[null, null, {"document_url": "http://trishul-trident.blogspot.com/2012/07/p-8i-programme-status-briefing-slides.html", "unformatted_src": "http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-aE2K02_wP6Y/UA_9oI-hc2I/AAAAAAAABh0/SJdFltWBisc/s320/P-8I+Briefing-1.jpg", "src": "http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-aE2K02_wP6Y/UA_9oI-hc2I/AAAAAAAABh0/SJdFltWBisc/s320/P-8I+Briefing-1.jpg", "formatted_filename": "P I Briefing", "rendered_width": 320, "rendered_height": 238}, {"document_url": "http://trishul-trident.blogspot.com/2012/07/p-8i-programme-status-briefing-slides.html", "unformatted_src": "http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-70ABGA0CF1c/UA_9tznoeoI/AAAAAAAABh8/KlWM1s8bvgk/s320/P-8I+Briefing-2.jpg", "src": "http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-70ABGA0CF1c/UA_9tznoeoI/AAAAAAAABh8/KlWM1s8bvgk/s320/P-8I+Briefing-2.jpg", "formatted_filename": "P I Briefing", "rendered_width": 320, "rendered_height": 238}, {"document_url": "http://trishul-trident.blogspot.com/2012/07/p-8i-programme-status-briefing-slides.html", "unformatted_src": "http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-lXmyQg0MM8k/UA_9xnu3CXI/AAAAAAAABiE/DXD0eLCoHcQ/s320/P-8I+Briefing-3.jpg", "src": "http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-lXmyQg0MM8k/UA_9xnu3CXI/AAAAAAAABiE/DXD0eLCoHcQ/s320/P-8I+Briefing-3.jpg", "formatted_filename": "P I Briefing", "rendered_width": 320, "rendered_height": 238}, {"document_url": "http://trishul-trident.blogspot.com/2012/07/p-8i-programme-status-briefing-slides.html", "unformatted_src": "http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-uT8j4PRngDs/UA_910gxS6I/AAAAAAAABiM/GUybrYnhz9o/s320/P-8I+Briefing-4.jpg", "src": "http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-uT8j4PRngDs/UA_910gxS6I/AAAAAAAABiM/GUybrYnhz9o/s320/P-8I+Briefing-4.jpg", "formatted_filename": "P I Briefing", "rendered_width": 320, "rendered_height": 238}, {"document_url": "http://trishul-trident.blogspot.com/2012/07/p-8i-programme-status-briefing-slides.html", "unformatted_src": "http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-_6ZQuIQWGFM/UA_96XSiYcI/AAAAAAAABiU/AV6g_Re0-O4/s320/P-8I+Briefing-5.jpg", "src": "http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-_6ZQuIQWGFM/UA_96XSiYcI/AAAAAAAABiU/AV6g_Re0-O4/s320/P-8I+Briefing-5.jpg", "formatted_filename": "P I Briefing", "rendered_width": 320, "rendered_height": 238}, {"document_url": "http://trishul-trident.blogspot.com/2012/07/p-8i-programme-status-briefing-slides.html", "unformatted_src": "http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-O619_C0Dnvc/UBGHsyJ8_iI/AAAAAAAABig/aT6X5_dW_dw/s320/Boeing+Rotorcraft+Briefing-1.jpg", "src": "http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-O619_C0Dnvc/UBGHsyJ8_iI/AAAAAAAABig/aT6X5_dW_dw/s320/Boeing+Rotorcraft+Briefing-1.jpg", "formatted_filename": "Boeing Rotorcraft Briefing", "rendered_width": 320, "rendered_height": 214}, {"document_url": "http://trishul-trident.blogspot.com/2012/07/p-8i-programme-status-briefing-slides.html", "unformatted_src": "http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Rq-H-g_uJsA/UBGHy8u83TI/AAAAAAAABio/Lygm2cLMSyM/s320/Boeing+Rotorcraft+Briefing-2.jpg", "src": "http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Rq-H-g_uJsA/UBGHy8u83TI/AAAAAAAABio/Lygm2cLMSyM/s320/Boeing+Rotorcraft+Briefing-2.jpg", "formatted_filename": "Boeing Rotorcraft Briefing", "rendered_width": 320, "rendered_height": 224}, {"document_url": "http://trishul-trident.blogspot.com/2012/07/p-8i-programme-status-briefing-slides.html", "unformatted_src": "http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-LItc9hKM0pY/UBGH5AhuG0I/AAAAAAAABiw/0ZFGsOPZUaQ/s320/Boeing+Rotorcraft+Briefing-3.jpg", "src": "http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-LItc9hKM0pY/UBGH5AhuG0I/AAAAAAAABiw/0ZFGsOPZUaQ/s320/Boeing+Rotorcraft+Briefing-3.jpg", "formatted_filename": "Boeing Rotorcraft Briefing", "rendered_width": 320, "rendered_height": 210}, {"document_url": "http://trishul-trident.blogspot.com/2012/07/p-8i-programme-status-briefing-slides.html", "unformatted_src": "http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-bXgyYFAHepc/UBGH-xTO1QI/AAAAAAAABi4/qmiALB3iknY/s320/Boeing+Rotorcraft+Briefing-4.jpg", "src": "http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-bXgyYFAHepc/UBGH-xTO1QI/AAAAAAAABi4/qmiALB3iknY/s320/Boeing+Rotorcraft+Briefing-4.jpg", "formatted_filename": "Boeing Rotorcraft Briefing", "rendered_width": 320, "rendered_height": 220}, {"document_url": "http://trishul-trident.blogspot.com/2012/07/p-8i-programme-status-briefing-slides.html", "unformatted_src": "http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-KpCUdHrQcxs/UBGIIu3miFI/AAAAAAAABjA/MnXfWy_WrCg/s320/Boeing+Rotorcraft+Briefing-5.jpg", "src": "http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-KpCUdHrQcxs/UBGIIu3miFI/AAAAAAAABjA/MnXfWy_WrCg/s320/Boeing+Rotorcraft+Briefing-5.jpg", "formatted_filename": "Boeing Rotorcraft Briefing", "rendered_width": 320, "rendered_height": 224}, {"document_url": "http://trishul-trident.blogspot.com/2012/07/p-8i-programme-status-briefing-slides.html", "unformatted_src": "http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-vdargPihqwM/UBGIPvNcBGI/AAAAAAAABjI/6JIPKjlrYlw/s320/Boeing+Rotorcraft+Briefing-6.jpg", "src": "http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-vdargPihqwM/UBGIPvNcBGI/AAAAAAAABjI/6JIPKjlrYlw/s320/Boeing+Rotorcraft+Briefing-6.jpg", "formatted_filename": "Boeing Rotorcraft Briefing", "rendered_width": 320, "rendered_height": 221}, {"document_url": "http://trishul-trident.blogspot.com/2012/07/p-8i-programme-status-briefing-slides.html", "unformatted_src": "http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-dScrB4I2OHA/UBGIa4nD_vI/AAAAAAAABjQ/PQKcH-UOtFU/s320/Boeing+Rotorcraft+Briefing-7.jpg", "src": "http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-dScrB4I2OHA/UBGIa4nD_vI/AAAAAAAABjQ/PQKcH-UOtFU/s320/Boeing+Rotorcraft+Briefing-7.jpg", "formatted_filename": "Boeing Rotorcraft Briefing", "rendered_width": 320, "rendered_height": 218}, {"document_url": "http://trishul-trident.blogspot.com/2012/07/p-8i-programme-status-briefing-slides.html", "unformatted_src": "http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-zYmi2I9sRnQ/UBGIhfK9KhI/AAAAAAAABjY/gqd-5R6DlMQ/s320/Boeing+Rotorcraft+Briefing-8.jpg", "src": "http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-zYmi2I9sRnQ/UBGIhfK9KhI/AAAAAAAABjY/gqd-5R6DlMQ/s320/Boeing+Rotorcraft+Briefing-8.jpg", "formatted_filename": "Boeing Rotorcraft Briefing", "rendered_width": 320, "rendered_height": 221}, {"document_url": "http://trishul-trident.blogspot.com/2012/07/p-8i-programme-status-briefing-slides.html", "unformatted_src": "http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-ZtgCY865DPE/UBGNFfjb5II/AAAAAAAABkE/uNEn-IErcn0/s320/Osprey+AEW.jpg", "src": "http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-ZtgCY865DPE/UBGNFfjb5II/AAAAAAAABkE/uNEn-IErcn0/s320/Osprey+AEW.jpg", "formatted_filename": "Osprey AEW", "rendered_width": 320, "rendered_height": 273}, null, null, null, null, null, null, null, null, null, null, null, null, null, null, null, null, null, null, null, null, null, null, null, null, null, null, null, null, null, null, null, null, null, null, null, null, null, null, null, null, null, null, null, null, null, null, null, null, null, null, null, null, null, null, null, null, null, null, null, null, null, null, null, null, null, null, null, null, null, null, null, null, null, null, null, null, null, null, null, null, null, null, null, null, null]

