Friday, May 8, 2009

Club Family Of Multi-Role Cruise Missiles


1 – 200 of 247   Newer›   Newest»
Prasun K Sengupta said...

I've also posted above the data on Pakistan's arsenal of land-launched ballistic and cruise missiles for comparison.

sachin_sathe said...


is it possible for DRDO to develope a missile similar to CLUB but with a much longer range? may be 1000+ km?

Also is the ADM abt which u posted some time back a supersonic in all phases missile?

p.s what i meant by hunter killer varient of nishant was tht can it be armed with lighweight Missiles like LAHAT or Spike or even the Helina?

Kannan said...

Isn't it strange that we don't have an operational subsonic land attack cruise missile of 1000-1500km range? We have been trying to build one for 2 decades or so(with Israelis) right? I wonder why?

ABHINABA said...

To, Prasun da -
How many Brahmos,Agni-1 & Agni-2 are produced till now? In Talware class frigates total 24 club-m missiles can be housed. Beyond these 24 missiles how many extra missiles are present in hand of IN ?

Harpreet said...

Prasun, thanks for the video link.
Has the supersonic 3M-54TE variant of Club AShM been inducted in the IN? It requires a significantly larger VLS tube compared to other variants(though all can use the long tube). I doubt our Kilo Class Subs have enough draft to accommodate it. Also their torpedo tubes are not that long.
Why are we negotiating for Harpoons to arm P8I? Why not SLAM-ER?
What is the status of DRDO's PTAE-7 turbojet? Cant it be used to develop a missile like Club?
I think the difference between Club/Harpoon and long range Tomahawk/Scalp is the use of turbofan against turbojet engines. If at all we have a program to develop a 1000Km CM then we must be working on a small turbofan. Is any info available on that?
What kind of engine is Pakistan's Babur CM using?

ABHINABA said...

Prasun da, some forum's matobbar said chinese revolving 6/8 tube under-deck launcher is better than 3S-14E eipht-tube launcher. Is it true?

Anonymous said...

Prasun , Can the Klub LACM variant can only attack large radio contrast target ?

How does the Kilo submarine obtain information on its target to feed to klub when submerged firing ?

How does Klub AShM attack a surface ship , how is target information obtained of surface ship and positively ided

ABHINABA said...

Prasun da, our Agni missiles are designed to carry 1985 vintage designed 250-350 ktn. class thermo nuclear warhead(warhead mass 250kg.-400kg.) & 15 ktn. class medium nuclear warhead(100kg. mass).If Agni is designed for strategic nuclear threat,then what is the need for designing r.v to carry 1000kg. payload? In earliar thread you said that India has 10-12 nuclear warheads, but without specifying type of warhead.Please now inform probability no. of thermo nuclear warheads produced so far.

ABHINABA said...

Prasun da, please inform actual cruise stage flight level & target approach flight level of Babur & BrahMos block II. What is the payload capacity of our newer BrahMos?

Anonymous said...

to prasun

these missiles r multi role and cheaper and potent

specially anti ship version which has supersonic end stage,no other missile is like this

also there is brahmos missile,land attack from sea vessels ,also anti ship

Prasun K Sengupta said...

To Sachin Sathe & Harpreet: Everything is possible if adequate fnancal resources are readily available. In my view, the Integrated Guided Missiles Development Programme (IGMDP) by the mid-1990s itself should have started developng a 1,000km-range subsonic cruise missile. In my view, India failed miserably in taking advantage of the break-up of the USSR, especially when you compare India's non-efforts with those of China, Iran and Pakistan in mopping up from Ukraine, Moldova, Azerbaijan and the Central Asian Republics whatever could be acquired! The Korshun cruise missile from Ukraine is a classic example and I had already elaborated earlier on how exactly this cruise missile has since evolved into the Babur and Chinese DH-10A. Also, it is debatable if the DRDO should have spent its financial resources in acquiring the design/manufacturing know-hows of such cruise missiles (capable of conventional AND nuclear attack), or, as it subsequently did, allocate its resources in February 1998 for acquiring the design/manufacturing know-hows for the BrahMos supersonic multi-role cruise missile, which can only be armed with conventional warheads.
Regarding the ADM, yes, it will be supersonic in all flight phases.
The CTOL variant of Nishant cannot be armed simply because of its deficient power-to-weight ratio. Don't forget that it is still powered by a single Rotax-type piston engine. To date, all UCAVs like the Reaper, Predator, Heron 2 and Hermes 4500 are powered by either a single turboprop engine, or twin piston engines. If carried out to its logical extension, the twin-engined Rustom could become a credible UCAV platform armed with both LGBs and ATGMs.

To Kannan & Harpreet: What highly surprises me is that after developing the PTAE-7 turbojet, the DRDO's GTRE made no attempt whatsoever to develop a replacement light turbofan like NPO Saturn's 36MT which the ASL is now importing for the Nirbhay target drone. Instead, the GTRE took on the challenge of developing a far more complex system like the Kaveri turbofan. Why a spinoff like a light turbofan has not yet emerged remains a baffling mystery.

To Abhinaba: Am not aware of exact nos of Agni-1, Agni and BrahMos Block 1 missiles produced so far, but the total should not be more than 40 thus far. If I'm not mistaken the total nos of Club-M/S missiles procures thus far stands at 200 rounds.
The Chinese revolving 6/8 tube under-deck launcher is for the HQ-9 LR-SAM, not for cruise missiles.
The 1,000kg payload for the 5,500km-range land-launched Agni-5 and the 8,500km-range SLBM variant of the Agni-5 is meant for account for three (03) re-entry warheads, and not a single unitary warhead. Regarding the types of n-warheads reqd I was told way back in 1984 by senior DAE/BARC officials that the plan was for 12 fission-type and 12 thermonuclear warheads, with reserve plutonum cores being held in storage as well. Those nos remain valid till this day and the total amount of Pu-239 fissile material reqd for maintaining a credible but minimal n-deterrent remains at 3 metric tonnes. That is also the figure India has officially provided during the UN's on-going negotations regarding the proposed Fissile Materials Cutoff Treaty.
Regarding the flight profiles of cruise missiles like Babur or BrahMos, everything depends on the terrain over which the target is sited and the density of air defences surrounding it. But while a subsonic cruise missile like the Babur or 3M-14E will cruise at lower altitudes between 50 and 500 metres for attacking an overland target, the BrahMos will cruise at much higher altitudes and at the terminal stage will adopt a top-attack profile and high AoA.

To Harpreet: The universal launchers on both the Project 1135.6 FFGs and Project 17 FFGs, and on board the upgraded Type 877EKM Kilo-class SSKs can fire the supersonic 3M-54TE and subsonic 3M-14E land-attack cruise missiles. The SLAM-ER is optimised for land attack and is being offered along with the F-16IN Super Viper and Super Hornet under the IAF's M-MRCA competition. The P-8I will be employed primarily for at-sea engagements and therefore usage of the AGM-84 Harpoon for maritime strike makes greater sense.
For the Pakistan Navy's C-602, use is made of a turbojet, while the Babur uses a turbofan.

Prasun K Sengupta said...

To Anon@11:23PM: The 3M-14E Club land-attack cruise missile comes equipped with the ARGS-54 active radar which has a synthetic aperture mode that allows it to 'profile' the target, be it a land-based target or a warship at sea. The principal challenge for target acquisition is not the missile and its on-board avionics suite, but the over-the-horizon target detection, acquisition, localisation and identification capabilities of long-range and high-flying recce platforms, both manned and unmanned, like the Tu-142M or P-8I or even the Heron 2, AS LONG AS they're equipped with belly-mounted radars like the ELTA-built EL/M-2022(V)3 that has the SAR operating mode. Even SAR systems like the pod-mounted EL/M-2060P can be used for 'profiling' land-based targets. In a way, the entire process I've described above also applies in an identical manner to the BrahMos Block 2 LACM. Which means that Novator has also provided the Indian Navy with the source codes for programming the ARGS-54's target recognition alogrithms.
As for transferring the positvely IDed target's coordinates to a submerged SSK carrying 3M-14Es, this is done by using the Navy's operational data link, which is called Link-2 and is being series-pproduced by BEL. This same system is also on board the Navy's maritime surveillance/ASW aircraft like the Tu-142M, and on board all principal surface combatants. In addition, the upgraded Kilo SSKs also have on-board SATCOM hadware to receive data via Link-2. For warships, over-the-horizon target data can be acquired from Tu-142Ms or Heron-2s or even from NRUAVs and shipborne ASV/ASW helicopters like the Ka-28 and also from the Ka-31. All of them have Link-2 tw-way data links.

Harpreet said...

Prasun, thanks for the elaborate explanations.
Regarding the recent Astra BVRAAM test, I am wondering how relevant this missile is given we already have a better one in the form of R-77. Furthermore MMRCA program may bring the AIM-120D or Meteor to the IAF.
Shouldn't DRDO be focusing its energy on systems that must be developed indigenously like cruise missiles and UCAVs.
Pakistan's Swat is where action is these days. Pakistan Army is promising a quick end to Taliban occupation but I am wondering how easy is it to clear Swat of 5000 terrorist compared to clearing Kashmir valley of terrorist specially with PA's crude methods of air strikes and shelling.
How long before their steam runs out and Pakistan is back to negotiating with the Taliban? How do you see things moving from here?

Anonymous said...

there is no need to buy western aircraft for aim120d or meteor

india can buy these missiles without western aircraft as well

but again when will aim120d,meteor,ramjet r77 be available
then there is unsurity

Anonymous said...

and yes astra is just a wastage of time and money,better upgrade exixting r27 missiles with new western actice/IR seekers and make them fire and forget missiles and that provides much better stuff compared to astra

and htis is easy to do compaed to develop astra

r27 definitely has better range than astra or r77

Prasun K Sengupta said...

To Harpreet: Yes, definitely the AIM-120D, R-77, Meteor, Mica, AIM-9X, Iris-T, R-73E, Python-5 and Derby are all being made available, while some of them have already been acquired off-the-shelf. But the Astra BVRAAM needs to be seen in the context of investments made and the expected returns. If the Astra and its SR-SAM E-SHORADS can concurrently developed as is the case and oth feature a high degree of on-board systems commonality, then and only then will one have sufficient volume of production to justify the R & D funds being poured by te DRDO along with its technology partners AGAT JSC of Russia and MBDA.If all this results in the creation within India of a financially self-amortising military-industrial infrastructure, then I'm all for it. At the same time, work ought to begin in earnest in a project to co-develop hypersonic LRAAMs like te Meteor, since the DRDO has already acquired the necessary technological competencies in ramjet propulsion systems. A ramjet-powered variant of the Astra would be welcomed by both the IAF and Indian Navy. Regardng DRDO investments in cruise missiles and UCAVs, the ADM and BrahMos projects are already on hand, but efforts need to be accelerated in developing UCAVs, as the Army at least for the next 8 years will not be able to call on the IAF for close air support (due to the on-shortage of multi-role combat aircraft). Small wonder therefore that BAE Systems brought in its Mantis UCAV for display during Aero India 2009, although it has yet to be explained how BAE Systems or even IAI wth its Heron TP will be able to overcome US objections due to the MTCR restrictions.
Regarding the situation in Swat, it is classic counter-insurgency dictum that after seizing terrain, one has to hold it and for that the occupation power must have sufficient manpower to not only be deployed, but in a sustained manner through routine rotations of deployed formations. It is this dictum that is the achilles heel of the Pakistan Army, as its ORBAT has never had to cater to such deployments and now that it is doing it, it is doing so by either depleting its formations earmarked for its eastern borders, or by deploying its strategic reserves. Either way this will diminish the Pakistan Army's risposte capabilities along its eastern front. As to why the Army is going for broke by deploying field artillery, combat aviation and armoured assets, the reason is simple: the Pakistan Army cannot stomach or sustain the levels of casualties among its personnel strength, this situation being very very similar to what Israel's IDF-Army and the current Russian Army also face. Hence the IDF-Army recently did what we all know by now in Gaza, and what the Russians did in Chechnya in the last decade. Secondly, at the ideological level, it is almost impossible to convince the regular Army and the paramilitary Frontier Constabulary to train their guns against 'fellow defenders of the faith'. More than two decades of ideological indoctrination in terms of waging Jihad as a unified combat force needs to be reversed and as we all know that too is next to impossible to achieve within a defined time-frame. Thus, in a way now, the chickens have at last come home to roost: its either a Jihad to obliterate once and for all the debilitating and descredited feudal system of existence since 1947, or a Jihad to maintain the existing socio-economic status quo.
At the operational and tactical levels, the Pakistan Army is severely handicapped by the absence of the kind of SIGINT and field communications systems that are required during counter-insurgency operations. The Indian Army took more than a decade between 1990 and 2001 to field such technical assets (from THALES and ELTA) and only then did formations like those of the Rashtriya Rifles begin producing decisive results.

Anonymous said...

1) Your current uploaded picture about the Pakistani missile says that Babur has a CEP of 120 meters

While your earlier post

Babur LACM & Ra’ad ALCM Detailed

Prasun K Sengupta said... The Babur’s IIR terminal seeker—offering a CEP of 10 metres—has been supplied off-the-shelf by Xi’an Sicong Group.

Pakistan’s Ballistic Missile Arsenal Detailed

Prasun K Sengupta said... Hatf-4/Shaheen-1/M-9/CSS-6/DF-15 (with a CEP of 50 metres when carrying a 1-tonne conventional warhead)

Your current uploaded picture about the Pakistani missile says that Shaheen-1 has CEP of 200 m


Prasun K Sengupta said... Hatf-6/Shaheen-2/M-18/DF-25 IRBM (with a CEP of 300 metres and carrying a 1-tonne nuclear warhead)

Your current uploaded picture about the Pakistani missile says that Shaheen-2 has CEP of 350 m


Prasun K Sengupta said... Hatf-2/Abdali/P-12 precision-guided tactical missiles each with a 180km-range, CEP of 15 metres and carrying a 500kg conventional warhead.

Your current uploaded picture about the Pakistani missile says that Abdali has CEP of .3% or 54m


Your current uploaded picture about the Pakistani missile says that Ghauri -1 has CEP of 0.06% or 90m

Prasun K Sengupta said...

To Anon@2:28PM: I'm glad you noticed the discrepencies. And they arise because the table I've uploaded gives the official figures as displayed in posters during the IDEAS expos. The figures I've quoted in one of my earlier threads comes from the various non-Pakistani OEMs involved with the missile programmes. Well done again, on pointing out the differences.

Anonymous said...


Prasun if that’s the case then problem is even more serious as Pakistan is trying to hide the true figures
Just for example when shaheen-II was fist tested he said that army set requirement of 200m CEP but shaheen-II was able to achieve CEP of 100 m
Same is the case with Shaheen-I which has been reported various times to have achieved a CEP of less than 90 meters and a PTV video showed a CEP (distance from a Flag which represented target)30 meter

Both these figures are consistent with the Ghauri-I CEP of 90 km, as ghauri uses simple RV and targeting system as compared Shaheen-I and Shaheen-II which uses terminal guidance

MJ26459 said...

Prasun if that’s the case then problem is even more serious as Pakistan is trying to hide the true figures
Just for example when shaheen-II was fist tested he said that army set requirement of 200m CEP but shaheen-II was able to achieve CEP of 100 m
Same is the case with Shaheen-I which has been reported various times to have achieved a CEP of less than 90 meters and a PTV video showed a CEP (distance from a Flag which represented target)30 meter
Both these figures are consistent with the Ghauri-I CEP of 90 km, as ghauri uses simple RV and targeting system as compared Shaheen-I and Shaheen-II which uses terminal guidance

MJ26459 said...

