CV-90-120 and Rooikat 105 mobility trials in 2000 and at that time the local agents were proudly and ignorantly claiming that such vehicles can be viable alternatives to the MBT! And their views were then seconded by some Australian Army instructors on armoured warfare. I then explained to them that tank-on-tank battles and swift manoeuvre warfare engagements in support of or against motorised/mechanised infantry formations are two poles apart and one cannot substitute the other. I also had then asked the visiting Aussies how exactly on earth could they even think of instructing the Malaysian Army when the entire active Australian Army does not even size up to Division-level, while the all-volunteer Malayisan Army has four active Divisions! Needless to say, those Aussie officers were scratching their heads. (LoL!) Vehicles like the Terminator are ideally employed in tandem with MBTs and are used for clearing dug-in hostile anti-armour emplacements before the arrival of friendly mechanised infantry forces, primarily over flat terrain.
For the BrahMos as of now only an on-board GPS receiver coupled to the RLG-INS will be employed for navigational waypoint confirmation, since the BrahMos will be used primarily for attackiing static targets. The BrahMos is not being offered to Indonesia since neither the Amur 1650 nor Amur 1850 SSK have as yet been certified to carry such missiles.

Prasun K Sengupta said...

Regarding the PT-91M MBT, the principal vulnerability arises from FSAPDS rounds, and installation of APS will not mitigate this threat to a great extent. But it will suffice for neutralising the threats from RPGs and LAWs. There's sufficient space top accomodate the APS as well as a BMS. The FSAPDS rounds from PRETIS employ a KE penetrator whose design is totally different from that of NORINCO. Companies like PRETIS (in former Yugoslavia) were producing such KE penetrators long before NORINCO began manufacturing them in the late 1980s. RUAG is providing the platoon gunnery simulators, while the rest (MBT driving, maintenance simulators and individual gunnery proficiency simulators) have all come from Poland. And when the Ukrainian T-84 was brought to Malaysia in 2000 for mobility/firepower trials, it was the same as the T-80UD, with no internal modifications.

To IPE: I can't see any foreign helicopter manufacturer co-developing a Dhruv ALH-derived single-engined LOH with HAL when it is HAL that has all the proprietary design data of the Dhruv ALH and therefore no foreign OEM can possibly bring anything new or novel to the table to offer. The only area where HAL is looking to foreign industrial partnership and design consultancy inputs is for the medium-lift MUH project.

To Nava: I have NO new information about RAFAEL opting for ANY path RE future BVRAAMs, leave alone 'different'. I never claimed, but merely stated that RAFAEL is likely (and this is not a definite forecast) to develop a new-generation LRAAM using several of the technologies now being developed for the Barak 8.

F said...

Yess I remember meeting in Bangsar the Australian Major who was based in PD for a year. I believe a lot of what he taught the army was infantry/AFV cooperation skills.
I remember him saying that back in Australia, evertime they fired the 76mm gun on the M1113, their faces would be black!

The M88 kinetic energy penetrators supplied by Prentis are actually a copy of the Soviet tungsten core BM-15 developed in the 80’s. It has not been reported if the Malaysian army had been offered the Polish ‘Pronit’ KE 125mm penetrator.

Anonymous said...

It seems the French are going to go all the way
http://oglobo.globo.com/pais/mat/200...-914743381.asp
this is what it says:
----------------------------------

RIO - In the final of the competition for a contract for the sale of 36 fighter jets to the Brazilian Air Force (FAB), the government of France - whose company competes with Dassault your model against the Rafale and Boeing Swedish Saab - added some items the package had already offered to Brazil. One is the possibility that, over the agreement, the Embraer Company may develop a more modern version of that plane and eventually export it to France itself.
This possibility is embedded in the fact that the promised technology transfer that aircraft without any restrictions, it includes the transfer of its source code - the heart and brain of the plane. Are the lines of code for programs that control both the weapons systems (missiles and on-board computers) as well as radar, engines, and moving surfaces (such as installations) of the game.