P-8I & Rotorcraft Programmes' Status Briefing Slides From Boeing Posted by Prasun K. Sengupta at 7:39 PM manoj joshi said...

Sorry for overshooting the string on BMD, but I thought this would be interesting, particularly the part where Krepon notes that the US "has has flight-tested 67 interceptors since 2001, 53 of which have very generously been labelled as successes," in contrast to the allegedly six out of seven successful intercepts by DRDO http://dawn.com/2012/07/23/unwarranted-assessments/

July 25, 2012 at 11:01 PM 
For the proposed 56 plane Avro replacement. Which model will be likely to be selected ?
Between C-295 & C-27J, I feel the C-27J Spartan would be ideal as it shares commonality with the C-130. Therefore considerable MRO headaches will be easily overcome. Although payload wise C-27J is in a different category. In future C-27J can also be used to replace the An-32 as well.

July 26, 2012 at 12:19 AM 
To MANOJ JOSHI: Any sane/level-headed individual will expect or demand that the DRDO offers to subject its BMD-related R & D activities to an unbiased technical audit, which can easily be conducted by the IAF. But, as we all know, that will never happen, for the first time anything like this was attempted (for the ATV project), both the DRDO & DAE conspired together to have Capt (ret’d) B K Subbarao incarcerated behind bars, while the last time it was demanded (again for the ATV project) by the then CNS Admiral Vishnu Bhagwat in early 1998, it cost him his job in less than a year. The same charade now continues with the fleet of BEML-TATRA trucks & the DRDO’s & MoD’s persistent endorsement of the quality (and not the serviceability & availability) these vehicles. What the DRDO & MoD officials have not yet realised or comprehended is the long list of product-support problems that will begin surfacing two years from now, when all the BEML-TATRA trucks used for the Sarvatra bridging system & for the BrahMos’ mobile autonomous launchers will be mandatorily required to undergo mandatory depot-level overhauls at in-country MRO facilities that are, as of today, totally non-existent.

To SK: The C-27J Spartan is most likely to win due to some of the reasons that you’ve mentioned, plus the fact that TATA is already a emerging as a major subcontractor to Lockheed Martin for the C-130J production programme (and TATA is also tied up with Italy’s Finmeccanica) & consequently, TATA could be well-placed to licence-assemble the C-27J in-country. But what must be noted is that 56 units is too small a number for licenced-production, since in order to break-even financially in such a venture, the minimum acceptable figure is 65. Therefore, in this case, only licenced-aseembly & through-life product-support will be insisted upon by the MoD, along with limited in-country production of some fast-moving spares (rotables & consumables) as part of the direct industrial offsets package.

July 26, 2012 at 12:49 AM 
sir ,
what is this Capt (ret’d) B K Subbarao episode u r talking abt??
can u please provide a link for complete info ?
or may be urself explain it,,

July 26, 2012 at 1:08 AM 
To email@example.com: Watch these:



July 26, 2012 at 1:22 AM 
@prasun da

I hope this answers your krivak IV doubts




July 26, 2012 at 10:32 AM 
To JOYDEEP GHOSH: Regretably, that's not too convincing, since the United Shipbuilding Corp's latest products catalogue refers to these FFGs for the Russian Navy as Project 1135.6 FFGs.

July 26, 2012 at 10:45 AM 
Sir! What are the advantages or disadvantages of CISMOA for India and why India not going for it.?