How good HQ-9 and HQ-16 are against the supersonic Brahmos and Club? They form the primary airdefence shield for PLAN and may be in future for PN

Prasun K Sengupta said...

To MJ26459: It is common practice not to display the accurate figures during defence exhibitions. Therefore, a 20% discrepency should be expected at times. The Ghauri-1, although nuclear-capable, is not armed with any nuclear Pu-239-based n-warhead as such a warhead has not yet been developed by either Pakistan or North Korea. Therefore, in all probability, the Ghauri will be used as a terror weapon for targetting densely populated areas like cities or metropolis.

MJ26459 said...

Now any chance for india to opt for mariner MQ-9 to complement its P-8I?

Prasun K Sengupta said...

To MJ26459: The HQ-9 and not the HQ-16 can be employed for engaging inbound BrahMos missiles PROVIDED the early warning/target acquisition system is state-of-the-art and employs a networked sensor package comprising aerostat-mounted radars and AEW & C platforms and that too in sufficient numbers.
For boad-area maritime surveillance in the Indian context, the Heron-TP is likely to be employed along with the P-8I and Tu-142M, provided Israel promises to the US that the Heron-TPs destined for India will be only surveillance platforms, and will never be armed.

MJ26459 said...

Completely Understandable point Prasun

How many Kilo class submarines are capable of firing Club missiles? Do they have capability to fire supersonic missiles? I heard that there were few problems with testing kilo class submarines with Club missiles and IN refused to accept delivey of upgraded Kilo submarine until Russians fix the problems. Any updates on this issue

Prasun K Sengupta said...

All those Type 877EKM Kilo-class SSKs that have been upgraded thus far in Russia can fire the supersonic Club-S missiles. Eventually, all nine of them will be equipped with the Club-S and 3M-14E. The problems you've stated have already been resolved. The problem was regarding an interface mis-match between the fire-control system and the launch-control system of the torpedo-tubes.

Prasun K Sengupta said...

Anyone following the recent unveilling of Sikorsky's X-2 tactical armed helicopter? Its stated performance parameters will surely give the LCH a run for its money. Not to mention guaranteed on-time availability from Sikorsky, unlike HAL.

Anonymous said...

IAF going for zhuk me radar for mig29 upgrade rather than going for ZHUK AE which can be fitted to mig29

zhuk ae is much better than zhuk me in both reliablity and gives 40% more range

Anonymous said...

to prasun

what about this report here it is

it says that russian il476 tanker version won the tanker contract instead of a330

Anonymous said...

chinese and russkie il76 deal and why il76 hasn't been delivered till now

Negotiations on the aircraft deal began seven years ago. By the time the contract was signed in 2005, China had agreed to purchase 30 Ilyushin Il-76 transport aircraft and eight Ilyushin Il-78 air-to-air refueling tankers at an extremely low price. According to a source in the Russian military industry, China initially offered only $18 million for each plane. The Russian side proposed $22 million, and eventually the two sides settled on a price tag of $20 million per aircraft.

Such a low price was unprecedented in the international transport aircraft market. By comparison, around the same time Jordan had contracted for a variant of the Ilyushin Il-76 at a price of about $50 million per aircraft
il76 in no way comes at 20million ,it should be well over 100 million per aircraft in todays date when fitted with ps90a engine ,glass cockpit,FBW system,

so russians definitely doesn't want to sell this low price and they definitely want price hike for about 60 million per aircraft ,and chinese refused this and deal broke

but prasun can u tell for how much il78 was offered against a330

sachin_sathe said...


Regarding the ASTRA BVRAAM can u compare it to say R-77 and AIM-120c-5
in similar altitude bands and give ur view on it?

Also the ASTRA ground tests so far suggest tht it can achieve upto 25km slant range (might be wrong here). So wouldn't it be easier to develope it as E-SHORADS with a small booster to push the Range to abt 35 may be 40 km?

Also, if MCA and FGFA r indeed the same then what exactly is the role of Su in it as the model shown at AI-09 looked much better than the tailless sketch released way back in 2001.

ABHINABA said...

To, Prasun da-
Thanks for detailed explanation. Now,some quaries from different topics- 1> When all advanced world's navy contracts JSF F-35 lighting II for their air-power,we negotiates with MIG cop. for price of Mig-29K/KUB.Is not it fell us in huge generation gap? 2> What is your thought about present GoI's continuous failure foreign policy in Sri Lanka & Nepal?

Anonymous said...

When is the ISRO annual report released? Last year they had released it on their website in April.


Prasun Nice information Thanks for sharing

Harpreet said...

Prasun, I don't question the economics of developing indigenous BVRAAM and E-SHORAD. But shouldn't DRDO be concentrating its limited financial resources and manpower on key essential programs rather than trying to lay their hands on everything imaginable?
Can you shed some light on how DRDO projects and labs are sanctioned? Do the armed forces have a say here or is it all between DRDO and MOD?

I think why we didn't develop a replacement light turbofan like NPO Saturn's 36MT is because unlike GE F-404 we didn't had NPO Saturn's 36MT in hand to reverse engineer. We love to mock the Chinese for copying foreign products when our own indegenization programs are not very different. At least the Chinese do it well.
Has Pakistan acquired complete technology of Babur’s twin-spool RD95-300 turbofan while we are simply importing Brahmos's ramjet engine from Russia?

Regarding Swat, Unlike Gaza and Chechnya Swat is Pakistan's own country. I doubt Pak Army will have the will like Russians or Israelis to take the fight to the end. I think this Pakistan-US-Taliban game will continue forever and no satisfactory result will emerge in the foreseeable future.
We need to find ways to undercut Pakistan's role in the Afghan theater and the leverage it gives them on the Americans.
India's contribution in building Delaram-Zaranj highway in Afghanistan and Chabahar Port in Iran gives me hope that GOI has some strategic plan underway.
Prasun, do you think India might be playing some role behind the scenes in building bridges between Iran and the US? What are the chances of Iran agreeing to provide US an alternate supply line to Afghanistan?

ABHINABA said...

Harpreet, we almost lost to China in all sectors - in science,technology,economy,defence sector...& so on.After indipendence for 10 years we stand as leading nation in ASIA in all those sectors.But after 58 our social,economic status slightly slowed & during 80s China overtakes us fully.After 90 China's progress washed us completely. Our GoI totally failed to retain our glorious students ,scientist,techie in our soil. For high GDP over the years we can not see country's present poor condition in all sectors.Now, INDIA is a symmetry of Italy,full of corruption,mafia raj & central babu raj.

Prasun K Sengupta said...

To Anon@5:07PM: The Zhuk AE AESA as well as te BARS-29 PESA are both still at the development stage and have not yet been flight-certified by the Russian military aviation airworthiness authorities. On the other hand, the Zhuk-ME has already been on board the MiG-29M and MiG-29K/KUB. that's why the IAF had no option but to opt for a less riskier option, i.e. the Zhuk-ME.

To Anon@5:09PM: There's no aircraft in existence known as the il476. The one being marketed by both TAPO and Rosoboronexport is called IL-78MKI-90.

To Anon@6:58PM: One can acquire the IL-76 aircraft for US$18 million directly from TAPO. But these aircraft are not brand new, but are pre-owned which are subsequently zero-lifed by TAPO in Tashkent. Incorporation of PS-90A turbofans and a glass cockpit results in the price going up to US$22 million. Only if the airframe is brand new will the price go up to US$40 million. But the figure of US$100 million is totally unrealistic as TAPO's labour charges are extremely low when compared to what Rosoboronexport charges. And no IL-76 or IL-78 comes with fly-by-wire flight controls. The main reason why the IL-76/IL-78 deal for China did not materialise was because the Chinese discovered from TAPO the ludicrous price hikes made by Rosoboronexport without any credible justification. And believe it or not, TAPO's sales and purchase agreements are of the no-nonsense-type which make it mandatory for the buyer to not only identify in black-and-white in the contract document the name and details of TAPO's country agent/middleman, but also the amount of commissions paid for a successful sale. This has been another reason why Russia has been extremely reluctant to work together with TAPO.

To Sachin Sathe: The Astra's performance parameters will be more or less identical to the R-77 as both BVRAAMs use the same active radar built by Russia's AGAT JSC. Theoretically it is possible to derive an E-SHORADS from Astra just as has been the case wt the AIM-120D, VL-MICA and China's SD-10A BVRAAMs. The problem is the time factor as the SR-SAM being co-developed by MBDA and DRDL is most likely based on the already proven airframe of the Super 530D will be available within the next two years for operational induction. On the the hand, it will take at least another five years to develop an E-SHORADS variant of the Astra.
The MCA scale-model shown by ADA last February at Aero India 2009was fabricated for only low-speed wind-tunnel tests. Nothing else has been done as yet as far as R & D effort is concerned. On the other hand, the FGFA's prototype, built by the KnAAPO subsidiary of Russia's United Aircraft Corp and designed by the Sukhoi OKB, will make its maiden flight sometime next year. That's the difference between the two: one is just a paper-based concept, whereas the other one is being readied to take to the skies!

To ABHINABA: Not quite. When the MiG-29K/KUB deal was inked in January 2004 te contract called for aircrft deliveries by 2008. Now, as we all know, the Russians have moved the goalposts concerning INS Vkramaditya and only because of all this has the MiG-29K/KUB induction schedule gone haywire. The F-35 JSF will be commercially available only by 2014 in large numbers, at around the same time the Tejas Mk2 will (hopefully) begin entering service. However, for unknown or mysterious reasons, no one either in India or in Russia is even talking about an aircraft carrier-based variant of the FGFA. This is because it will be logical to presume that a carrier-based variant of the FGFA too be developed as both the Russian Navy and the Indian Navy would be in favour of such an option. An yet the Indian Navy till this day sticks to its plan for inducting into service two types of 4+ generation combat aircraft (MiG-29K and Tejas LCA Mk2), instead of exercising the option to induct the fifth-generation FGFA.
Regarding India's foreign policy options in both Sri Lanka and Nepal, it would still be premature to label them as being failed options.

To Harpreet: It is not Pakistan, but China that has acquired complete technical and engineering data packages from Ukraine for series-producing the Babur’s twin-spool RD95-300 turbofan. The turbofans are being shipped to Pakistan in semi knocked-down condition, as are the Babur cruise missiles.
Turning to prospective US-India-Iran strategic convergences, these are all givens, as the NSAs of all three countries are routinely in contact with one another away from public glare. And the fact that the Afghan-Pakistan international border is 'disputed' (as the Durand Line's validity expired way back in 1996) has alluded to by President Asif Zardari in Washington DC three days ago. Therefore, this cat has at last leapt out of its bag for sure.

MJ26459 said...

Prasun do you have any data about range of Surfaced launced China's SD-10A missile and radars used with it

Prasun K Sengupta said...

The Hunter-2 E-SHORADS that weas publicly displayed at Airshow China 2008 last November showed two SD-10As and two PL-9Cs mounted on a 4 x 4 just like SL-AMRAAM configuration. The target acquisition radar was a PESA, also mounted on a 4 x 4. The slant range of the SD-10A was given as 18km and that of PL-9C as 12km.

Anonymous said...


Anonymous said...


Is it wise to consider low winged aircraft like Airbus 330. We may loose the luxury of operating from proper airstrips in a war with China.

Prasun K Sengupta said...

AAR aircraft never operate from forward air bases or STOL airstrips. The A330-200 MRTT therefore does not require STOL capabilities. The A330-200 MRTT will be capable of operating out of every IAF air base from which the IL-76MDs and IL-78MKIs operate.

MJ26459 said...

Thanks Prasun

Is there any plan by India to develop and market Twin seater LCA as supersonic trainer? Currently only South Korean T-50 and Chinese JL-9 / L-15 are available in this class.

Sikorsky's X-2 tactical armed helicopter is very interesting concept but will be very difficult to sell as US is cutting lot of funds and I think that they will opt for something more conventional

I just red “Could the Aero India F-16s be bombing India in a war?” By Ajy Shukla

Are F-16E/E and mirage-2000-9 really flown by PAF pilots? What about Saudi F-15s and EF-2000 in future? I think it will be very difficult to do so without USA’s permission right?

Anonymous said...

Will any IAF base be outside China's reach in a all out war. We are not USA who has to fly to other continents to fight war. Our deep bases are not that far to escape Chinese attack. It is essential to have capability to operate from stressed bases and repaired and makeshift airstrips when faced with an overwhelming enemy like China.

MJ26459 said...

Few months back I also heard rumors of Pakistan army looking to purchase Sweden’s Bamse Air Defense System, is there any truth in these rumors?

What is happing with U-214SSK that was selected by the PN.Is the deal signed or economic slowdown has taken its tole and deal is off? Will PN opt for IADS missile and DM2A4 heavyweight torpedoes?

What’s your view about the purchase of the outdated Spada-2000 system by the PAF? I mean, these are generation behind Spyer MR and will be venerable to anti radiation missile attacks

Nava said...

Does India plan to purchase the Harop (Harpy 2) from IAI?

Prasun K Sengupta said...

To MJ26459: The tandem-seat varant of the Tejas Mk1 LCA is not meant to be used as a lead-in fighter trainer (as is the case with the T-50, L-15, Yak-130 or M-346), but rather as an operational conversion trainer that is used to type-certify and qualify the aircrew destined for the operational Tejas LCA squadrons. Therefore, to use the Tejas LCA's tandem-seat variant as a LIFT is an economic overkill. The Hawk Mk132 is more than adequate for LIFT purposes. Regarding the T-50, one must bear in mind that when the project was conceived, the plans called for a single airframe that could serve as both a LIFT as well as a close air support aircraft, hence the need for supersonic speed. In the IAF's case this was not the requirement as the Hawk Mk132 was required only for LIFT purposes.
Regarding the X-2 helicopte, Sikorsky is developing this with its own internal funds and is not asking from any financial infusion from the Pentagon. I personally see a great demand for such helicopters from those operators which require such platforms for high-altitude operations, especially when it comes to special operations missions as well as anti-UAV operations.
Regarding the UAE Air Force, the F-16E/Fs and Mirage 2000-9s are flown by PAF flight/air combat instructors but such aircrews on deputation are deployed strictly as non-combatants and only for peacetime flying. At least the US has seen to this and has a bilateral agreement with the UAE Air Force to this effect. The same also applies to the EF-2000s of the Royal Saudi Air Force and the UK has inked a similar agreement with Saudi Arabia. Therefore, one will not see a repeat of the 1971 situation when some Jordanian F-104s were shipped to West Pakistan.
The BAMSE actually lost the competition to MBDA's Spada 2000 system wo years ago. The Spada 2000 is not outdated, but rather, it is an upgraded version of the earlier Albatross/Aspide/LY-60 systems. All existing air defence systems that make use of target acquisition-cum-engagement radars
are vulnerable to anti-radiation missiles, including the SpyDer.
Regarding the Type 214 SSKs, the MoU was inked last year and the Letter of Intent was issued by Pakistan Navy HQ, but the contract signature has been held up due to financial reasons. But the deal is as good as done. IADS anti-aircraft missiles and DM2A4 heavyweight torpedoes are part of the package.

To Anon@11:40AM: Be it forward air bases or air bases deep within India, ALL of them are within reach of China's ballistic and cruise missiles.