"The fleet will have all the technology of the Rafale, including the so-called source code. With them she can either modify the aircraft as do, for example, a Super Rafale"

This promise, plus the guarantee of several other advantages, were presented to the government for a special envoy of President Nicolas Sarkozy during a mild two-day visit to Brazil last week: Admiral Edouard Guillaud. He is "chief of staff particularly from the president."

- The agreement that proposed to Brazilian government is writing that the FAB will have all the technology of the Rafale, including the so-called source code. With it they can either modify the aircraft as do, for example, a Super Rafale, a new version - Guillaud said in an interview with O Globo. - These are technical specifications, ranging from the most general to the last screw of the landing gear. This is called transfer of trade secret - he insisted.

Anonymous said...

Guillaud talked privately with Defense Minister Nelson Jobim, the Copacabana Palace Hotel in Rio de Janeiro. Hours later, in an interview after commenting that "a fighter without weapons is an airplane flying club, very expensive", he revealed that in the spirit of strategic partnership France-Brazil signed last December, the Brazilian government assured that the France is prepared to go further: if the Rafale win the competition, Brazil could produce even the weapons for such aircraft.

- The French missile industry also agreed with Brazil to share their trade secrets. This shows that we are not just talking about a plane, but an entire global system for which we propose the transfer of technology.

Guillaud also said that it reinforced the French proposal with a plan for the exchange of top-level officials, especially the staffs of the armed forces of both countries:

- We are not talking as traders. It is a strategic thinking, which can go much further - he said.

Guillaud came to Brazil in the company of Damien Loras, Sarkozy's advisor for the Americas. During the interview he also emphasized some points of the proposal for his country, especially that technology transfer would be "free course" and not an additional cost to the value of the airplane:
- The value of this unprecedented transfer represents years of experience, developments, studies and know-how (design and manufacturing). This value is estimated between five and seven billion euros, ie more than the amount of the contract - said Loras.
Despite that mention of price, both he and Guillaud avoided mentioning specific figures on the cost of the Rafale - except the fact that it would be 4% more expensive than the F-18 Super Hornet, the American Boeing. This difference, they argued, would disappear over the 15-year contract to be signed with Brazil, because of currency fluctuations during that period.

- Independence and autonomy always require investment. Even the French paid a price to be autonomous and not depend on supply from other countries in the military. We accept invest more, a little more, to master our destiny. And Brazil now has a chance to do the same: the economy is strong, political will, and seeks the means to earn respect and be respected. This is where the tool operates military - argued Guillaud.

The estimate is that the French package would cost about 5.5 billion euros. The admiral, declining to specify a value, said that in practice, taxpayers would pay for the Brazilian fighter a price equal to cost for the French themselves. Guillaud suggested that, in the last minute, there could be some kind of agreement regarding the value of the contract:

- We are in a competition and whoever is chosen (in terms of technical and operational) will enter into trade negotiations. Did not come here on behalf of the manufacturer (Dassault), but rather the president. What I can say is that during negotiations the French state will be present. President Sarkozy has pledged to do so. This is a commitment in writing, and firm - said Guillaud
----------------------------------
IS this for real? source codes being given to the customer so that the customer can customize or is it a mkting knowing bazil will have to opt for french wepn sys.'Trade secrets' are being revealed to Brazil .really?
why is there so much activity in Brazil and none in India?why are the french talking abt such coopn with Brazil and not indian industry ?have they given up hope here?would like ur analysis of the French triumph in Brazil(their offer & why not here)

http://translate.google.cf/translate...istory_state0=
The above link refers to job opportunities being created 3000 for the 1st 36 a/c and posiibly 24000 for 129a/c on follow on orders with an embraer assembly line and possibly many parts being produced in Brazil on follow on order .this rally sounds good if the french really mean it.

Anonymous said...

prasun y isnt there any commentary about paks and india's M-sams? commentary is only on chinese systems. For Indian ones you only have brochures / slides.