July 26, 2012 at 10:52 AM 
There are no distinct advantages as yet for India being a part of CISMOA. CISMOA is reqd only by those countries that have no indigenous National Secure Mode (NSM) protocols for IFF transponders, voice/imagery/data encryption tools, & radar fingerprinting expertise as part of non-cooperative target recognition modes of operation. CISMOA will be reqd only towards the end of this decade IF AND ONLY India decides to deploy a constellation of four Missile Monitoring Satellites & have them networked with the US' DSP family of satellites as part of India's projected ballistic missile early warning system. For platforms like the P-8I or any other US-origin weapon system that are now being or will be acquired in future, CISMOA compliance is definitely not reqd from an operational standpoint, since cutting-edge NSM-compliant indigenous alternatives are freely available.

July 26, 2012 at 11:56 AM F said...


With regards to an AEW platform, would you agree that a jet powered playform, on account of being able to fly higher, has a big advantage over prop powered platforms, as at a higher altitude you tend to see further and get better coverage with your radar?

I was going thorough a 2003 article you wrote in Perajurit on the PT-91M. You mentioned that the gunner would either get a MATIS or an IRIS thermal. Did you eventually dicover which was selected?

July 26, 2012 at 1:38 PM madhup said...

When are we going to sign these deals and when will the enter the services :
1) 197 Light utility helicopters
2) 50 Naval utility helicopter
3) 22 Heavy Attack Helicopters
4) 12 Heavy Lift helicopters ??

Also why only 12 Heavy Lift helicopters for one of the world ? Is there a plan to place a follow on order ??

is there any update on sudarshan lgb?
Are there any R&D projects to develop Smart bombs to employ after IRNNS comes into play?

Did DRDO produce systems that can turn dumb bombs to PGMs like chinese did??

July 26, 2012 at 8:31 PM 
Prasun when will the Archer Artilleray system enter service with IA (if it wins of course)? And in what quantities?

July 26, 2012 at 9:41 PM Ranjit Rai said...

Thanks Prasun for the update on the singing dancing P8i which will join from 2013 and has the latest MR Raytheon radar in the nose and Telephonics radar for air direction of the MiG-29Ks in the rear, a great Naval idea forced on Boeing. With 24 Harpoons and Mk 48/ 58 ? torpedoes ordered when INS Vikramaditya, tanker Deepak/Shakti and INS Chakra and two Shivaliks form part of IN's carrier task force it will make the Indian Navy a true Blue water Navy with reach and potency. Comment. RR

July 26, 2012 at 11:03 PM 
To RANJIT RAI: P-15A DDGs too will form part of the IN's projected Carrier Battle Group. For area air defence & ASW sweeps, at least two P-15A DDGs are a must, accompanied by three P-17 FFGs or three Project 1135.6 FFGs for providing an effective ASW screen. The only glaring deficiency is the lack of a sizeable fleet of home-grown SSNs, without which any Carrier Battle Group will be vulnerable to undersea warfare threats like submarine-launched long-range anti-ship cruise missiles.

July 26, 2012 at 11:12 PM 
To FARIS: The turbofan-powered AEW & CS platform definitely can cruise both higher & faster than its turboprop-powered counterpart & therefore the former is distinctly superior. Never wrote anything for PERAJURIT, only for TEMPUR. MATIS & Catherine-FC are meant for the gunner’s sight, while the IRIS is meant for the commander’s panoramic sight. The PT-91M gunner’s sight has MATIS while the commander’s panoramic sight is only a day sight. On the Indian T-90S & Arjun Mk1A MBTs, the Catherine-FC is (8-12 micron bandwidth) for the gunner’s sight, while the 3-5 micron bandwidth IRIS is for the commander’s panoramic sight.

To MADHUP: Your guess is as good as mine. Up to 18 heavylift helicopters are meant for procurement. Sudarshan LGB is still undergoing developmental trials. A rocket-powered version of this LGB is also under development. The Sudarshan is a kit that can turn gravity bombs into glide-PGMs. After IRNSS becomes operational, it will be possible to deploy PGMs with dual-mode guidance, i.e. GPS interfaced with either laser or IIR guidance.

To UNKNOWN: The Archer 155mm/52-cal motorised howitzer is not on offer at all for the Mounted Gun System reqmt, since it is too heavy for the IA’s comfort.
 
Are 22 Heavy Attack Helicopters sufficient for so large frontiers and may be widespread battlefields.

July 27, 2012 at 1:12 AM 
To Mr.RA 13: No way. The minimum baseline capability ought to be 60 units, that is once the IAF withdraws its fixed-wing strike aircraft from close air support missions (which is already happening, since during the past wars of 1965 & 1971 the IAF mostly ended up straffing & bombing friendly Indian formations/columns, causing enormous damage) & instead settles for heavy attack helicopters as the primary means of delivering close air support. Even if this were to happen, there's still a crying need for the AAC to be equipped with 80 Rudra helicopter-gunships & possibly another 60 LAH variants of the LCH.

July 27, 2012 at 1:41 AM 
To Mr.RA 13: Interesting read: http://blogs.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Blurring-Lines/entry/13-years-after-kargil-war

July 27, 2012 at 1:43 AM 
Prasun, what systems are exactly in the fray for the IA's motorised howitzer requirment? Espacially as Rhenimettal has been black-listed and Archer does not fit requirments? And what numbers are to be ordered and when will the deal be closed and signed?

July 27, 2012 at 2:05 AM 
Nothing changes under the sky, but few things have certainly changed after the Kargil war. We are now more alert, have lighter and more accurate weapons, Pinaka has improved. Bofors alone are static or might have deteriorated. Our helicopters and fixed wing Aircrafts and their target acquisitions have certainly improved. It can be hoped that under normal conditions, now Pak can not repeat the same misadventure.

July 27, 2012 at 3:24 AM 
To UNKNOWN: The Caesar from Nexter Systems/L & T, the Nora from Yugoimport/Punj Lloyd, T-5-52 from Denel Land Systems/TATA, & the ATMOS from ELBIT Systems/Kalyani Group. Plenty of choices therefore are available. My formula for success would be as follows: scrap the requirement for acquiring 1,580 new-build 155mm/52-cal TGS and instead authorise the OFB/BEL consortium to upgrade all existing 360 FH-77Bs to the 155X45-standard, and also authorise the Kalyani Group/ELBIT Systems industrial partnership to upgrade up to 800 M-46s to 155mm/45-cal standard, and procure at least 1,600 motorised MGS, preferably that version of the Caesar that can be air-transported even by C-130J-30s.

July 27, 2012 at 9:59 AM 
@Prasun da

read a very interesting article

is the assessment put up really should be taken seriuosly?