To Nava: Yes, the plans do exist. That's why the Harop was exhibited at Aero India 2009. But IAI has also teamed up with a local Indian company called SPECK Systems to explore ways of jointly developing and producing variants of the Harop within India.

Anonymous said...

to prsaun

When the MiG-29K/KUB deal was inked in January 2004 te contract called for aircrft deliveries by 2008. Now, as we all know, the Russians have moved the goalposts concerning INS Vkramaditya and only because of all this has the MiG-29K/KUB induction schedule gone haywire
when india bought mig29k in 2004 russia didn't have any operational infrastructure which was producing mig29k on regular basis which was closed with the end of cold war

so they had to set up new production line and moreover there was introduction of foreign avionics

and main thing is recertification of these jets again and that takes time

some people think that these jets are obslete against f35 ,they must think the price tag which is $ 30 million against $ 100 million for f35 which is still uncertain

even today US still producing f18 for its navy and will operate them for next 4 decades and AESA equipped mig29k will not be inferior

and even if considering india had inducted these jets in 2010 even then one must think that these jets will be used for 30 years or till 2040,and US navy still be operating f18e/f in 2040

Anonymous said...

to prasun

u must have seen the pics of mig29k production,they were almost 50% complete and will be operational by end of this year

Anonymous said...

in the upper most pic there is russina navy ship # 530 which class of ships is that

that looks stealthy

Anonymous said...

Hi, just for Info on the Club missile inventory with the Indian Navy :

(a) 3M-54 Klub/ss-n-27.....175 ordered in 2001. All delivered by 2007 (including a few Land attack 3M-14E).

(b) 3M-54/3M-14E Klub........28 Land Attack for Kilo Subs ordered in 2006. Delivery underway.

Also, just for info:

(a) KH 35Uran/ss-n-25......416 ordered in 1997. All delivered by 2004.
(b) KH 35 Uran/ss-n-25......20 ordered in 2001 for IL-38SD May. (delivery status not known).

On the Brahmos inventory... SIPRI 2008 carried a report that 1000 are expected to be ordered and till about the end of 2008 only 35 had been delivered !!!

Most of this info available on SIPRI/Military Balance and various Military site.


venky said...

prasun! you are totally incorrect!
PTAE-7 is the Engine for LAKSHYA PTA developed by ETBRDC of HAL,not by GTRE of DRDO. GTRE till date has not developed any Engine which is flying! please verify again!

sachin_sathe said...


Is it possible by any chance to modify the PTAE-7 into an engine for a cruise missile?

Also is HAL involved in the production of prototypes of FGFA or it will only liseence produce?

ABHINABA said...

To,Prasun da- YJ-12/93 is much lighter & smallar than BrahMos,but the first one has much greater range than BrahMos(400km. vs 290 km.),why? What type of ramjet engine(which foreign type's copy) is used by YJ-12/93?

ABHINABA said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
ABHINABA said...

Why IAF wants twine seat varient of FGFA? Are you know about stealth features that will be incorporated in developing FGFA? Which companies/institutes get orders for developing it's sensors?

SUKHOI-30 MKI said...

Prasun da, army last year floated a 2 billion Euro contract for purchasing 1,000 short- range quick reaction missiles. Apart from MBDA, Thales,Russians and Israelis were also bidding for that project.MBDA proposed to jointly develop maitri missile.
Now what does army has decided? Are we going to aquire any existing missile system off the shelf or maitri would be developed? Can you provide the time frame within which all the thousand missiles would be aquired.

MJ26459 said...

Prasun why Two CP-140 Auroras deployed in Afghanistan? Aren’t they for maritime patrol aircraft?

MJ26459 said...

Time and again we are listing to news that USA is denying Israel to have its own avionics and weapon system on F-35 and is also denying them repair of the F-35’s computers domestically and is not providing them with source codes. If they can do all this with Israel what you make out for the possible deals with India regarding P-8I and MMRCA? Do you think that USA will be ready to transfer these technologies and will allow india to do its own repairs and integrate its own weaponsystems?

MJ26459 said...

IAF will soon be receiving its first Phalcon AWACS. What is its total endurance? Who may operator will be onboard to control fighters?

And few days back Pakistani interior minister Rehman Maliks aid that US will be providing five helicopters to Pakistan, any idea about the type?

Is there any project under the CAT in india for jet trainer?

Anonymous said...

hey prasun

there also exixt air launched varients of these missile do u have brochures for them

moreover mig29k hasn't arrived even after 5.5 years while singapore took delivery of its f15 on 10may 2009,contract was signed on dec12 2005 ,so they received f15 after 40 months from contract signed

Anonymous said...

ime and again we are listing to news that USA is denying Israel to have its own avionics and weapon system on F-35 and is also denying them repair of the F-35’s computers domestically and is not providing them with source codes
u r right US didn't shared tech for f35 even with UK

the source codes for P8I were not shared moreover they have many reservation over these aircrafts

u also know very well there are reservations even on the use of 40 year old INS JALASHVA

same thing will happen with MRCA if india buys from US

israel isn't happy with this and thats why they are opting for f15 silent eagle isntead

Prasun K Sengupta said...

To Venky: It all depends on what is officially spelt out by both HAL and DRDO in their official brochures, especially those brought out by the DRDO and HAL during Aero India 2009. While the DRDO's capabilities brochure claims full credit for designing and devloping the Lakshya PTA and ALL its components (MIDHANI too played a role in developing the metallurgy-related components), the brochure of HAL’s Engine and Test Bed Research and Design Centre only states that the PTAE-7 was only 'indigenously produced', and not developed in-house by HAL. Therefore, while HAL is sole production authority for the PTAE-7, it does not automatically mean that HAL was also responsible for designing and developing the complete turbojet.

To Sachin Sathe: For powering a 1,500km-range cruise missile, a turbofan will be a better option than a turbojet. An no, a turbofan cannot be derived from a turbojet. For the FGFA, HAL will be required to fabricate the tandem-seat prototypes but how exactly this will be done through redesign and whether Russia's United Aircraft Corp will send prefabricated fuselage parts to HAL remains to be seen.

To Abhinaba: The answer is simple. The BrahMos' range is capped by MTCR restrictions, while China-developed missiles are under no such restrictions. As to why the FGFA will be a tandem-seater my personal guess here is that the IAF has to date not yet been exposed to the type of sensor fusion technologies and direct voice input-based avionics that will go on board the F-35 JSF or the EF-2000, and has therefore likely reached the conclusion that the aircrew's workload will be similar to that on board the Su-30MKI.

To SUKHOI-30MKI: Even if 1,000 SRQRMs are imported off-the-shelf, there will still be a requirement for another 4,000 SRQRMs! The Army's reqmts are quite large, as are te IAF's. Therefore the Maitri SR-SAM project is definitely on.

To MJ26459: You will find the answer here:
The A-50E PHALCON's endurance will be at least 10 hours, meaning each sortie will last for 10 hours. Eight mission management operators will be on board, with two replacement crew complement on board, i.e. 24 in all.
The helicopters for Pakistan Army are the Bell 412EPs.
I sincerely hope the CAT project is not taken up (as t will be an enormous waste of money), especially not until HAL overcomes all the flight control problems of the HJT-35 IJT.

To Nava: You may find the contents of the following weblink interesting:
However, don't pay heed to the story's concluding paragraph, as the conclusions are biaised and ill-founded.

Nava said...

Indeed an interesting article, thanks. Do you have any additional information about the planned cooperation between the two countries in this area (are there plans for more satellite launches or procurements)?

sachin_sathe said...


Can u tell more abt the Franco-Spanish S-80A SSK?

I think the FGFA will have a fairly decent Data Fusion and possibily have a voice input feature if HAL can outsource it or DRDO developes it in time(possible but unlikely).The tandem seat config may be due to IAF's intention of using it for very long duration CAp's(read 8-10 hrs).

Anonymous said...

what are the issues with IJT-36's flight control.

Anonymous said...

now russians want $ 75 million US for mig29k which includes aesa radar,simulator,ground equipment,training and support for each aircraft and this cost is for just 30 more mig29k to be acquired

on the other hand if mig35 are bought then this cost should be less so

now mig35 is almost same as mig29k except mig35 has larger wings and same aesa radar along with same ground based equipment,same training,almost similar simulators,but there will be extra money has to be paid for tech transfer for mig35 ,

so mig35 will cost around $ 90 million(becoz of higher numbers) which will include tech transfer,training,simulators,
ground based equipment

so 126*$90 million US=

$ 11.34 billion US

and this cost should be significantly be higher for f18,typhoon,rafale not sure for f16 and gripen

Anonymous said...

SMART-S Mk2 is the newest Thales naval 3D multibeam radar after
SMART-L radar.

SMART-S Mk2 operates in S-band and is optimized for medium-to-long range surveillance and target designation in littoral environments.

With their mix of sea, land, rain, thunderstorms and targets such on multiple small surface slups, helicopters and anti-ship missiles. Furthermore, SMART-S Mk2 is designed to match the full performance of surface to air missiles (SAM), such as the Evolved SeaSparrow Missile (ESSM).

SMART-S Mk2 is extremely suitable as the main air and surface surveillance radar in a one radar concept for light frigates, corvettes and ships such as LPD's. With its 2 main modes, 250-km range, special helicopter mode, surface fire channels, easy installation, high reliability and easy maintainability, SMART-S Mk2 is again a step forward in Thales' radar development.

SMART-S Mk2 is well suited for detection of helicopters due to dedicated rotor has detection capability. For guidance of helicopters and UAVs it can use very short pulses, providing a short minimum range.

Main features

* Excellent performance in the littoral environment.
* Supports full performance of ESSM.
* Solid state transmitter integrated in the antenna.
* Easily integrated with many CMS systems, both Thales and non-Thales
* Short-range capabilities for helicopter and UAV control and surface detection.
* IFF antenna and optional integration with IFF system.

Anonymous said...

in recent report air chief clarified about mig21 that airfroce flies them 20 days a month and 2 sorties per day ,so if considering minimum time for those two sorties last 45 minutes each or 1.5 hours for two sorties

so in 20 days(or in a month ) a mig21 is flown almost 30 hours and for full year a mig21 is flown almost 360 hours

or if considering 1/2 hour minimum time for which a sortie lasts or an hour for two sorties ,so for 20 days(or in a month) it is 20 hours and for 12 months it will be
240 minimum hours for which each mig21 is flown

air chief said in last 10 years mig21 flew total over 550000 sorties there have been 93 mig21 accidents and this means there is one crash every 5914 sorties and this is not bad for an aircraft build in late 50s and the price at which mig21 were acquired

mig35 will easily clock 400hours a year

Anonymous said...

one who can fly fly mig21 can fly any aircraft ,but mig21 has better speed than f16,18,rafale,gripen

Anonymous said...

its time to leave naval barak-8

and go for navy combination of ESSM, and SM-3 and all new SM-6 missiles

and for land based version s400 is best out there

Harpreet said...

To Anon@5:59:00 AM: We don't need ABM capability on every warship.
The SM3 Block 3A along with Dual Band Radar(DBR) having AN/SPY-3 will be available by 2015. A single such system will be capable of defending the whole of Japan or Indian peninsula. We may consider it for P15b destroyers.
However most of the fleet will do well with Barak 8 and MF-STAR. I don't think we need to consider the expensive Aegis with its current PESA AN/SPY-1 radar. SR-SAM can fill in for ESSM and LR-SAM for SM6.
Here I must point out that US is also considering integrating PAC3 to Aegis for better Anti-Supersonic AShM and ABM capability than SM2 and SM6 offer. This is what Barak 8 is designed for.
For land based ABM capability we may also consider the SM3 as is being considered for Israel.

Anonymous said...

to harpreet

ok,p15a destroyers are not going to be fitted with barak 8 either beocz its not available yet

and stupid BEL still building LM08 radar for p15a WHILE samrt l available

and by the time barak 8 becomes operational P15 a ships will be in sea

anyway SM3 is compatible with SAMRT L radar ,netherland's navy have SM3 for their new frigates

Harpreet said...

To Anon@1:20:00 PM: 5 year Barak 8 development program was inked in early 2006. The prototype was displayed over a year ago. There were reports of commencing testing last year though I don't have conformation on that.
Since INS Kolkata is still waiting for fitting out and is unlikely to be commissioned before 2012, Barak 8 should make it in time.
I would love to smack BEL with their LM08 radar as much as you would like.

Raghav said...

I've always wondered how a country like Israel, with very little resources-both human and financial, a very small territory with no great natural resources to speak of has grown on to become such a major player in the world of hi-tech weapons. I know that the USA provides Israel with enormous amounts of aid both for civilian and defense purposes. But how did Israel develop the capability to design and produce such advanced weapon systems? Surely the Americans are not always sharing weapons tech with Israel.

Israel and India became independent almost at the same time. We both faced all our major wars almost at the same time too (1948 Arab-Israeli war, 1967, 1973). But Israel alone has learnt its lessons from these experiences and has developed a robust military-industrial complex. But we are struggling even to produce good quality small arms for our defense forces.

How was Israel able to achieve all these amazing things. Perhaps Prasun can shed some light on this.

Anonymous said...

Given the history of atrocities against Jews and the threats faced by the Jewish state, Israelis are a closely knitted community driven by a strong sence of nationalism.
It is said that adversity brings out the best in people. Even before Israel came into existence Jews were oppressed in Europe for so long that they struggled and emerged strong as a community. They have made enormous contribution not only in technology but in the development of science, Albert Einstein and Sigmund Freud being among them.

Anonymous said...

to harpreet

: 5 year Barak 8 development program was inked in early 2006. The prototype was displayed over a year ago. There were reports of commencing testing last year though I don't have conformation on that.
no it was inked only this year

and developemnt will take almost 5 years from now

Anonymous said...

mig35 will have 5 hardpoints on each wings and mock up has been shown on aero india

prasun u said that you will get brochures as they are published by mig

Harpreet said...

To Anon@3:44:00 AM: The IAF Barak NG contract was inked this year.
The Indian Navy had inked Barak 8 contract in 2006

Prasun K Sengupta said...

Just got back from the IMDEX Asia 2009 naval expo in Singapore and will post select updates in the near future.

To Anon@1:37PM: The HJT-36 IJT's flight-control hydraulics, particularly those pertaining to the undercarriage, is giving problems. Also, as yet HAL has not yet invited any independent aircraft designer to do a 'peer review' of the overall aircraft design. The fact that HAL has never before developed such a fourth-generation IJT and is now doing so on its own presents several R & D challenges that HAL is not yet able to overcome with its in-house resources.

To Sachin Sathe: The S-80A SSK from Navantia will be similar in terms of capabilities to the Pakistan Navy's third Agosta 90 SSK that is equipped with the MESMA AIP module. But when you compare it with the SMX-22/23 and the S-800 from Fincantieri/Rubin, the S-80A loses out as its hull design is based on a legacy platform (Scorpene).
Regarding the FGFA, rest assured that no combat aircraft can do CAP sorties lasting eight hours. Both CAP and BARCAP sorties last for 3 hours at the most. Although ADA has done some R & D on DVI avionics, it is EADS that has already incorporated such avionics into the Eurofighter EF-2000 and this is also being offered for the Tejas Mk2 LCA. But I'm still not convinced that the IAF's future operational scenarios call for a tandem-seat FGFA, even for operational conversion, since present-day flying training simulators are mature enough to undertake such tasks.

To Anon@1:20PM: On must bear in mind that weapon systems like the Club-N/S, Barak-1 and even the Barak-2/Barak NG are modular and are therefore installed in a drop-in configuration. Hence, even legacy platforms like the Kashin 2-class DDGs and Project 16 and Project 16A FFGs can easily accommodate the Barak-1 as long as the EMI, power supply and electrical challenges are worked out in advance without radical modifications to the warship's hull. It is also for this reason that the Project 15A DDGs will also have Barak-2 and MF-STAR on board even after the three hulls are floated and remain at pierside for final fitting-out. One must also bear in mind that the Barak NG/LR-SAM's engagement envelope will not be limited to a mere 120km. The LR-SAM is being developed in a way that will ensure that it will be able to engage ballistic missiles out to an slant range of 200km.

To Anon@5:19AM: As of now, United Aircraft Corp has yet to release any brochure or any other marketing literature on the MiG-35. Therefore, the MiG-35 exists only on paper and as a scale-model.

Nava said...

I though Barak NG's range was 70 km...

Anonymous said...

to nava

yes the range of barak NG is just 70km for both air force and navy version

if barak has to be longer range then it would have been posted of IAI website

Anonymous said...

to nava

but its not there ,only 70km range of missile has been specified by now

Harpreet said...

Nava, IAI website hasn't posted anything on Barak NG yet. The media is already confused between Barak 8/MR-SAM and Barak NG/LR-SAM so no need to trust their figures. The IAF has asked for a longer range Barak, why else they would be wasting time on a new development if the IN Barak 8 can satisfy IAF range requirement. A 10km range difference suggested in some reports is laughable. Prasun has already clarified that Barak 8 stands for Barak 80km(max).
Barak 8 is scheduled to enter service in 2011 and Barak NG will come in 2013.

sachin_sathe said...


the CAP and BARCAP sorties may not last beyond 3 hrs but the tandem seat version suggests to me (may be wrong) tht the FGFA may replace some of the Su-30 MKI's also we cannot rule out IAF going for a UCAV(MIG Skat?) for long range tactical as well as strategic anti surface sorties.

Regarding the P-15A and P-15B i get the feeling tht they are also to be the fleet command ships when not sailing with an AC. If the Barak NG indeed has a 200km range then doesn,t it invalidate the developement of AAD?

Anonymous said...

and if india can build rohini radar which is enough to support 70 km SAM

and if india can build propulsion motor,dual pulse unit,navigation ,C3I system,launchers so what else is remaining

so it shows every thing incluing 150km range radar available in india

so why not just procure seekers,data link OFF THE SHELF from israel,and why their is need to go with israelis when everything else available in india except seeker and guidance(no tech transfer for these)

and seeker and guidance anyway has to be bought off the shelf despite deal is called codevelopment

so why not procure seekers and guidance off the shelf and do everything else in india ,so what is the need to go with israel

and paying $ 2.5 billion to israelis for just seekrs and guidance

Harpreet said...

To Anon@3:34:00 AM: Rohini is a volume search radar not a fire control radar. Also its a planar radar against an AESA like MF-STAR.
Seeker alone of a modern tactical missile contributes to over half the missile cost. Propulsion costs just 5-10%.

So now you know that all our contribution of propulsion motor, navigation, controls, launchers adds up to just about 20%, which happens to be our share in this program.

Nava said...

Oh dear, I thought barak 8 and Barak NG were the same damn thing! I'll have to ask my friend over at IAI if it's all some big psy-warfare policy or maybe their marketing department just sucks (I've made my bet)? :)

Anyway, even as an Israeli who certainly likes seeing the industry
getting some serious cash for some serious projects I have trouble seeing what benefits the new Barak(s) have over the Aster 30\15, not to mention the near term American missiles.
And likewise the MF-STAR over the APAR\Smart L or the Sampson. Will it even use ICWI? But of course I'm no expert and it seems that these Israeli systems are even more opaque than usual (or is it just me?)...

Anonymous said...

Prasun, IJT36 made its maiden flight with the new Russian engine and hopes to get IOC by 2010. Looks like the issues might be resolved.

Harpreet said...

Prasun, why was SMX-22 absent at IMDEX?
SMX-24 is supposed to enter service around 2020, too late for IN second submarine line.

Anonymous said...

to harpereet

india can also build fire control radar as well and it has already done this

Anonymous said...

to nava

u r right

MRSAM for navy is just longer range ESSM ,but ESSM has range of over 50+ compared to naval barak-8 wihich has range of 70km

and NAVAL BARAK-8 will fill the role of ESSM

but in aegis system THERE going to be ALL NEW SM-6 with range over 200km

germany and netherland already have ESSM and SMART L along with SM-2 missiles on board

and netherland even has sm-3 missile which works with SMART L

and what superiority MFSTAR bring compared to smart l and sampson radars

and yes india has already build fire control radars which will work with rohini radars

Prasun K Sengupta said...

To Sachin Sathe: Even if the FGFA were to replace the Su-30MKI it does not automatically mean that the FGFA too be a tandem-seat design. Sensor fusion and cockpit resource management technologies of the type that are not yet on board the Su-30MKI are already being incorporated on the Su-35 prototypes by the Russians and the Indian FGFAs will undoubtedly incorporate such technologies, be it of Israeli or European origin.
Regarding the UCAVs, it is the Indian Army that is more likely to acquire them in large numbers, and not the IAF, as the Army urgently requires them for close air support.
Regarding the PAD and AAD interceptors, these two are still in the developmental stage and their performance parameters will be enhanced in the years to come. However, the target engagement profiles of the LR-SAM and AAD are totally different and consequently they will be used for intercepting differing types of targets. Remember, one cannot have a 'jack-of-all-trades' SAM. It is wishful thinking, just as is the prospect of a THAAD or a Patriot PAC-3 being employed for intercepting Tu-95/Tu-160 strategic bombers.

To Anon@3:34AM: Yes, all these can be built or fabricated within India. But building them locally does not automatically mean that they have been developed in-country. And even if they have been developed in-country, from where will all the test-benches, measuring instrumentation and telemetry tracking instrumentation come from? How many Indian companies have you come across thus far which indigenously develop and supply such equipment? All you got to do is walk into one of ISRO's satellite fabrication workshops and you will discover from where exactly all such equipment has been and is being sourced.

To Nava: The marketing policy of any Israeli military-industrial entity is simple: never identify by name the export customer. Therefore, leave alone the Barak-2/NG, IAI has not yet even identified who the customers for the Barak-1 and PHALCON are! Be it Chile, Singapore, Thailand, Sri Lanka, Indonesia, The Philippines, China or India, the answer is: no official disclosure from IAI. That's why, even though Singapore's Defence Ministry's website last February officially announced that the first of four G-550 CAEWS had arrived (a photo was also shown), you will never come across IAI issuing a parallel statement.
When evaluating weapon systems parameters, it is also important to consider the issue of long-term sustained evolution of one's military-industrial infrastructure. Therefore, once IAI/ELTA had achieved core technological competencies in designing and fabricating AESA radars for BMD and AEW & C, it would have been totally insane for IAI/ELTA to just forget about the development of AESA-based radars for naval applications. India too faced an identical situation in terms of justifying its long-term investments in AESA-related R & D/production technologies, especially after it was decided to procure in large numbers the ELM-2080 LRTRs for theatre missile defence. It was only for this reason that both India and Israel decided to join hands to co-develop solutions that were required by both and in large numbers. It makes perfect business sense for any potential financial investor. Therefore, why spend all this money on importing systems like APAR/SAMPSON/Aster-15/30 when this very money can be invested in one's own economy?

To Anon@8:49AM: Firstly, the AL-55-powered HJT-36 must receive its airworthiness certification from CEMILAC before service induction and this can only come by AFTER the pre-production variant of the HJT-36 emerges from HAL and NPO Saturn. Secondly, the entire existing cockpit avionics/instrumentation suite is INTERIM, and the final suite will see the HJT incorporating more AMLCDs and doing away with electro-mechanical instrumentation. Only after these two principal challenges have been overcome will it be possible to guarantee the HJT-36's performance parameters. And finally, what is HAL doing with regard to the development of the HJT-36's flight simulator and cockpit procedures trainer? Why have they not yet emerged? Will they be developed in-house or will they be imported off-the-shelf?
In reality, it is not just about the HJT-36. In essence, India is lacking the integrated infrastructure required for developing new-generation aircraft, be they trainers, combat aircraft or transports. What is required is a full-fledged experimental flight test centre away from populated areas (like Bangalore) that is fully instrumented to measure flight-test and RCS parameters in real-time without EMI problems. It is within such as centre that centres of excellence like ASTE and a centre housing flight-test/engineering simulators, EW range simulators, ought to be located. These centres also ought to housde generic flight simulators where the performsnce parameters of rival combat aircraft can be replicated and analysed as part of realistic operations analysis, the results of which could then be passed on to establishments like the TACDE.

To Harpreet: The SMX-22 has not yet been shown in scale-model form anywhere in South and Southeast Asia. In fact, the only time anything close to it was displayed as at IMDEX Asia 2003 when the SMX-21 concept was displayed in Singapore. The SMX-24 is a further outgrowth of the SMX-22 and it is this SSK that is being promoted for a future requirement of the Republic of Singapore Navy. Undoubtedly, both the SMX-22 and SMX-24 are revolutionary solutions when compared to the likes of the Navantia S-80A and Fincantieri S-800 ocean-going SSKs.

Anonymous said...

according to some people whatever americans and russians making is junk and their systems are mess
even if their systems are most capable

and whatever israel makes is superior according to such people
as if americans and russkies are new to amrs production or just trying to enter in this area

Anonymous said...

Therefore, why spend all this money on importing systems like APAR/SAMPSON/Aster-15/30 when this very money can be invested in one's own economy
we are still importing LW08 radar

and these missiles can also be built in india with TOT

Anonymous said...

to prasun

russia building 6 kilo class submarines for $ 1.8 billion for vietnam

and this is pretty cheap,this sub will have 7 blade propeller along with much better sensors

compared we paid $3.5 billion for scorpene although it came with TOT

smx22,23,24 may be excellent plateforms but if india want to buy french subs it will not cost less than 5 billion even more with TOT

compared to same can be bought from russia with TOT in $ 3 billion or less and sensors can be of indian origin

Harpreet said...

To Anon@11:10:00 AM: Why you have resistance to Israeli systems? There is a difference in being a co-developer and a licensed manufacturer.

Prasun, nice to hear from you. Do you plan on sharing some of your IMDEX experience?

Nava said...

Well they do at times "reveal" the customer but that only happens when they win a public tender so it isn't a revelation anyway...

To me it's just not smart in such a publicized deal not to clarify a trivial issue as range if it helps you hugely against criticism. It's not as if you can keep it a secret. Anyway this LR SAM seems to me more and more to be a "Stunner" derivative.

RE the second point- Yeah I was sort of playing devil's advocate. But what about the MF STAR's performance compared to the European, exportable systems?

Prasun K Sengupta said...

To Anon@11:10AM & Anon@11:15AM: Actually, both the US and USSR were making absolute junk till the 1930s and it was Nazi Germany that was the world leader and innovator simply because it happened to stumble upon some remarkable discoveries within colonial India in the 1920s! If you wish to get more info on all this, then kindly proceed to:
After you've been though that weblink and its 11 following installments, then you'll realize why the US and Europeans are now knocking at our gates! But Israel and India have already been on to this for a long time now and now have a commanding lead in this field. The US, Russia and Europe are focussed on concepts based on quantum physics/quantum mechanics, while India and Israel are focussed on the concept of parallel universe matrixes).

To Anon@11:20AM: When I asked the visiting Vietnamese Navy delegation at IMDEX Asia 2009 why it was going for six Type 636 SSKs instead of the Amur 1650 at a time when even the PLA Navy has overcome all the deficiencies of the Kilo SSK by developing the Yuan-class SSK with a Western-type centralised combat management system, the delegation said that the decision was made based on the submarine warfare training Vietnam would be obtaining from the Indian Navy! But when I countered by pointing out that a similar training package could obtained from India for the Scorpene SSK as well if Vietnam selected the Scorpene, the delegation could not give a proper convincing answer. Even if the Amur 1650 SSK were to be ordered by Vietnam, India could have provided submarine tactics training on board the latter's upgraded Class 209/Type 1500 SSKs, just as had been the case since 1992 when the Indian Navy trained several batches of submarine crew from the Republic of Singapore Navy. One would have expected Vietnam to go for the Amur 1650 SSK as this type of SSK--and not the Type 636--is optimised for shallow water operations throughout the South China Sea where the Vietnamese Navy wants to wage undersea warfare against China. Therefore, by a process of elimination we can only reach one conclusion on why Vietnam chose the Type 636 SSK: it does not want to engage in an unsustainable arms race with 'big brother' China, and that the cornerstone of Vietnam's defence policy vis-a-vis China is dissuasive deterrence, instead of active deterrence. In other words, Vietnam now finds itself in a situation that was faced by India vis-a-vis China throughout the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s.

To Harpreet: Will be able to upload some stuff from IMDEX Asia 2009 in about a week from now. Things are moving ahead quickly with regard to the Indian Navy's SSGN Nos 1 and 2. But more on that later.

To Nava: It is not an issue of being secretive out of choice. Usually in contracts inked with any Israeli manufacturer of military hardware, there is a standard clause that clearly states that any official revelation or statement on the contract will be made only by the client/customer, and not the supplier. Now, coming to performance parameters about radars or missiles, whenever any industrial entity embarks upon any R & D venture aimed at developing something for the very first time, prudence would suggest that the performance parameters are first achieved under field conditions and convincingly demonstrated, before making any claims on the parameters. And there is a very good reason for this, and this is the very reason why the IL-38SD MRMR/ASW aircraft project of the Indian Navy has attracted a lot of negative criticism. You see, prior to contract award, Rosoboronexport had claimed that the mission sensor suite of the IL-38SD would be able of detecting floating mines in the high seas, and moored mines in shallow waters! And lo and behold, when it came to performance validation, this capability could not be demonstrated by the Ruskies. And the Ruskies have still not been able to overcome the impossible. Now, had the Russians chosen to guarantee only the realistically achievable peformance parameters, today there would have been no controversy surrounding the IL-38SD upgrade package. Got it?
Regarding the MF-STAR, I would not be highly surprised at all if in future as part of the evolutionary process of technology advancement (from L-band to S-band and next X-band) IAI/ELTA develops an X-band variant of the MF-STAR. Maybe your 'friends' within IAI could shed more light on this to you, albeit on a strictly off-the-record basis.

Anonymous said...

when BEL can license produce LW08 radar and it can surely can build smart l radar ans sampson radar

and why BEL is not building aesa radars even if they are available

mfstar still in development while smart l and sampson are available

now,naval MFSTAR ,NAVALbarak will be directly be improted from israel,only land based version will be built in india

Anonymous said...

And there is a very good reason for this, and this is the very reason why the IL-38SD MRMR/ASW aircraft project of the Indian Navy has attracted a lot of negative criticism. You see, prior to contract award, Rosoboronexport had claimed that the mission sensor suite of the IL-38SD would be able of detecting floating mines in the high seas, and moored mines in shallow waters! And lo and behold, when it came to performance validation, this capability could not be demonstrated by the Ruskies. And the Ruskies have still not been able to overcome the impossible

ok can P8I detect naval mines and how can navy buy this aircraft even if it has not flown yet

and can israeli sensor suite able to detect floating naval mines ,i don't think so

now apy10 radar is similar to elta2022,EL suite comprised of ELINT,COMINT,magnetic anomaly detector,and optical sensors

and similar systems can be found on IL38SD

now IL38SD upgrade cost $ 35 million and mirage2000 40 milion

there is no MPA which is able to detect submerged submarine at 200m depth.