1. Do you really see a torpedo tube launched Brahmos in future, or a W88 like nuke warhead for Brahmos?

2. How about India going for Sovremenny class destroyers?

3. How about placing a couple of Brahmos battaries under ANC command

4. In your last thread i had said 'I expect that the total no. of Su30MKIs with India will eventually touch 300 and those of the Rafales will touch 220 (if navy picks the Rafale M for IAC 2, 3).' what you have to say?

5. In the last thread you said 'Therefore, in the years to come, expect at least 140 upgraded Jaguar IS aircraft to become the principal tactical interdiction platform armed with LGBs & IIR-guided PGMs like the AASM Hammer.'

If i am not wrong IAF has 140 Jagaurs already and 20 more were ordered in late 2000s, thats total of 160 Jagaurs, isnt it?

July 27, 2012 at 11:52 AM Rajesh Tiwari said...

Hello Prasun ,

I am a regular follower of your blog and you have rightly analysed that Russian Defence Industry are at their fag end of their life and there is hardly any new product that can be worthwhile considered as advanced and most development are just upgrade model of Soviet Era equipment and they are completly collapsed with even resorting to import from Italy and France.

Do you think DRDO and Indian Defence industry (HAL/Pvt Players/BEML etc ) can take over the mantle from the now slowly dying Russian Industry and take the lead as 2nd largest arms developer and export to Russian what ever they can afford to buy from us considering their Economy is also not performing well instead of Europeans arms industry at cost effective rates ?

How about ALH and Arjun and later Tejas Mk2 to start with , these are comparable to the best West has to offer.

July 27, 2012 at 1:45 PM 
Dear Sir PLEASE read this


Arjun Tank's RECOVERY vehicle is coming up

So we can see MORE Arjun Tank's being inducted

July 27, 2012 at 7:19 PM 
Sir, I have a few queries.

1.Only 40 out of 160 MiG-27 have been upgraded to UPG standards.Means only 40 acs out of the whole MiG-27 fleet carry flare and chaff dispensers,Tarang RWR and can drop PGM.The rest instead of being tactical interdiction acs dont have basic countermeasure dispensers. Very good.

2.HAL has been license producing Jaguars since 1980s.And as u said . "the Jaguar IS has far higher reliability & availability & since BAE Systems has transferred all necessary technical data packages & industrial toolings to HAL, it is now possible to produce as many Jaguar IS as the IAF wants ." HAL has gained huge expertise wwith the Jaguar.Why cant HAL restucture and redesign the Jaguar's nose assembly so that it can accept a MMR radar.HAL can also increase the Jag's weapons payload from 4.6 t to 5.5+/6 t, increase the no of pylons and transform the Jaguar into a super duper state of the art ground attck aircraft.HAL has the required engineering expertise and can easliy accomplish such a task.

3. The new hardware that will be evaluated for the Tejas mk2 and new techs that are going into it can easily be implemented in the entire IAF Jaguar fleet during its deep upgrade.The Jaguar can be fiited with a Vixen AESA MMR radar, Skyward IRST and the full IADS suite of Tejas mk2 including the Virgilus aesa jammer.An AESA radar will be too far fetched .A updated and more powerful version of the Elta 2032 will do.The IAF should adopt such an avionics and sensor upgrade for its Jaguar apart from DARIN 3.

4.The IAF was forced to go for Rafales due to the delayed developement and induction of Tejas. If the Tejas mk2 is similarly delayed the IAF will have no options but to purchase more MMRCA. If the Tejas dont come in time, the IAF can a.go for more mmrca b.go for more mmrca and additional new build Jaguars c.the 2nd option plus Sukhoi-30 mki.U said that more FGFA will have to be ordered if the Tejas mk2 doesnt take off as planned.But FGFA is far from ready. By the time FGFA will start entering service the Jaguars need to be replaced.

5.126 Rafales replacing 200 MiG-21 is good enough. Another 160 MiG-27 have to be replaced. 63 more Rafales would bring the figure down to 97. 80+ Tejas mk2 plus more Sukhois ought to do the job very carefully.Else more Jaguars, MMRCA and Su-30. Why is the IAF planning to procure only 40 Sukhoi-30 mki ? Why not go for 100? Su-30 is a proven aircraft while the PAK-FA /FGFA still has to overcome many developement hurdles.The IAF will for sure not let a depletion in aircraft nos.

6.Can u pls tell the total no of Jaguars purchased by the IAF and the nos in active service as many have been lost in crashes.Whats the chances that more Jaguars are to be ordered?

July 27, 2012 at 10:58 PM 
To Joydeep Ghosh: That “very interesting article” is in fact a classic example of how a mountain is created from an insignificant/puny anthill. For instance, the BrahMos missile’s Made-in-India components comprise only the airframe & the navigation system. The rest, including the warhead section, two-stage propulsion system & terminal guidance system, are all imported off-the-shelf from Russia’s NPOM. So, how the hell can India possibly remove the existing blast-fragmentation warhead & substitute it with a nuclear warhead? Secondly, this missile is assembled in India under Russian supervision, meaning NPOM technocrats are there at every level at the final assembly line, meaning there’s no chance at all of anyone from India trying to replace existing warheads with n-warheads. In any case, the Russian s would never allow this to happen as part of uts NPT commitments. Therefore, the writer of this “very interesting article” appears to be deliberately & mischievously maligning India by equating it with the likes of DPRK & Iran & their blatantly illegal WMD proliferation activities. Thirdly, the cruise altitude of the BrahMos being 13km, it will be clearly visible to ground-based low-level air-defence radars on the ground as well on-board warships and only those countries possessing new-generation MR-SAMs (like China) will be able to intercept the BrahMos. It is for this reason that the DRDO is developing n-warhead-equipped terrain-hugging cruise missiles like those of the subsonic Nirbhay & supersonic LRCM families, which, unlike the BrahMos, have sufficiently long ranges to reach the enemy’s hinterland (be in China or Pakistan) & which are more survivable than the BrahMos while cruising to their destinations. Therefore, based purely on common sense & logic, this “very interesting article” is therefore misleading & mischievous, to say the least. Now, to your other points:
1) No one is interested in developing a torpedo-launched version of BrahMos because missiles the size of BrahMos have traditionally been launched from either inclined launchers or VLS-cells carried on board SSGNs. All the scale-models & video presentations shown to date by BrahMos Aerospace of submarine-launched BrahMos version shows being housed within an 8-cell VLS.
2) Only a person bitten by a mad dog will opt for Type 956E DDGs, since the Project 15A DDG outperforms the Type 956E DDG in every conceivable performance parameter.
3) One Battery of land-launched BrahMos’ ASCM version under the A & C Command is enough to choke off the Malacca Straits.
4) I say that the IAF will eventually have a fleet of 312 Su-30MKIs (provided there are no further crashes) & as for the IAC-2, which can only arrive by 2025, the Indian Navy will more likely go for the carrier-based variant of the FGFA, instead of the Rafale.
5) The IAF has to date acquired 158 Jaguars of all types, of which only 120 will be upgraded to DARIN-3 standards as well as re-engined with Honeywell F125 turbofans. Another 20 Jaguar IS units are expected to be built in the near future & these will from the outset be equipped with DARIN-3 avionics suite & F125 turbofans, meaning up to 128 Jaguar IS units will be available for all-weather tactical interdiction missions, while the 312 Su-30MKIs will take over the deep-interdiction roles, the 189 Rafales, 63 MiG-29UPGs & 51 Mirage 2000UPGs the swing-role functions, and the 214 FGFAs will become the air supremacy platforms with secondary interdiction capability.