Nava said...

Huh? I just happen to know someone who's an engineer at the missile division (IAI is the largest employer
in the country if I'm not mistaken). It's not like I claimed to have "friends in high places" or anything like that.

Prasun K Sengupta said...

To Anon@12:54PM: That's like claiming if one can make the Maruti 800 then one can also make the Toyota Lexus! As I said in an earlier thread, the EL/M-2248 MF-STAR and the L-band naval variant of the EL/M-2080 Green Pine have been available since 2005. There's no more development work to be done. One cannot blame IAI/ELTA if the warships they're destined to be mounted on are still undergoing hull fabrication.

To Anon@1:03PM: No, the P-8I cannot detect floating mines in the high seas, or moored mines in shallow waters. Neither can the upgraded Tu-142M, nor the P-3C orion. And that is precisely the reason why Boeing, IAI/ELTA or Lockheed Martin do not make any such claims. I'm only taking issue with the Ruskies for making promises on performance parameters and charging money accordingly, and in the end not being able to deliver as promised. No one forced the Ruskies to achieve the impossible during contract negotiations, certainly not the Indian Navy. The why did the Ruskies still decide to go ahead and make such false claims? And till today the Ruskies can't provide a satisfactory answer.
No MRMR/ASW aircraft or LRMR/ASW aircraft can detect submarines submerged at depths of 200 metres. That is the exclusive preserve of towed-array variable-depth sonars launched from both warships and submarines. The manned aircraft is brought to use only for target localisation, with the dunking sonar-equipped helicopter being used whenever available, or the sonobuoy-equipped manned fixed-wing aircraft being employed whenever available.

Prasun K Sengupta said...

To Nava: The only folks within IAI who will be in the know about radar performance parameters will be the ones associated with the ELTA Systems subsidiary. Folks from the MLM Division and from RAFAEL Advanced Defence Systems are developing the MR-SAM and LR-SAM. If I'm not mistaken, the IDF or Ministry of Defence is the largest employer of personnel in Israel, with IAI being the biggest 'corporate' employer within Israel.

Anonymous said...

The manned aircraft is brought to use only for target localisation, with the dunking sonar-equipped helicopter being used whenever available, or the sonobuoy-equipped manned fixed-wing aircraft being employed whenever available.
all this is good ,but what happned in falklands war ,

british frigates and destroyers were opmised for anti submarine operations because of soviet subs in GUIK gap

even then they could not locate argentine type209

it was destroyed only when it surfaced and same thing is applied still now very well

and those kilo subs vietnam buying prasun u r thinking that those subs will be of 20year old tech then ur wrong

u have already seen centralized digital combat system for amur ssk
and same thing can be used in kilos as well,and those kilo will have 7 blade propeller

Nava said...

Umm, yeah. Only reason I wrote what I wrote was that I was slightly offended by your suggestion that I talk with my "friends" at IAI. Took it to mean that you thought I was trying to impress someone (nothing impressive about it) by talking of my influential friends at IAI. Obviously, my friend wouldn't tell me anything nor would I have asked. Nevertheless he probably knows a thing or two about the "Green Pine".

Anonymous said...

No one forced the Ruskies to achieve the impossible during contract negotiations, certainly not the Indian Navy. The why did the Ruskies still decide to go ahead and make such false claims? And till today the Ruskies can't provide a satisfactory answer.
ok not only russians but americans also make false claims

australian wedgetail was bought in 2000 for which boeings made many claims then in actual perfomance austrlia cried that it is not performing according which was advertised

and system was only 90% operational and boeing said 100% operationality can't be acheived,and ausssie defence minister was quiet just not to disturb relationship with US
which was to be delivered in early 2007 was delayed almost 3 years will be delivered only end of this year

and just think how long P8I will take

Anonymous said...

the EL/M-2248 MF-STAR and the L-band naval variant of the EL/M-2080 Green Pine have been available since 2005. There's no more development work to be done. One cannot blame IAI/ELTA if the warships they're destined to be mounted on are still undergoing hull fabrication
it wasn't available ,if it was then why shivaliks were fitted with russian radar and missiles

shivaliks could be fitted with MFSTAR if it was available,but it wasn't

Prasun K Sengupta said...

To Anon@1:39PM: Did the Class 209 SSK ever penetrate the Royal Navy-declared maritime exclusion zone during the Falklands conflict? Or was it located and destroyed after it had surfaced at its port? The fact remains that after the sinking of the Gen Belgrano DDG, the entire Argentine Navy fleet was confined to port as there was no way of combatting the HMS Conqueror's supremacy in the arenas of ASW and submarine warfare.
Now, regarding the Type 636 SSKs of Vietnam, unless you spoke to officials from Russia's Rubin Central Marine Design Bureau last week at IMDEX Asia 2009 (which I did), I'm pretty sure my data is more updated and recent than your's. Before one speculates any further, just ask anyone exposed to the Type 636 or Type 877EKM SSKs just how many hull-related structural/electrical modifications are reqd to install a centralised combat management system (like the one on the Amur 1650) on either of them. The Type 636's design has stayed frozen since its inception and till today no one in Russia has changed this configuration since the SSK's designer--Rubin--rightly believes that it is much easier and cheaper to design a new SSK like the Amur 1650 and equip it with a centralised CMS, rather than undertake the required radical redesign of the Type 636 SSK just to accommodate the centralised CMS. The schematic diagrams of the Type 636 SSK handed out Rosoboronexport at Singapore last week clearly show the interior design configuration of the Type 636, which till this day remains the same as that of the Type 636s delivered to China earlier. All Type 636 SSKs delivered to the PLA Navy through to 2005 did not have the on-board centralised CMS and that's the reason why China developed the Kilo's clone--the Yuan-class--which has a centralised CMS and a thin-line towed-array active sonar, another vital item that the Type 877EKMs, Type 636s and Amur 1650s lack.

Prasun K Sengupta said...

To Anon@1:59PM: OK, now that you've moved the goalposts from the P-8I to the Wedgetail AEW & C platform, you nered to bear the following in mind: the IL-38SD project was not accompanied by any direct or indirect offsets package and therefore, faced with non-compliance of contractual terms and conditions the Ruskies are unable to compensate the Indian Navy by way of liquidated damages! This is not the case with Boeing IDS which has mandatory direct/indirect offsets commitments to Australian industry and even if there is a slippage in the delivery schedule or non-compliance of contractual terms and conditions, Australia is legally entitled to seek liquidated damages and in such cases the financial adjustments are made in the areas of offsets commitments. In other words, Australia does not end up as a total loser, unlike the Indian Navy, which has no other option but to operate a deficient system while having already paid the contract value for the promised superior capability that will never materialise.
As to why the Project 17 FFGs don't have the MF-STAR on-board, it is not IAI/ELTA's fault. The FFG's design was frozen as far back as early 1999 but financial sanction for hull construction came only in 2002 and only after that could orders for long-lead items be placed. It was only after this that BEL began building the EMDINA centralised CMS, but this CMS had to be interfaced with wepons and sensors of Russian origin, which in turn were selected to cut down on their delivery schedules, since they were already under series-production then for the Talwar-class FFGs. In addition, the entire EMDINA CMS architecture was designed to specifically control, manage and operate the on-board sensors and weapons of Russian origin as the Russians insisted on this pre-condition in return for sharing data with BEL for systems integration. Therefore, one could not have had the MF-STAR on-board and be made to do the fire-control functions of Russia-origin weapons like the Shtil-1 and Club-N.
On the Project 15A DDGs the exact opposite situation prevails. Russia-origin weapons and sensors have been totally discarded and it will be IAI/ELTA that will be the principal sub-contractor to BEL for both weapons and systems integration.

Anonymous said...

the IL-38SD project was not accompanied by any direct or indirect offsets package and therefore, faced with non-compliance of contractual terms and conditions the Ruskies are unable to compensate the Indian Navy by way of liquidated damages!
there is difference between il38sd and wedgetail deal

il38sd deal is upgrading of aircraft and wedgetail deal to buy new aircraft

so when there is upgrade deal then there is no such things like are assotiated

but it is worth to note that il38sd upgrade deal cost only 4 35 million compared to $ 40million upgrade cost for mirage2000

and french asking more

Anonymous said...

and yes MFSTAR featurs all isreali componants and it is already been built (india is allowed to use its own software) and yes whether someone calls this joint development or something else,

main thing is there will be tech transfer for radar from israel and it will be produced in india and there will be no tech transfer for seekers which will come directly from israel and every thing else india will built at home and this is called codevelopment

so same thing happens when systems are licensed produced there is tech transfer for radars,missile propulsion and controls and lunchers along with C3I systems except seekers and missile guidance and when some of these compomants are indegenized then there is no longer to import them

and the maintaince of seekers if needed will be done directly by israelis and maintaince for radar and rest of missile india will be able to do at home so why pay israelis

Prasun K Sengupta said...

To Anon@6:49PM: Who said there are no offset commitments when it comes to upgrade programmes? Both the Mirage 2000 and MiG-29 upgrade deals have direct offsets clauses that have to be implemented. Russia, HAL, Dassault and THALES have already stated this several times.

To Anon@6:53PM: Yes, that is how co-development takes place nowadays, There are no two ways about it. That's why you don't see the UK, Germany, Spain and Italy all manufacturing the EF-2000 from scratch on their own. Production is shared aas that is the only way to make the projects viable. The days of a single country producing a 100% indigenous new-generation weapon system are long gone. And that is why Russia is still saddled with weapon systems designed in the 1970s as it no longer has the financial clout or skilled human resources to develop entire new-generation systems in-house. Like it or not it too has to still depend on Ukraine, Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan for production outsourcing.
Regarding the MR-SAM and LR-SAM, all testing and re-lifing at the field-level, intermediate-levcel and depot-level will be done within India. That's where TATA NOVA comes in as the beneficiary of the offsets commitments.

Harpreet said...

Prasun, correct me if I am wrong but MF-STAR is not a co-development.
Its an Israeli system and we will be importing it as such. So what is the collaboration between India and Israel on radars, if is going on. Do Israelis have a role in the development of DRDO AWAC radar?

Anonymous said...

The days of a single country producing a 100% indigenous new-generation weapon system are long gone. And that is why Russia is still saddled with weapon systems designed in the 1970s as it no longer has the financial clout or skilled human resources to develop entire new-generation systems in-house. Like it or not it too has to still depend on Ukraine, Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan for production outsourcing
russia doesn't depend on anyone when it comes to technology specially military

and russia doesn't depend on others specially when it comes to fighter development

and for PAK FA russkies already developed al41 engines and advanced sensors and now they just need to build stealthy airframe

and just like boeing ,dassault need launch customers for their product to develop and manufacture them same thing russia is doing as india and brasil as their launch customers

Anonymous said...


he is right ,MFSTAR is 100% israeli,there is no indian involvement in this radar and israel may aloow india to use its own software and produce this radar with tech transfer

and same thing happens when there is licence produced there is tech transfer for some parts which can be indegenized and later don't need to import them any more

Anonymous said...

Mr Sengupta, your comment on the LR-SAM being able to intercept ballistic missiles is very interesting. At what alitudes is intercept being envisaged and at what altitude is aircraft intercept envisaged ?

Anonymous said...

MF STAR being 100% israeli no indian involvement till now

SEEKERS and MISSILE GUIDANCE being israeli no TECH transfer

all other thing C3I andlaunchers ,missile propulsion being indian origin

same thing happens when system are licensed produced with tech transfer along with offsets
there is no LRSAM,air force version will have only 70km range with operating altitude of 20km

while other in market are SM-3 which cost $ 10 million each

other missile is S300pmu2,s400 and missiles in this system requires no maintaince for 10 years
and comprised of missiles with different ranges and operating altitudes to be used for different threat level

both american and russian system are better tham SO CALLED LRSAM for air force

and if india buys sxx along with OFFSETS from russia there will be tech transferfor radar,missile controls,C3I except seekers and missile guidance ,and some of these can be indegenized and no need to import them,same thing happening with mrsam

and these RUSSIAN system HAVE BETTER RANGE and superior operating altitude and faster missiles to engage ballistic missiles

MJ26459 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
MJ26459 said...

9)How many Falco UAV were ordered by Pakistan ? did this deal involved any kind of transfer of technology and production in Pakistan?

10)will Nerpa nuclear submarine be transfered to IN by russians or not?

Anonymous said...

Prasun Da please ignore the post at 6:04:00 AM. I am sure its a robot post. Three threads have passed discussing this issue yet the robot keeps parroting the same lines.

Anonymous said...

prasun sir also ignore anon at 9.34 AM and he just doesn't want to listen the truth

Prasun K Sengupta said...

To Anon@3:24AM: You're right! Which also means all that info on SNECMA's larzac 04 engines on board the MiG-AT is nothing but Western disinformation, right? As is the shareholder stake by Italy's Alenia Aeronautica into United Aircraft Corp! And what about Oproronprom's tie-up with AgustaWestland and on supplies of A-109Ps to Russian state police and paramilitary units throughout Russia? All those are lies too, right?

To Harpreet: The MF-STARs are being imported off-the-shelf, but in terms of intellectual property rights the Indian military-industrial parties will be owners of some proprietary data packages especially since it is India that will be providing the warship platforms (P-15A DDGs) on which the MF-STAR will be validated and declared operational for the very first time. The other main co-development effort in the arena of radars is the Green Pine LRTR that will be licence-produced by BEL and Astra Micowave. Then there's also the offsets manufacturing packages associated with the acquisition of EL/M-2082 'gapfiller' ground-based 3-D airspace surveillance radars, after-sales support for the EL/M-2083 and EL/M-2084 radars. Lastly, the Israeli assistance in designing and developing an AESA variant of the MMR for the Tejas LCA. All this has been covered and discussed in earlier threads.

To Anon@4:34AM: The LR-SAM like the Patriot PAC-3 will be able to intercept TBMs and cruise missiles. This is what IAI has officially stated thus far. The PAD/AAD on the other hand are being optimised for intercepting IRBMs and MRBMs.

To MJ26459: All the queries you've raised have been answered and stated in previous threads several times.

MJ26459 said...

i am not able to find a lot about
so if you can help..........

9)Falco UAV deal involved what kind of transfer of technology to Pakistan?Will Pakistan be able to produce as many as they want or limited one?

8)Does Chinese KJ-200 provide 360 deg coverage? and endurance

13) Does this upgrade involves Mig-29 SMT -2 like structural upgradation to increase fuel and payload?

Anonymous said...

HQ-16 is based on the vertical-launch (VL) version of the Shtil-1 naval surface-to-air missile (SAM) system which uses 9M317ME with 5.18 m long and 360 mm in diameter. The tail surfaces have a span of 820 mm when deployed, with maximum speed of Mach 4.5 (1,550 m/s). Launch weight of the 9M317ME is 581 kg. It is armed with a 62 kg warhead.Range of the modernised Shtil VL system is between 3.5-50 km, while the altitude coverage is from 5 m up to 15 km

Anonymous said...

The HQ-16 is a joint development project between China and Russia that apparently represents a further evolution of the Russian Grizzly. The system would represent a significant overall improvement in Chinese air defense capabilities. The HQ-16 have a range of 50 miles and the ability to hit both high and low flying targets.

Black Hawk said...

1. What are the resources does the navy have to detect mines at sea? Will the Chetak helicopters that are being modified into UAVs be able to detect mines at sea.

2. In one of your earlier posts you said that BEL is making Greenpine. But don't we need tech transfer in order to make the Greenpine here? Has Israel relly transferred Greenpine Tech to us? I can't believe USA will ever agree to it. It would catapult us into an altogether different league if we have the tech for Greenpine.

3. Correct me if I'm wrong but i think the Indian navy is making a mistake by investing a lot on SSBNs and SSNs. The Navies the world over are moving more and more towards conventionally powered subs with AIP for attack roles and to protect CBGs. For SSBN i have heard from many sources on the research going on in the USA to develop nuclear batteries powerful enough to propel subs like SSBNs. Moreover with the tech in weapon systems moving towards using a lot of Artificial Intelligence, sensor fusion etc. the no. of men required to operate a sub will come down drastically decreasing its size and weight and so future subs can be propelled using AIPs and nuke batteries. The days of subs with nuke reactors, pumping systems, 100+ crew will soon come to an end. When our Navy finally deploys a force of SSBNs 10-15 years from now, it will find that the world powers are already a generation ahead. We should concentrate on Nuke batteries and AIP.

Anonymous said...

to black hawk

at present navy doesn't has any adequate resource,and naval mines are not easy to detect just see land mines which are also hard to detect despite several tech advances in this field let alone detecting naval mines will be very hard despite very advance tech and adequate resources

BEL isn't making green opine radar,there was no tech transfer for this radar,it was procured off the shelf and india was allowed to use its own software,if BEL was making green pine it would have been posted on BEL website,nor the was tech transfer for this radar

only 1-2 greenpine radar were acquired,bel making naval LM08 and other land based radar,despite aesa radar tech is available with tech transfer from EUROPE

and with american stuff there are several hiccups assotiated,let alone tech transfer for high tech radars
highly desirable thing for diesel subs today is AIP

but my thinking is these subs should/must have SAM system as well
assotiated with IRST which has range of 50 km and is able to detect MPA and anti sub choppers at upto 50 km,and that IRST can guide SAM to its target

and these SAM should be developed in a way that these SAM can even be fired from inside water while sub is snokeling and sucking air through pipe,at the same IRST mounted on a big diameter pipe searching for MPA,ANTI SUB chopper

in this way sub need not to come to surface to fire SAM

only sucking pipe and IRST pipe will be outside water surface and SAM guided by IRST can be fired from inside water while submarine itself below the water surface

so it just increase survivability of sub and creates creates problems for MPA and anti sub choppers

Anonymous said...

does india really need chinook helos????????????????????????

italy bought new 16 chinooks for
$ 1.22 billion

or $ 75 million for each chinook right,and italy already has chiook infrastructure and trained personnel

now india bought 80 mi17v5 with digital MFD for $ 870 million US dollars ,so tell me folks which deal is better

and boeing compared MI26 with chinook

Prasun K Sengupta said...

To Anon@11:29AM: The HQ-16's development began in the late 1990s and the missile round used is the 35km-range HQF-91. It has nothing to do with the Shtil-1/Buk-M1 which has a 40km-range. Obviously the researchers of FAS haven't been able to gain access to the Airshow China expos to gain a first-hand understanding of Chinese SAM R & D efforts. Both the HQ-9 and HQ-16 have been publicly displayed at every Airshow China expo since 2002.

To MJ26459: If you go to the thread on Pakistan's missile arsenal you will get all info you need on the Falco UAV. The KJ-200 does not provide 360-degree coverage, just as is the case with the Saab 2000 AEW & C. The upgraded IAF MiG-29s will not be like the MiG-29SMTs at all. All that is being done is incorporation of new powerplant, installation of glass cockpit avionics, and installation of Phazotron's Zhuk-ME X-band multi-mode radar. The MiG-29SMT on the other hand has fly-by-wire flight controls. The upgraded MiG-29s will not have this, as it is impossible to modify the existing airframe to incorporate such flight controls.

To Black Hawk: Presently, the Navy only has minehunter-mounted ROVs for detection of seabed mines. There's no such hardware like helicopter-mounted LIDAR or the like. Any platform housing the EL/M-2022(V)3 will be able to detect floating mines, but not seabed mines. These can only be detected by autonomous USVs. The Green Pine's production know-how has already been transferred to BEL and Astra Microwave and the series-production contract is for an initial eight units only. There is no US approval reqd for the Green Pine's sale or tech-transfer as the US did not fund the Green Pine and Citron Tree components of the Israeli BMD system. The US only funded the Arrow-2 missiles's R & D effort and had the BMD system networked with the US-owned DSP constellation of missile launch early warning satellites. That is what makes the Arrow-2 capable of intercepting inbound ballistic missiles in the post-boost phase, as opposed to the PAD/AAD which can presently only intervept targets in the terminal re-entry stage. The Arrow-2's effectiveness is enhanced manifold if it is networked with the ground-based AESA radar of the type the US has deployed in the Negev Desert and which was originally developed for the THAAD project. As for SSBNs and SSGNs, these are absolutely essential for maintaining a credible nuclear deterrent. If one does not have such assets then one also need not have any nuclear deterrent at all as any land-based n-weapon will not be as invulnerable as a SSBN-based n-weapon would.

Prasun K Sengupta said...

To Anon@12:35PM: I agree. The Army or IAF must go for the much more capable MV-22 Osprey tiltrotor for both heavylift logistics at high altitudes (right up to the Advance Landing Grounds, which the CH-47F or Mi-26T cannot) as well as for VVIP transport, instead of the vulnerable AW-101.

Prasun K Sengupta said...

To Anon@12:22PM: And what exactly are the hiccups associated with US tech transfers? Did the Tejas LCA's flight-test regime since 2001 suffer from any hiccups or disruptions thus far? And what about the INTEL chips being used not only by the Russians for the MiG-29K's avionics suite, but also by HAL for the mission computers and radar display processors of the Su-30MKI? Even most of the Israeli avionics and radars have INTEL-made chips on-board, all of which are subject to US export-control regulations/laws. Does that mean all the stuff bought by India from Israel thus far are next to useless because of the US factor? Does that mean India has made a big mistake in accepting INTEL chips, and should immediately begin replacing them with chips imported from South Korea or Japan or China?

Anonymous said...

to prasun

agree. The Army or IAF must go for the much more capable MV-22 Osprey tiltrotor for both heavylift logistics at high altitudes (right up to the Advance Landing Grounds, which the CH-47F or Mi-26T cannot) as well as for VVIP transport, instead of the vulnerable AW-101.
opsrey is good but its not reliable as of now,more testing will be done on this aircraft and for sure it will be costlier than chinnok

main hiccup for with US is there own govt on sensitive tech and they think high end tech should not be allowed to go outside US even for minor thing,and their reservations on hardware sale for such high end tech,

france and russia and israel don't have such reservations and these countries doesn't have PHOBIA like americans have when it comes to protect their tech going into someone else hands

US don't believe their own allies over high end tech tranfer let alone india and this is the phobia they have

Anonymous said...

and none has shown interest in osprey ,before we induct this aircraft let it mature for another decade to check its reliability,its very complex design

and thats why only few osprey have been built

Anonymous said...

and no doubt for sure osprey will be maintaince intensive mainly naval version because of design complexity

same thing applies to swing wing fighter aircraft like mig23 recently retired,mig27,sea harrier these aircraft are more maintaince intensive compared to other fighters because of design comlexity

Prasun K Sengupta said...

To Anon@2:07PM: The Osprey weas actively promoted during Aero India 23007 and 2009 expos. By the time any order surfaces from India another year would have passed and dfeliveries would begin only by 2013. By that time the Ospreys would have logged in enough flight hours in Iraq and Afghanistan. The direct operating cost of the Osprey will be higher than that of the CH-47F but the much superior performance at high-altitudes of the Osprey will remain unmatched.

Anonymous said...

to prasun

although osprey was promoted,no one else has come forward to buy this aircraft,this is a costly program almost $ 25 billion and has not lived upto its mark

and reliability yet to be proven so its good to wait for some more time

Anonymous said...

rajendra radar has 1400 PESA t/r modules,so why not build a new radar with 7000 t/r PESA modules with range of 250-300 km both for air force and navy

and employ this radar in 4 faced comfiguration like in aegis system

and this is not very difficult to do and acheive

i will say

india lacks innovation,BEL more likes to build radar on license rather than building something on their own

and every time we have to go for foreign stuff

MJ26459 said...

thanks Prasun K Sengupta

sachin_sathe said...


Can u make a post abt the High altitude performance of Osprey?

U said tht the work on ssgn is gathering momentum then is it possible tht the IN has finalized the the design or is close to and what is IN's req regarding the SSN's is it going for a sizable fleet of 6-9 subs or it will only produce 3-4 subs for protecting strategic assets?

Also, with UPA sweeping the 2009 Loksabha elections(minus Left) do u see a more drastic pro-US procurement policy?

Anonymous said...

Prasun K Sengupta said.. The HQ-16's development began in the late 1990s and the missile round used is the 35km-range HQF-91. It has nothing to do with the Shtil-1/Buk-M1 which has a 40km-range. Obviously the researchers of FAS haven't been able to gain access to the Airshow China expos to gain a first-hand understanding of Chinese SAM R & D efforts. Both the HQ-9 and HQ-16 have been publicly displayed at every Airshow China expo since 2002.

No that’s wrong as even janes defence weekly is reporting that HQ-16 is based on the vertical-launch (VL) version of the Shtil-1 naval surface-to-air missile (SAM) and they sure do have lot of presence at the shows in china.

Prasun K Sengupta said...

To Anon@2:02AM: You may disagree with what I've stated about the HQ-16, but you cannot say I'm wrong just because JDW or anyone else says something else. FYI, only McGraw Hill was allowed entry into the previous two Airshow China expos. ALL others were not even granted entry visas to enter China, leave alone go to Zhuhai. These publications all relied on Chinese Internet sources to obtain photos etc and their reports on China have always been highly speculative.

To Anon@3:50PM: At least eight countries, especially those NATO member-states contributing to the ISAF in Afghanistan, are already in advanced negotiations with Bell-Boeing for buying at least 60 Ospreys. The reliability of the Osprey is already proven and certified, and that's the only reason why the USAF and USMC have inducted them into service. Thankfully, Bell-Boeing does not share the same business practices as those adopted by Russian entities like United Aircraft Corp.

To Anon@4:34PM: In 1990 Dr V S Arunachalam, then Secretary DRDO told me that the prototype Rajendra BLR had 4,000 ferrite phase shifters. It now seems the production variant has 2,000.

To Sachin Sathe: The Indian Navy has NOTHING to do with the design and development of either the ATV, or its projected derivative SSBN and SSGNs. The Naval Design Bureau IS NOT involved with these projects. The ATV and all its related projects are run exclusively by the DRDO under PROJECT AAKANGSHA. The development of all on-board ballistic and cruise missiles for the projected SSBN and SSGNs is run by the DRDO's PROJECT SAGARIKA Office. Present plans call for procuring only 1 SSBN and 3 SSGNs. For the SSGN, DCNS of France will help the DRDO design the non-nuclear modules, similar to what DCNS is doing in Brazil. The question that no one has asked either the DRDO or the Indian Navy is this: if the only warship design authority in India is the Indian Navy's Directorate of Naval Design and if it has no involvement whatsoever with the ATV project, then which entity in India is capable enough to design and fabricate nuclear-powered vessels like the ATV? Does it mean the DRDO has its own 'Skunk Works/Area 51/S-4' somewhere in Vizag? Or is the DRDO completely outsourcing and design/vessel fabrication work?
I don;t think any govt in power, be it UPA-led or NDA-led, has ever followed a pro-US or pro-Russia policy. Those days are long gone since 1991. The moment a country decides to procure weapons through competitive tendering on a global basis, the best offer wins, and what an offer the best is not only the pricing, but also a weapon's superior performance characteristics and the quantum of direct/indirect offsets to defray the high procurement costs.

Anonymous said...

The moment a country decides to procure weapons through competitive tendering on a global basis, the best offer wins, and what an offer the best is not only the pricing, but also a weapon's superior performance characteristics and the quantum of direct/indirect offsets to defray the high procurement costs.
offsets are good only on paper

and it is also true there is never compititive tendering anywhere in world

and yes russian stuff isn't inferior either compared to western stuff and russian also offer offer offsets so the procuremnt of thier stuff gets even lower

Anonymous said...

on looking at shivalik class firgates it has been clear that its got only fregat m2em radar

but fregat mae is absent

and it was better to opt fregat m2em for p15a rather than LW08 radar in conjunction with MFSTAR

fregat m2em operates at higher frequency and it is 3D radar compared to 2D and D baND LW08 radar

Anonymous said...

so which secondary radar shivalik will use

bharat rakshak site says it will be
LW08 rather than fregat mae

sachin_sathe said...


i don't get the part abt 1 SSBN(no need of year bound deployment but only 1?) Also,If DCNS is helping DRDO with non-nuclear parts then i guess the first step was the scorpene order(just a hunch) though MDL will not have anything to do with ATV it gives a perfect cover for infusing the nessesary CAD and modular design consepts in DRDO.

Also don't forget the IN has a very good working relationship with DRDO and DRDO in its very meaning was and is an R & D entity so its it but natural for them to have their own 'skunk works'.

Also the IN did announce some time back tht they would like to see shipyards coming up with their own designs(would save time i suppose) so the IN's DND might be the entity which will validate such designs in the future.

It would be foolish for DRDO to outsource ship fabrication work.

Also i don't think anyone on the outside will get the answer to ur question.

Just read in The Hindu tht IAF intends to induct 1st LCA squad by end of 2010 How the hell r they going to achieve tht if HAL till date has produced only 3 lsps(of which only 2 r flying) and the trainer prototype is still on ground?


Prasun da,

Urgent, tomar mail ta ke check koro. Attached word file aache.



Anonymous said...

Guys watch this-

Anonymous said...

What is meant by fly-by-light system?

How far has the Kaveri engine devpt. progressed? There is absolutely no info on it. If the first Tejas sqdn. enters service in 2012 will we be able to flight certify the Kaveri by then so that we can go in for TVC and the following sqdns can be deployed with TVC Kaveri.Afterall we have simply outsourced Kaveri devpt. to Snecma so why is it taking so long for an experienced company like snecma.

Prasun K Sengupta said...

To BENGAL UNDER ATTACK: Done. Kindly check you mail box.

To Anon@11:10AM: FBL uses fibre-optic cables to relay the inputs from the digital flight control computer to the flight cxontrol surfaces. In FBW this work is done by bulkier electrical cables. And who has officially stated that the Kaveri is being upgraded by SNECMA? What the IAF and MoD wants is for entities like GTRE and MIDHANI to overcome the metallurgical challenges associated with the hot-section parts of the Kaveri (combustion chamber and high-pressure single-crystal turbine blades), without which the Kaveri cannot be flight-certified. What SNECMA has proposed is that it is willing to supply HAL with the production engineering data for these engine components, and will charge a royalty fee for all this for as long as such an upgraded Kaveri is produced in India. In other words, it works out to a licenced-production offer. This is not what the MoD and IAF want, and they are insisting that ADA/GTRE somehow obtain BOTH the design technology and the production engineering reqd for producing these components indigenously. In reality, no one will part with such technologies, not even the Russians. Therefore, completing the Kaveri's R & D phase with SNECMA's help is a non-starter, period. Instead, according to the IAF, it makes more financial sense to licence-produce the newer-generation EJ200 for the Tejas LCA Mk2 and mid you, Eurojet and EADS have also offered to involve Indiuan industry in licence-producing the 3-D TVC nozzle for the EJ200, which both the IAF and Indian Navy require for the Tejas LCA Mk2 (this is a mandatory reqmt now) and which could also be installed on the FGFA. And both ADA and GTRE have yet to begin any effort aimed at developing a 3-D TVC nozzle. To cut a long story short, go for the EJ-200 and its TVC nozzle solution for the Tejas LCA Mk2. For the FGFA, stick to the uprated AL-31F turbofan but incorporate the 3-D TVC nozzle from Eurojet.