July 28, 2012 at 12:07 AM 
To email@example.com: Your answers are as follows:
1) YES.
2) All-weather tactical interdictors don’t need nose-mounted MMRs, but only an AESA-based SAR & GMTI modes & an accompanying weather monitoring mode. That is doable as the technology is now available. Weapons payload & STOL capability will be automatically increased once the F125 turbofans are retrofitted.
3) Virgilius internal jammer suite is likely to be included in the DARIN-3 avionics suite.
4) The FGFA will begin entering service by 2018. That much is certain.
5) 5) You’re missing one point, which formed part of my reply to Mr.RA 13 at 1.41AM. The IAF wants to get out of the close-air-support business with fixed-wing combat aircraft by inducting heavy attack helicopters in a big way. Factor that into your calculations.
6) The IAF has to date acquired 158 Jaguars of all types, of which only 120 will be upgraded to DARIN-3 standards as well as re-engined with Honeywell F125 turbofans. Another 20 Jaguar IS units are expected to be built in the near future & these will from the outset be equipped with DARIN-3 avionics suite & F125 turbofans, meaning up to 128 Jaguar IS units will be available for all-weather tactical interdiction missions.

July 28, 2012 at 12:09 AM 
To RAJESH TIWARI: The Russian military-industrial complex is down, but is definitely NOT out of the game. Companies like IRKUT Corp now have foreign strategic shareholders like Finmeccanica & Cassidian, which will enable such Russian companies to stay afloat & introduce new products for the global export market. There’s absolutely no chance at all of India’s MoD-owned DPSUs dwarfing their Russian counterparts, simply because these DPSUs continue to be run like Soviet-era state-owned entities & are frequently starved of funds reqd for expansion & modernisation. Only if these DPSUs manage to become publicly-listed companies through substantial government divestments can they hope to survive. If they continue in their present-day state, they will all die a slow & very painful death, just like Air India & Indian Airlines.

To email@example.com: And you too kindly read these:
On 17th January this year, apart from the contract for the supply of the WZT-3, Bumar and BEML also signed an agreement concerning technology and research cooperation to work out the Indian version of armoured recovery vehicles on the chassis of Arjun Mk II main battle tank, which is being manufactured in Combat Vehicles Research and Development Establishment in Chennai (which is a cell of Defence Research and Development Organisation). Over the next three years two prototypes of such vehicle are to be built and if the result of its acceptance test is positive, one can expect an order of at least 30 serial vehicles. The weight of Arjun II ARRV is said to reach 65 tons.



Now, you tell me who’s right & who’s wrong, since there are two claimants to the same R & D effort.

July 28, 2012 at 12:14 AM 
Hi prasun,

is this true
IAF Declines to Induct Tejas LCA LSP Aircraft

https://plus.google.com/u/0/11547733765 ... BMVLgfmJLS

July 28, 2012 at 12:24 AM 
Sorry the correct link is


July 28, 2012 at 12:32 AM 

With regards to radars on AEW platforms, do you actually get better radar coverage at higher altitudes - e.g. will a turbofan powered E-3 that is cruising at a higher altitude than a turboprop powered Eriye which is cruising at several thousan feed lower, get better radar coverage? The reason I'm asking is because I came across this discussion in a Malaysian military blog and someone mentioned that height does make a difference and gave this for the reason -

''The statement you stressed a lot for years “…fly higher, thus provide better coverage” also make very little sense. Lets throw in some numbers. Lets say sensor system on board has a range of 200km for any flying object. From trigonometry we know that in practical where the ratio between opposite length (altitude difference between two subject ~5km) and adjacent length (effective sensor range) is around 1:40. Therefore the change in effective sensor range due to change in the vertical distance between the sensor platform and the target becomes arbitrary, less than 0.5% if you insist to see the number.''

Also, does the prop from turboprops effect radar performance?
 

Hav heard that of 36 radar stations planned, 2 will get operational by Sep.How long will it take to complete the project?And what about the other sensors?After this whole project is completed will any ship/boat approaching indian coast be go undetected?



July 28, 2012 at 12:44 AM 
To email@example.com: It is only partly true. For the benefit of everyone let’s reproduce the whole report:
“IAF has declined to induct the Tejas LCA LSP aircraft because they don't conform to IOC. IAF now plans to raise its first squadron using the Series Production (SP) variants of the aircraft, manufacture of which is yet to start. Which means several statements made by DRDO Chief V K Saraswat that the first IAF Tejas squadron will be raised this year (He even mentioned June once) were speculative. One of the reasons why ADA and HAL are having a hard time obtaining IOC-2 on the Tejas Mk-1 is because HAL has been manufacturing the 4th Gen Tejas using 2 Gen manufacturing techniques. Because HAL's manufacturing process is outdated, variations between copies of Tejas aircraft are larger than can be accommodated by the FBW control system. Because of weight creep, the C of G of the Tejas is now significantly behind its C of P (Center of Pressure, where the lift acts) making it very unstable aircraft. Indeed, the Tejas is the most unstable fighter in the world. Tejas's instability increases with the AOA, pushing its FBW system to its limit. Poor manufacture aggravates the problem at high AOA, which is why the aircraft has not yet met IAF QRs on AOA. Hopefully, HAL will SP aircraft will conform to more stringent manufacturing standards, allowing for AOA expansion.”
Now, here’s what is truly happening. Weight creep is not HAL’s fault, since HAL was never the design authority, whereas ADA was. HAL will only do what it is instructed to do by ADA. Weight-budgeting of the airframe, instrumentation, avionics & accessories too is ADA’s responsibility, not HAL’s. For the LSP-series, especially the LSP-7/8, several production-standard LRUs & their related wiring harnesses + the integrated defensive aids suite have been incorporated, which is all manageable. That’s not the main problem. The AoA limitation for a fully armed Tejas Mk1 has come in due to the type of armaments now being tested out, like the 1,000lb LGBs, by LSP-7 & hence it was a recent discovery. There are thus only three options left to rectify this deficiency: redesign the weapons pylons to make them lighter & universal (instead of using an extra weapons adaptation sub-pylon as is the case with R-73E AAMs); use lightweight PGMs, or reprogramme the digital flight-control computer to incorporate redesigned flight-control laws/logic, all of which are doable within a span of a few months. This is what I had been referring to for the past few months whenever I wrote about the challenges being faced by ADA WRT redesigned flight-control laws/logic. But all this has nothing to do with IOC or even FOC, but with obtaining the Certificate of Airworthiness (CofA) for a fully armed and equipped Tejas Mk1, which will be issued by CEMILAC in consultation with ASTE, while both IOC & FOC are formalisation of capabilities to be bestowed by the IAF’s Planning, Operations & Logistics Directorates. People (including Dr V K Saraswat the Great) always get confused between IOC, FOC & CofA. IOC & FOC will be attained only AFTER the HQ Training Command & its Gwalior-based TACDE completes writing the operational manuals for the Tejas Mk1’s employment in air combat & ground strike missions, while the IAF’s HQ Maintenance Command formalises the aircraft’s serviceability & MRO norms/protocols for the benefit of the IAF’s Tejas Mk1-equipped squadrons. Therefore, in conclusion, progress is TEMPORARILY hampered due to the CofA issue, & has nothing to do with IOC & FOC.

July 28, 2012 at 2:18 AM 
To FARIS: When talking about turbofan-powered platforms only, one cannot compare the performance of the APY-1 mechanically-scanning radar with the EMB-145’s AESA-based radar, which makes use of electronic beam-steering. Then there’s the issue of a turboprop-powered platform equipped with an AESA radar & a turbofan-powered platform equipped with AESA radar. The fact that the former can achieve airspace surveillance for 200km while the latter can go as far as 400km (Like the A-50I PHALCON) explains it all, without dabbling in trigonometry. Had propellers of turboprops affected radar performance, platforms like the E-2C would never have seen the light of day.

To ANAND: By March 2013, the 36 coastal surveillance radars will all become operational. These stations will later be equipped with LORROS-type optronic sensors. But even after all this, while it will be possible to detect vessels/boats within India’s territorial waters, identification will still be a big problem, since most of the dhow-type fishing vessels won’t be equipped with automatic identification system (AIS) transponders. Although the IN & ICGS has been insisting since early 2009 that fitment of such AIS transponders be made a mandatory practice for all India-owned/India-based vessels, the fisherfolks’ associations from all coastal Indian states have demanded financial assistance from their respective states, and all these states have declined such requests, citing paucity of funds as the excuse. That is how serious these states are about securing their coastlines!!!
 

Will the C-17s be used to replace the IL-76s in IAF service? As it strikes me as uneconomical to use the C-17 used for the exact same missions as the IL-76s currently are especially as there are,what, 25 IL-76s in service but as yet only 10 C-17s ordered. It strikes me that the IAF isn't going for many more than 12 C-130J-30s and the MTA is delayed as it is and not in the same category as the IL-76 as is so there is quite a gap from the MTA to the C-17 once the IL-76s are phased out.

What exactly is the IAF doing to adress this (if anything?) and how many C-17s can we eventually expect in IAF serivce?

And won't any follow on orders for C-17s have to be ordered pretty given that the C-17 production line is soon to close after IAF C-17s are all delivered so ~2015.

Same Q for C-130Js, how many can we eventually expect?

July 28, 2012 at 5:36 AM 
To UNKNOWN: Yes, the existing 23 IL-76MDs will be replaced by about 20 C-17As by the end of this decade. As for C-130J-30s, up to 18 or even 24 could well be ordered, including about six for movement of CAPFs throughout the country. Neither the C-17A assembly line nor that of the C-130J is faced with imminent closure, as there are quite a few pending reqmts arising from the Middle East & East Asia, which will keep the orders backlog for at least the next five years. That’s the least of all worries. The MTA will supplement the upgraded An-32Bs.

July 28, 2012 at 6:40 AM 
Prasun, while you are in the US could you ask Boeing if they have any plans to devlop the V-22's AEW into reality and pitch this seriously to IN?

+ regarding C-17, would you not say there is a need to fill the gap between the MTA and C-17? Maybe A400? Has IAF shown any serious interest in the A400 at all? And what is the likelihood of the ICG and BSF getting C-130s as has been said is a possiblty in the past?

Also will the IAF/met dept go for WC-130s for weather studying duties as has been speculated?

July 28, 2012 at 7:50 AM Purbayan Roy said...

Hi Prasun, why only 24 Harpoons were ordered for 8 P-8I?Will there be a follow on contract?The SLAM-ER is already operational. So will the IN go for it?When will the follow-on contract for 4 additional P-8I be signed.

Will all the 22 AH-64 Apaches for the IAF feature Longbow radars.In an article in telegraph i read that 12 Lonbow radar sets will be purchased. 22 is very low a radar.Will there be follow on contracts?60-80 helos must be ordered when the airforce is not allowing the army to have its own heavy attack helicopters.

Will only 18 Chinooks be ordered ? Around 40 should be ordered.The army will benefit greatly from the Chinooks if not the IAF.It can be used as a heavy troop carrier during airborne assaults, for resupplying troops in the frontline, for gun emplacement & as a carrier of the M-777 .

July 28, 2012 at 9:14 AM Rahul said...