Anonymous said...

Is it true that pakistan is getting Spada-2000 with transfer of tecchnology, allowing it to produce it as many as they like in future?

Anonymous said...

It looks like Pakistan and international community is not ready to accept you claims that Pakistan has only 10 to 12 Chinese made nuclear weapons and their codes are with china, Pakistanis are rapidly building their capacities to increase their nuclear arsenal that already stands at 100+-

Anonymous said...

To Anonymous to Wednesday, May 20, 2009 2:21:00 AM

If you see the Dr. Albright’s perditions of Pakistani production capabilities he made in 1998 and 2000 Pakistan have some where 100 to 180 which includes 20 to 30 plutonium warheads. Once K-3 is completed Pakistan will have capability to produce a total of 15 to 24 warheads each year

Currently with Kahuta &Kushab-1 (2 to 3 warheads @ 70MWT )and Kuhsab-2 (if reactor is only taken at 100MWT it can produce 4 to 6 warheads and 8 to 12 warheads if it is 150 to 200MWT like one in Karachi(second options looks more likely due to size and Pakistani experience with that reactor) )they have capability to produce 11 to 18 nuclear warheads each year.

Pakistan Expanding Plutonium Separation Facility Near Rawalpindi
Pakistan Expanding Dera Ghazi Khan Nuclear Site

As per media reports, PAEC is continuing expansion of the nuclear program, including the completion of two additional plutonium production reactors at Khushab and the Chashma reprocessing facility. Another large Nuclear Fuel Complex is being set up at Faisalabad and a uranium enrichment plant is being set up at Chak Jhumra which will have a capacity of 150,000 SWU whereas Kahuta is believed to be only 15000 SWU.

By David Albright and Paul Brannan
May 19, 2009

In July 1984 the New York Times reported that US intelligence had learned that the previous year that China had supplied Pakistan with the design of an actual tested nuclear device - the design of China's fourth nuclear weapon
tested in 1966 with a yield of 25 kt. This is said to be a low weight (200 kg class) solid-core bomb design. Reports have also surfaced that China also provided sufficient HEU to construct one
or two weapons in 1983. In 1998 A. Q. Khan stated that Pakistan had acquired the capability to explode a nuclear device at the end of 1984.

Thomas Reed, a former US Air Force secretary has claimed in his book- The Nuclear Express: A Political History of the Bomb and Its Proliferation that during Benazir Bhutto's tenure China helped Pakistan in testing its first nuclear armament.

It is difficult to claim that what is actual size and destructive capability given Pakistani claims of boosted weapons test in 1998 which are consistent with their previous import of technology of tritium purification facility.But one thing is sure that they have enough material available to make minimum of 100+ and maximum of 180+ nuclear weapons with yields varying from 20 to 300+ KT By 1987, the PAEC was able to acquire from West Germany parts for a tritium purification facility. Later, Pakistan attempted to procure from Germany 30 tons of aluminum tubing, used to "clad lithium for irradiation in a reactor. German firm NTG that helped PAEC developed tritium purification and recovery processes. Tritium is used to boost fission warheads and develop Hydrogen bombs.

Anonymous said...

see this

CIA Director Leon Panetta has said the United States does not know the location of all of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons but is confident the country has secured them.

“We don’t have, frankly, the intelligence to know where they all are located,” Panetta said, adding the US was confident the Pakistani government had a “pretty secure approach to try to protect these weapons.”

sachin_sathe said...


Can the TVC nozzle frm EJ-200 fit the AL-31?Is it scalable?

Also if TVC has become a must then is it pretty much decided tht EJ-200 will be chosen? If so then how will it impact Typhoons chances of winning the mrca contest?

Anonymous said...

To Anon@3:01:00 AM: According to your assessment what should be India's nuke production capacity given that India has over 10 times the installed reactor capacity to Pakistan. Also unlike Pakistan almost all of India's reactors are plutonium producing PHWR.

Prasun K Sengupta said...

To Anon@2:21AM: If you read the ISIS reports you will very easily note that these writers are basing their speculations on the physical activities going on with only the construction of new n-reactors and then estimating the amount of fissile materials produced per annum. What these reports don't talk about is the industrial infrastructure reqd for extracting Pu-239 from the spent fuel and unless this infrastructure (plutonium reprocessing plants) is available on an industrial scale, then no matter how many pressurised heavy water reactors one has (be it in India or Pakistan), large-scale Pu-239 extraction is impossible.
The second challenge is in the area of precision fabrication of Pu-239 cores and designing and fabricating the triggering mechanism, and miniaturising the overall n-device to go on-board a ballistic or cruise missile. This second challenge is another crucial technicality that all these non-proliferation commentators fail to take into account. If one were to accept their logic, it would mean that since India has huge reserves of titanium ore, it would consequently also tantamount to India being one of the largest producers of processed titanium! Well, let's get real!!!

To Anon@4:07AM: I have partly answered your queries above. But you must note that weapons-grade Pu-239 can only be produced by n-reactors through a process that commercial electricity-generating nuclear reactors cannot. Therefore, only the Cirus and Dhruva heavy water reactors are used for producing fissile plutonium from which Pu-239 is extracted. As I said earlier, only 3 metric tonnes of Pu-239 are reqd to ensure India's minimum credible n-deterrent. Once this is achieved, India should have no qualms about signing the FMCT.

Anonymous said...

I heard dat today was d date of arriving d 1st falcon? has it arrived already? Or there may be anothey delay........

Anonymous said...

Prasun, please update yourself on India's three stage nuclear program. Plutonium from first stage PHWRs is required to fuel FBRs in the second stage.

Rest is about repressing fuel to reactor grade or weapon grade. No way India can agree to FMCT. It will kill the 3 stage program. Over the next 50 years India will probably produce more plutonium than US or Soviet Union have albeit for power generation in the second stage.

Here is a DAE report on why we should not fall into western trap to sign FMCT and prematurely use our thorium reserves.

Anonymous said...

What is happening in the nuclear power sector is actually more exciting than our defense sector.

In the first stage 20GW installed capacity is to be achieved using U-235 based PHWRs or LWRs. We were so far stuck here because of our limited Uranium reserves and the continued labor problems in the mining sector. The Indo-US nuclear deal has come to the rescue. Now we intent to achieve this target in just 5 years.
We prefer PHWRs to LWR for their higher rate of Pu-239 breeding. However imported reactors will be LWR. Nevertheless we will get enough plutonium from these reactors for the second stage FBRs that will have installed capacity of about 250GW!
In the third stage Thorium will be used alongside plutonium as reactor fuel with another ten fold increase in installed capacity.
The important thing is that after importing the uranium for the first stage reactors we will never need to import nuclear fuel again. This will be our nirvana from fossil fuels and labor problems.

However FMCT can ruin this program. The west wants us to be stuck with their imported uranium. Canada has even designed a reactor specifically for India that burns thorium with uranium so as to avoid breeding plutonium. However this is much less efficient and will exhaust our thorium reserves sooner while keeping us dependent on imported uranium. Therefore we can never agree to FMCT.
The energy sector is set for a revolution. We have had enough of land and labor problems. Even our Ultra Mega Power Plants are relying on imported coal despite the nation having abundant coal reserves.

Harpreet said...

Prasun, what do you make of reports of Agni 2 test failure.
If its true it would be a real setback to our nuclear deterrence. Agni 2 is supposed to be an operational system.

Anonymous said...

to harpreet

missiles are no different than fighter aircraft

some may crash and some may work very well

and for the same reason US and russia have hundreds of missiles and even if some of them don't reach their target then few of them say 150-200 still make it to target and destroy enemy

and thats why numbers always count

Prasun K Sengupta said...

To Anon@6:56AM: India's three-stage civilian nuclear power-generation programme has NOTHING to do with the FMCT, as the FMCT as of now deals only with capping the production of weapons-grade fissile materials, and not fissile materials as a whole. And such materials WILL NOT have any application for India's civilian nuclear programmes. The only significant policy choice India needs to make is: does it base its three-stage nuclear reactor programmes entirely on imported fissile materials, or on indigenously sourced materials. Logic will suggest that the first option be used for all civilian programmes, with the reprocessing of spent fissile materials being done in-country by reprocessing plants that are jointly owned by an international consortium (including Indian entities like NPCIL or even the private sector) and under full-scope IAEA safeguards. That would then free the indigenously sourced fissile materials to be strictly employed for both military R & D purposes and for creating the projected 3 metric tonne strategic reserves of weapons-grade Pu-239 and highly enriched uranium. However, even if this were to be achieved, India will be expected as a responsible nuclear power not to go on a brazen spree for producing gundreds of metric tonnes of weapons grade fissile materials and this is where the FMCT comes into play. Mind you, both the FMCT and the NPT are still being discussed in Geneva and even the US and Russia are realising that the existing NPT regime is defunct, is a relic of the Cold War era, and consequently needs to be radically redrafted. The same also applies to the FMCT, whose final version will nowhere be near to what was first proposed by the US in 1993. What now remains to be seen is whether the reformulated NPT and FMCT Treaties will formally embrace India as a nuclear-weapons state, or will China derail it.

To Harpreet: Both in missile test-firings and fatal air crashes, it is almost always not just one failure, but a series of failures (like a pack of falling dominos) that result in catastrophic failures. In the case of the latest Agni-2 test-firing, it appears from initial reports that the new inertial navigation system being tested for the first time on this missile may have malfunctioned in the boost phase, either due to production-related QC problems (affecting the ruggedness of the INS and its interfacing with the second-stage's flight control system), or due to design issues concerning the INS' on-board installation/location. Other fancy possibilities are also possible, but one will never know for sure as all real-time tracking of the missile's boost phase was done by radars, and no real-time TV-based imagery is available to visually confirm first-stage separation and second-stage ignition. The DRDO desperately requires such a capability.

Anonymous said...

So is it true that Agni-II test FAILED?
BR is claims it to be false story

Anonymous said...

Data provided in source provided by Harpreet looks to be too specific to be false to me. Why DRDO always tries to hide the facts? Firest Agni-III, Brahmos and now Agni-II?

Anonymous said...

Prasun what is the CEP of Agni-1/II/III
And if you are kind enough please through a light on their ranges too as BR page on Agni

Claims that Agni-II have range of 3300 to 4450km and Agni-III have a range of 5500km(ICBM? already)

Anonymous said...

How does Rustom compares to the Reaper, Predator, Heron-2 uavs?

can it be armed like Reaper and Predator, may be with NAG ATGM?

Anonymous said...

Prasun any update on the Mig-35 brochure you were suppose to receive from RAC-Mig , any update on it ?


Anonymous said...

Don't jump to any conclusions. It would appear that the launch was entirely an army affair. My concern is that the expressbuzz report was carried there and in the Sakaal Times but was never carried anywhere else - not even in the ExpressBuzz e-paper.

I am not saying there was a success or failure, I just say be careful with saying a report is too specific to be false. Any rubbish can be passed off once you quote some figures and data.

Blaming DRDO is not a constructive exercise until full details of the trial are known.

Prasun K Sengupta said...

To Anon@8:05AM: Data such CEPs ought to be released by the Govt of India as such matters must never be kept secret, if one wants the opponent to take the n-weapon's credibility as a deterrent with a great degree of seriousness. That is the reason why I've posted above the data on Pakistan's missiles and all that data was actually displayed in posters by Pakistan during each IDEAS expo since 1998! In sharp contrast, such no-nonsense data has yet to be presented by India! To me, this can mean only two things: either the developer/OEMs of such missiles are coy about the proven performance parameters, or the Govt of India does not really understand how nuclear deterrence works. Now, to answer your question on CEPs, in the Indian context, CEPs don't really matter (unless they veer wildly off course) as India-origin nucleasr weapons will be employed in a strategic manner and thus pinpoint precision strikes are not necessary. On the contrary, for Pakistan CEPs do matter very much since Pakistan will employ them in a tactical manner (with tactical nuclear warheads and not with thermonuclear warheads) against, for instance, major Indian ground forces concentrations once they're deep inside Pakistani territory (for instance in the Thar Desert).
As for ranges, rather than speculate on the max ranges of ballistic missiles, I would rather approach the issue as one of 'required strategic targetting'. Which means, for the western sector a ground-launched missile like the 700km-range Agni-1 or Shourya will suffice, while for the northern sector a 5,500km-range ground-launched ballistic missile and a 8,500km-range SLBM are the projected operational requirements.

To Anon@9:09AM: The issue of comparison does not arise at all simply because the Rustom exists only as a full-scale non-flyable model, while the Reaper, Predator and Heron-2 UAVs are all flying, are combat-proven and are operational. If one envisages the Rustom to morphe into a UCAV, then it will have to be armed with 150kg or 250kg laser-guided/GPS-guided/millimetre-wave sensor-equipped smart bombs. Precision-guided munitions like the small diameter bomb (SDB) or the AASM will be the optimum weapons for a UCAV, instead of the Nag, as such the SDB and AASM can be launched from 25,000 feet and have a range of between 15km and 50km. If the Rustom-type UAV were to be armed with Nag-type ATGMs, then the Rustom will have to descend to low-altitude to launch the ATGM and if such an attack profile is employed against an enemy with no air defence capability it is fine, but if the enemy were to have MANPADS like Mistral, Stinger, FN-6 or TY-90, then the UCAS is a dead duck.

To Anon@9:51AM: Nothing so far.

Anonymous said...

rafale is back in race

Anonymous said...

hey prasun can you post brochures about the new russian tank wiht 152mm calibre gun and that got ammo in turret and ammo and crew compartments are seperate

Prasun K Sengupta said...

That is the MBT which is sometimes called the T-95 and which is being offered to India as the FMBT within a 4-year period. However, brochures are not available either from Uralvagonzavod JSC or Rosoboronexport as this design is still under development and is not being marketed globally as a readily available product.

Anonymous said...

most foolish thing india did with purchase of mig29k that they bought only 16 mig29k in 2004 agreement which costed $45 million each with traning ,ground manintaince equipment

now russians asking $ 75 million for each aircraft and we need 30 of them

if govt could bought total 46 mig29k at the price of $ 45 million each and this could save about a billion dollars for sure

but now we have to pay this much

Anonymous said...

So is it true that Agni-II test FAILED?
BR is claims it to be false story

Anonymous said...

prasun I understand your point

The reason is asked for that CEP is that BR page mentions it as 16 to 20 meters and that’s something I haven’t seen for USA, Russians, French missiles and Chinese are said to have much larger CEPs

Secondly if Agni-II have 3300 to 4400km range as per BR pages why have Agni-III tested with range of 3000km?

Prasun K Sengupta said...

As your comment above clearly reveals, those at BR are engaging in contradictory speculation devoid of operational realities. Some of them are so bizzare that go to the extent of photoshopping certain images of ballistic missiles even when the photos are released on-line by PIB for everyone to see. Another ill-informed speculation by BR was about the on-board targetting mechanism of BrahMos Block 2, even when several BrahMos posters displayed during successive Aero India expos clearly showed the target acquisition and target engagement processes and stages. Well, I guess such elements love to indulge in uncalled-for self-censorships.