Hey, why will IL-76 need to be replaced with C-17 in IAF service. The IL-76 are relatively new in IAF service.They have been inducted from 1986 onwards. They have lots of service hours left in them.If it had ben 35 yrs old, then it would have made sense to replace them like in the case of Avros which are nearly 40 years old. There are 24 IL-76 in service with the IAF. I thought hat the C-17are being procured to supplement the existing heavy transport fleet and augment and increase the af's airlift capabilties.The IA was intending to raise new airborne divisions and 20 extra strategic airlifters would have been quitq helpful them.Also they can be used to carry the 20 t mounted gun systems of the Army thus making the C-130 free for special ops missions and IL-76 free for other airlft puposes.Also sometime ago, there was a proposal to haevily upgrade the entire IL-76 fleet, relife and renew the airframe, wings , engines, introuce a new glass cockpit,etc.

July 28, 2012 at 10:11 AM 
Hi Prasun, is Boeing pitching the AEW&C variant of the V-22 to the IN? 2 V-22 AWACS onboard INS Vikramaditya will gretaly enhance the survellience and early warning capabilties of the CBG. And the onboard radar of the V-22 will be much superior in performance to the one on Ka-31 .

What is the Chinook's payload at 20000 ft. Can it carry its full payload of 12 tonnes at 20000ft AGL?

Is the air-refuelling probe in the Rafales fixed or retractable? If fixed, why havnt Dassault made it retratable like the ones on the Typhoon, Super Hornet. How tolerant are CFC structures to fire? CFC being sandwiched carbon polymers are much vulnerable to fire than metall based alloys.Metal alloy skins of fighter jets are able to withstand fire upto some degree.Suppose during a dogfight, the Rafale receives a few shots, and a part catches fire. Then immediately that part of the airframe will start melting and is destroyed and the pilot has to bail out. If the part was made from titanium, or aluminium based alloys then it can take considerable damage from fire and still maintain structural integrity and bring the pilot safely to base.

July 28, 2012 at 10:27 AM Black Hawk said...

The navy's carriers like IAC and vikramaditya will be hosting just about 20 planes each. For such a small number should we have to split it between MiG-29Ks and naval tejas? isn't it too much a strain on logistics to maintain two completely different planes on the high seas in a medium sized carrier that too at least 1000 km from the nearest indian naval base? even the USN with its mammoth super carriers uses just one type of fighter across its entire naval aviation force. here we are inducting all sorts of platforms like naval tejas, MiGs and in future even the navalized FGFA.

July 28, 2012 at 12:53 PM 
In one of the pics of Apache briefings, ballistic tolerance to 23 mm is mentioned. Now, will the Apache provide all round 23 mm protection? Except of the glass canopy, can every part sustain direct 23 mm hits and keep on performing? Can the main & tail rotor assembly, main rotor blades and tail rotor blades take 23 mm hits & keep on rotating? Will the Apaches for us feature IR jammer such as DIRCM?

What is the ballistic tolerance level of the Chinook airframe and rotor blades? What self defense package will the IAF CH-47 feature?Will it have DIRCM ?

Why arent the IAF C-130J , IN P-8 feature AAQ-24 Nemesis DIRCM? It will come as standard fit on the C-17 .

July 28, 2012 at 1:42 PM 
To UNKNOWN: Firstly, who ever said that I’m in the US? After all, why should Mohd go to the mountains when the mountains can reach out to Mohd? I don’t have to physically travel to the US in order to receive product briefings in PDF format which can just as well reach me via e-mail. These junkets are meant for those who’ve had no exposure to products of US origin (especially those who still harp about the untruth about India’s non-signature of CISMOA resulting in an inferior P-8I!). My first of several rides on a C-130H was way back in mid-1987 during a UN mission & my first carrier-landing on board a C-2 Greyhound was in mid-1990 in the Malacca Straits. The ‘desi’ journalists therefore have a lot of catching up to do & therefore are being ferried to these junkets. The V-22’s AEW version is a long distance away since no one will buy them unless the US Navy procures them, & the US Navy isn’t. There’s no gap between the C-17A & IL-214 MRTA, since the C-130J-30s have already been procured & more will arrive in future. BSF will not acquire any C-130Js as the BSF doesn’t have the human resources reqd for servicing, maintaining & flying such aircraft-types. They will therefore be owned by the IAF (I already explained this all above). For the MPA role, the C-130J-30 is on offer but here too the aircraft’s direct operating cost will be too high for the ICGS’s liking. WC-130 is on offer, but here again, the cost factor is of vital importance, since procuring a small fleet of aircraft for such missions is wholly uneconomical.

To PURBAYAN ROY: Additional AGM-84A Harpoons can always be ordered, if reqd, in successive tranches. The SLAM-ER is not for LRMR/ASW P-8Is, but is being offered for the Jaguar IS. The four follow-on P-8Is will likely be ordered only by 2014. 12 LongBow radars are more than enough for 22 AH-64Ds. Have already commented above on the need for further attack & heavylift utility helicopters. Boeing is pitching its B.737NG-based AEW & CS of the type sold to Australia, ROK & Turkey. There are no firm plans for an AEW variant of the V-22 as yet. No helicopter can carry its full payload at its service ceiling.

July 28, 2012 at 1:54 PM 
To RAHUL: How can one compare the TTSL of a Soviet-era transport with that of a transport aircraft of Western origin? Had the IL-76MDs boasted of longer TTSLs, then the world over such aircraft would have been the preferred model used by air-cargo companies, especially for UN missions. That ain’t happening, is it? Furthermore, the Russians would have first offered a deep upgrade of existing IL-76MDs to IL-476 configuration. That too hasn’t taken place and instead, the carrot of brand-new IL-476s is now being dangled. The IA never had plans for raising any ‘airborne’ Division, but a heliborne air-assault Division. The AAR probe on the Rafale is fixed. Only 23 IL-76MDs are serving with the IAF. One IL-76MD is permanently attached to the R & AW’s ARC.

To BLACK HAWK: INS Vikramaditya will be home to only MiG-29Ks. Period. The IAC-1 will only act as the host floating testbed for the LCA (Navy) Mk2. I don’t foresee both this aircraft & the MiG-29K operating together in appreciable numbers out of the IAC-1. The navalised FGFA is also not meant for either the Vikramaditya or IAC-1, but for the larger envisaged IAC-2.