Dr. Sanjay Badri-Maharaj said...

With your permission Mr. Sengupta, I am the one currently doing an investigation into the Agni-2 test.

Whatever I've posted on BR is not on behalf of BR and certainly not dictated by them.

If I can, I would like, if you and your audience is so willing, to keep you in the loop as far as the investigation is concerned.

My source is also merely repeating clear feedback being obtained from official sources. Again, no colouring one way or the other.

Again, I ask your consent if I may be allowed to clarify and assist regarding certain issues.

Prasun K Sengupta said...

No personal attacks or recriminations intended toward anyone in particular, especially not against you. You're more than welcome here to throw any light on any issue as you deem fit in the interests of clarity and objectivity.

Dr. Sanjay Badri-Maharaj said...

Thanks for the opportunity.
Firstly, let me make it clear that I have no intention of being unfair to Mr. Rout, assuming the story is his as he was the only one to put his name to the article in ExpressBuzz.

However, when his story was put to the MoD Spokesman Sitanshu Kar directly, my source, who is an accredited defence correspondent and others who asked specifically about the story of the failure, were told that the story was nonsense and that the test was successful.

Subsequently, the same correspondent tracked down a source in DRDO who said the test was successful and another who explained that the test was the army's from start to finish.

So far the impression that is being conveyed is that the test was successful with the caveat that the army conducted it on its own and certain data was still being analysed and the results would not be known for some days.
The army apparently had some of its own requirements and parameters to check with this test and these are currently being evaluated.

Now, if the missile had gone down in 127 seconds, by now somebody would have confirmed this story.

So far nobody in any part of the media except the ExpressBuzz website and the Sakaal Times has carried the story and even the ExpressBuzz e-paper The New Indian Express has not carried it.
In addition Rout has never been seen by my source at any MoD briefing ever.

Again, Mr. Rout could be right.

However, there is as yet no confirmation of the story by a single mainstream newspaper in India and we have had oral denials by the MoD spokesman and DRDO.

I would suggest that just calling DRDOs liars is not very helpful in this instance.

In view of what I've gathered, I am coming to the view that a combination of:


are closer to the truth.

The Agni-2 had three successful development tests so any uncertainty could be with this new guidance system being tested.

There was a query about missile ranges.

The Agni-2 is apparently theoretically capable of a range of 3700km. This is not speculation from whatever source. In the January 1999 issue of Jane's Missiles and Rockets this was reported. In that year I asked Paul Beaver about it and it was disclosed that the claim had been made by Dr. Kalam at Aero India 1998.

Agni-2 has apparently been tested with 1000kg and 700kg payloads or warheads (there is a difference and I am not sure which is correct) so a range of 3000km is not out of the question.

Missiles need not be tested to maximum range. Trajectories can be lofted or depressed to simulate various ranges.

Similarly, it is not inconceivable that Agni-3 is capable of 5500km without stretching credulity.

However, anything above say 3300km for Agni-2 and 5500km for Agni-3 are highly speculative and have no basis on what has been tested to date.

What a missile can theoretically do with a 250kg payload is immaterial if the missile hasn't been tested in that configuration. Different stresses and flight characteristics may be experienced and need to be determined via a dynamic test.

I do not think any Agni variant has been flight tested with anything less than a 700kg payload so anything below that is speculative. It doesn't mean impossible - just untested and speculative.

Don't know if this clarifies anything. Feel free to ask and I'll do my level best to answer.

Dr. Sanjay Badri-Maharaj said...

Just to make sure I am not contradicting myself - Kalam did claim a 3700km max. range for Agni-2. I have no evidence to suggest that is a lie.

With a 1000kg warhead, I don't believe Agni-2 can reach any further than 3300km. With 700kg I would think 3700km is an extreme maximum.

Agni-2 has always been suggested to have a warhead of 1000kg but it was alleged that the 2nd development trial used a 700kg warhead.

What has not been explicitly stated as yet is what is the operational payload of the Agni-2 and what is the mass of that payload.

Anonymous said...

ok guys u r taking agni2 test seriously

there can be new systems on board to be tested but those systems failed

Anonymous said...

to prasun and friends

i want to know that why there is 4 faced configuration of MFSTAR on naval ships,same thing can be achieved with 3 faced triangular configuration

or there can be 2 faced configuration which will rotate in 360 degree and this configuration is most optimal and best

4 or 3 faces of radar definitely need more power consumption and cost more
is FREGET M2EM is phased array radar or something else

freget m2em can also be configured as 4 faced MFSTAR as well

both MFSTAR and freget m2em provide similar detection ranges

Anonymous said...


any brochures about russian short,medium,long range SAM systems

Anonymous said...

Is the Tejas forever going to use foreign engines like EJ 2000? If GTRE did not develop proper turbine blades for Kaveri then how did they conduct high altitude test of Kaveri in Russia?
You said in one of your posts sometime back that Russia has agreed to tech transfer for the manufacturing of RD-33 engine in India for MiG-29 upgraded version. Surely the RD-33 must have the same kind of turbine blades like the one sought for Tejas. Then how is Russia ready to part with the tech for turbine blade for RD-33.
If nothing comes of the efforts of MIDHANI and GTRE to make those turbine blades and if IAF goes for foreign engines for all Tejas sqdns, then will GTRE abandon the Kaveri by stating that it was a technology devpt. project like how DRDL abandoned Trishul?

Kushagra said...

Does the IAF now really need MiG-29s. The Su-30s are capable of substituting the MiG-29 as an interceptor as it is going to be the primary air superiority fighter of the IAF. Moreover it is way superior to the MiG-29 as it has better radar, TVC and more maneuverable.
Now the navy wants MiG-29Ks for its fleet air defence. These planes will be based in Goa and the groundcrew of the Navy that were till now handling Harriers will now be trained on the MiG-29. Maintenance and repair facilities that already exist for MiG-29 bases in Northern India will have to be replicated in Goa at an additional cost. So why can't the IAF transfer its MiG-29 planes, maintenance equipment and staff to the Navy. The IAF planes can be converted into the carrier version with modifications at an additional cost instead of the Navy buying up entire planes from MiG corp. This will help IAF by bringing down the no. of different varieties of planes in its ORBAT. It can now concentrate fully on the Su-30 and MMRCA & Tejas. This will also help the navy by preventing duplication of resources and facilities and also reduce the cost of procuring the planes and training the crew.

Prasun K Sengupta said...

To Dr Sanjay Badri-Maharaj: I deeply appreciate your valued inputs and constructive comments. But one has to acknowledge that the likes of Sitanshu Kar cannot be trusted to part with any credible clarifications simply because the position he holds requires him to seek credible feedbacks prior to their release and as is often the case, such feedback is not forthcoming. To give you one example, if you go back to the time the Army was conducting Ex Sanghe Shakti the briefing officers from both the MoD's PR Directorate (which included some Army Service Corps officials) officially stated that the MBTs being used at the exercise were T-72s, when photographic evidence clearly showed them to be T-90S. And this error was subsequently repeated by several locfal Indian publications that captioned the photos wrongly. Yet another instance was during a previous test-firing of the Prithvi SS-150 last year when the MoD officially described this as one of the functional exercises being carried out by the Indian Army to ensure India's credible minimum nuclear deterrent. But when I pointed out the fundamental flaws in this press release by the MoD to an India-based journalist, he then approached Mr Kar's office to ask a very basic question: if the Prithvi was indeed an integral part of India's credible n-deterrent then how come no one from the Strategic Forces Command was involved in even witnessing this test-firing? Needless to say, NO ONE from the MoD's PR Directorate was forthcoming with any kind of clarification! What I'm trying to say is that the likes of Sitanshu Kar are the least reliable when it comes to seeking clarifications about weapons performance parameters. But this I can state: inside the HQ of BrahMos Aerospace in Delhi Cantonment, there is a visitor's galley where the entire range of ballistic missiles developed by the DRDO thus far is displayed as scale-models, ALONG WITH accompanying information boards that are much more detailed than what is shown at aerospace/defence expos. All the data that you want to seek about India's family of ballistic missiles can be found there. I've seen them and photographed them once when accompanying an entourage of visiting VIPs from a friendly foreign country.

Prasun K Sengupta said...

To Anon@11:48PM: What's wrong if the Tejas continues to be powered by a foreign turbofan? Even the Chinese and Pakistanis are quiote happy to continue importing turbofans from Russia. So what's the problem? Russia's United Aircraft Corp did agree to the RD-33's technology transfer, BUT it was the transfer of technology for licence-assembling the engine, AND NOT for building the engine from India-sourced raw materials. Russia has never transferred such critical know-how technologies to anyone thus far, and is most unlikely to do so, and not just Russia, no one from Europe or North America will part with such techological know-hows. That is all the more reason for entities like GTRE and MIDHANI to continue their R & D efforts related to turbofan R & D projects like that for the Kaveri. There is no substitute for dogged persistence and the determination to prevail at all costs.

Dr. Sanjay Badri-Maharaj said...

Mr. Sengupta, your point is valid in terms of performance parameters etc. I am not so naive to think otherwise.

However, if Mr. Kar doesn't know or doesn't care to answer, he does not. An outright lie is another story.

In fact your examples show exactly that.

He will not answer your direct questions on those pertinent points, but he won't deliberately tell you "X" succeeeded when it failed outright. At least that has been the general experience.

WRT the Prithvi test, I remember that one. One of the more ridiculous statements made by the PIB.

Dr. Sanjay Badri-Maharaj said...

Care to share some of those performance characteristics with us Mr. Sengupta ? At least a few hints ?

Prasun K Sengupta said...

I'm not given to self-censorship, but in this case the photos I mentioned earlier were taken in a way which showed the visiting VIPs at BrahMos Aerospace HQ and till this day I've been unable to publish them openly at the specific request of those officials that accommodated me within the visiting entourage, and I've given a gentleman's pledge not to breach their trust. But rest assured, at the earliest availability opportunity will endeavour to post a tabular presentation of the type I've done for Pakistan's family of ballistic and cruise missiles in this thread.

Dr. Sanjay Badri-Maharaj said...

That is wholly understandable.

However, answer this - does the data give cause for worry ?

Harpreet said...

I hope you will soon post something on IMDEX.

Anonymous said...

the mfstar or for that matter all the radars being developed for the MRSAM/LRSAM are being codeveloped by india and israel. there are drdo teams in israel and vice versa working on making the specific variants for each mission. iai may advertise the mfstar on its website, but the one we'll get will be different. check up with guys @ NHQ.

Prasun K Sengupta said...

To: Dr Sanjay Badri-Maharaj: Not at all. The presented data on technical/performance parameters is pragmatic and meets all existing and projected operational reqmts. Additionally, the pre-planned product improvement roadmaps are equally credible and contemporary. That is not the problem. The main poblem (my personal view, based on what I've been exposed to thus far) is the command-and-control issue and related infrastructure that has yet to be fully operationalised and made survivable. For instance, what has not yet been convincingly demonstrated is how exactly will the disassembled components of the n-deterrent be transported to their final assembly facilities and be mated with their delivery platforms (i.e. ballistic missiles). I'm sure it will not be a repeat of the May 1998 process when IAF An-32Bs were used to transport the components (originating from BARC in Trombay) to Pokhran. But have such procedures and practices been made fool-proof or have been improved upon? How credible are the Permissive Activation Links (PAL) designed and devised by the DAE and DRDO? And everytime the SFC conducts missile-firing tests does it do so with the help of its integral operational command-and-control network (which is provided by Army HQ's Directorate of Field Artillery)? The data at my disposal regarding such issues does give rise to certain misgivings. My main worry, in conclusion, is about the deficiencies in deployment and command-and-control arenas, and not about the reliability and performance parameters of the n-weapons delivery systems as such.

Anonymous said...

the mfstar or for that matter all the radars being developed for the MRSAM/LRSAM are being codeveloped by india and israel. there are drdo teams in israel and vice versa working on making the specific variants for each mission. iai may advertise the mfstar on its website, but the one we'll get will be different. check up with guys @ NHQ.
so what ,if DRDO team is in israel
after $ 2.5 billion deal and paying 6% or 600 crore for travel and business trips,even now drdo team isn't there then it would be shame on us

even if a product has to be bought it has to be checked and tested for its charectoristic before it is bought so someone goes to particular country to test it

MFSTAR already been developed what is this codevelopment,what india is just providing money and and to get knowhow how to license build this radar in india

Anonymous said...

is MFSTAR fire control radar or volume search radar

if its not fire control radar then which radar will work as fire control

Prasun K Sengupta said...

To Anon@9:49AM: I assume from your comment that as far as you're concerned, the MF-STAR acquisition is a simple case of ELTA delivering the radar to Mazagon Docks which in turn will just install them on the Project 15A DDGs by just tightening the nuts and bolts. I wish things were that overly-simple. You're alleging that IAI/ELTA is only fabricating the radar and its involvement in Project 15A ends there. What you're failing to consider is the enormous systems integration effort which IAI/ELTA cannot do by itself without the requisite inputs coming from the Indian side in structural/electrical/electronic arenas. There are enormous applications software challenges to be overcome and which are peculiar to the Indian Navy and therefore these proprietary data packages are all being developed within India PRIOR to being sent to IAI/ELTA for uploading on to the MF-STAR's data libraries. Only once all this is done can the radar be made physically available for structural mounting, electrical interfacing and data bus integration. What you must bear in mind is that the task of product development of the MF-STAR is totally different from the task of developing an integrated sensor-fused solution for a specific platform.

Anonymous said...

to prasun

I assume from your comment that as far as you're concerned, the MF-STAR acquisition is a simple case of ELTA delivering the radar to Mazagon Docks which in turn will just install them on the Project 15A DDGs by just tightening the nuts and bolts
i all understand this that radar to be installed on naval ships comes in parts

and this is also true that for three naval p15a it will directly be provided by israel in semi assembled kit only succesive radar for air force will be built in india

there are radar components ,processing units,electronic interfaces,digital screens

ones it arrives the integration of all this stuf is done only by indian side with the help of people from IAI
but it is also true that there are no electronic components like aesa t/r module in radar and processing units going from indian side because radar itself been developed already

the s band aesa T/R modules are from israel and there is nothing from indian side as india is incapable of doing so

but india can make radar processing units for sure but main thing is radar t/r modules which are 100% israeli

Prasun K Sengupta said...

All the MF-STARs for Project 15A DDGs and that for the IAC will be acquired off-the-shelf from IAI/ELTA. But the ToT element of this deal calls for indigenising 100% the through-life product support for the T/R modules. For indigenous manufacturing of T/R modules, BEL and Astra Microwave are focussing on firstly the L-band T/R modules (for the Green Pine LRTR, the EL/M-2082 ground-based airspace surveillance radar, EL/M-2083 aerostat-mounted AESA and in future the EL/M-2084 MMR for the Army's MR-SAM Regiments). Next in line will be the S-band T/R modules for AESA radars like those to be mounted on the DRDO/CABS-developed AEW & CS. Lastly, the X-band T/R modules for AESAs reqd for radars meant for combat aircraft like the upgraded Su-30MKI, Tejas LCA Mk2, the M-MRCA and the FGFA. The naval version of the Green Pine LRTR that will go on board the IAC could also end up in the three Project 15A DDGs in future and on the to-be-upgraded three Project 15 DDGs. The four Project 15B DDGs will in all probability have X-band APAR-type multi-function radars.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 247   Newer› Newest»