To email@example.com: ballistics tolerance to 23mm is only meant for the tandem-cockpit area. IR jammer is not the same as DIRCM. IR jammers are standard fit on Apaches. CH-47F’s ballistics tolerance is far lesser than that of the AH-64D. Low-cost DIRCMs like BAE Systems’ Boldstroke are available as an option for the CH-47F. DIRCMs were never specified by the IAF for the C-130J-30, P-8I & C-17A. DIRCM can be easily retrofitted, if reqd, on these platforms in future, as well as on high-value airborne platforms like the A-50I PHALCON.

July 28, 2012 at 2:01 PM 
A while ago you have answered one of my questions that IAF IL-76 will be upgraded to IL-476 standard where the air frames will strengthened and zero-lifed.

Its understood that Russian are having trouble with IL-476 like the fly-by-wire flight controls etc but they can be easily remedied by Western Assistance (An option which is open,again mentioned by you)

What went so drastically wrong that we have to go for all Western Strategic Aircrafts ? I am not against the C-17's they are highly capable,reliable aircraft & need to acquired in large numbers. But not by phasing out the IL-76 ( When there is scope of upgrading them or in worst case IAF can ask Russia to buy back our older IL-76 in return for new orders for IL-476). I accept the fact that the less diverse the fleet for any force the lesser the MRO headaches. but by doing this we will be putting all the eggs in one basket which will be risky at some point.

There is also a option of An-70 which are much more efficient than the IL-76 in the 40-50 Ton payload category.

With reference to Avro replacement. Why doesn't the MOD go for economies of scale and make a large order for C-27J Spartan by clubbing the future An-32 replacement. Initial 56 planes will be replacements for the Avros and the later ones can be used as replacements for the AN-32. If license assembly and manufacturing is taken up in India the annual production rate won't be more than 6 aircrafts. Production can go on for more than a decade and gradually replace the 100+ An-32 by end of next decade. Such large order can justify local manufacturing and assembly.

July 28, 2012 at 3:48 PM 
with respect to Apaches , are u insane that the thinly protected tandem cockpit area can resist 23 mm hits?The plexiglass of the cockpit can at max take direct hits from .50 cal rounds.The underbelly has the most ballistic tolerance. The Mesa Arizona plant technicians said so during Megafactoies AH-64 episode. And as for the rest of the airframe, the rotor assemblies and the main & tail rotor blades, they ought to be able to take direct hits of a bigger gun calibre than .50 cal.

And whats the difference between IR jammer and DIRCM? The latter uses a laser beam to fry the missile seeker while Ir jammer just radiates IR energy. Pls reply

July 28, 2012 at 5:25 PM 
Hi, Does this mean that the IL-76 in IAF as well as ARC service has reached the end of their service lives.So why not restrengthen the wings and relife and zero- lift the wings,airframes & engines. Cant HAL perform them in country? Or sent these transport jets to Ukraine or Russia for MRO and relifing. And once the upgrade for them is availble, upgrade them.Is the IAF fully bent on retiring them from service. The AN-32 fleet is exactly or a little more aged than Il-76 fleet. When they can remain in service, why not the Ilyushins? Russian companies will agree to zero-lifting & relifing the IL-76. Why cant the IAF both possess 223 Il-76 and 10/20 C-17s .

July 28, 2012 at 5:43 PM 
Sir, a few queries :
1.HAL now has got enough expertise regarding the Jaguar taht it can produce any nos the IAF wants.So if the need arises cant HAL redesign the nose to accomodate a mmr radar if at all required. HAL can also increase the wing area for more lift for carriage of more weapons.(With F-125 engine, the payload will increase all right but with greater lift the ac will be able to carry full payload at all altitudes and be more manuverable)

2.An aesa with SAR,ISAR,GMTI and terrain fllowing modes is favorable.If suchan aesa is available why not fit one into the Jaguar's nose during the deep upgrade as part of DARIN-3. A low cost IRST such as Skyward should also be fitted.

3.The IAF aquired 158 Jaguar in total. How many of these were lost to crashes? Why only 120 and not the whole fleet be subjected to the deep upgrade. 120+ recent 20 newbuilds and the no should be 140 upgraded Jag , not 128.

4.I have read your repy to MR RA 13.When the IAF is not allowing ownership rigths to IA, it needs to possess heavy attack helo assests. The MiG-27 were not only used for tank busting and close air support but also tactical interdiction strikes and ground attck against enemy logistics in rear ares of the batlefield.The last two roles it shared with the Jaguar IS. Now however dumb the MiG-27 may be, it was used in tactical strikes.And once they are gone, they will be a gap and the whole pressure will be on the Jaguars. And roles like infantry support and tank busting can only be performed by helos with long loitering time on station. Sooner or later the IAF had to procure such assests.

The IAF will under all circumstances not allow a decrease. Just look at the various orders. The IAF is very anxious about Tejas mk2 and so it has decided to fill it with all the high techs currently available in the market.If everything goes smoothly with it, sizable nos will be orderd. If it fails , likely more Rafales. Also Su-30 will be ordered. Why not go for 100. This u hav nt ansed previously .

5. What acs the FGFA will replace in IAF service ?When FGFA enters service in 2018, the Jaguars would have reached the end of their lifes and will need replacement.

And VER VERY THANX for the various replies .

July 28, 2012 at 6:19 PM AK said...

Hi, like the 1st Chinook with the US Army will be remanufactured and zero lifed and returned to service, why cant the same happen happen with the IL-76 .

July 28, 2012 at 7:25 PM 
Then does it make any sense to develop the naval tejas if we are not going to base it on a carrier? Maritime strike is done by the jaguar and we are not retiring those either. so where does the naval tejas fit in in the navy's scheme of things in the future?
 
Sir, can the various AoA problems facing the Tejas be sorted out ? Or HAL has to again go to the drawing boards? Will the Tejas mk2 suffer from a similar problem or due to its revised structure it wont face any.You stated that the Tejas is the most unstable aircraft. Why has DRDO & HAL designed it in such a manner? If the on-board fly by wire system malfunctions or gets damaged during an aerial warfare will the pilot be able to fly the Tejas. What do you mean by 2nd gen manufacturing processes ? Does the HAL manufacturing plants have automayed systems suchas robots like the ones in automotive industries or everything is done by hand. Will HAL built a new manufacturing plant for tejas where there will 4 gen processes and lots of them can be prodeced in a year .

July 28, 2012 at 8:53 PM 
I guess this might be the reason why IAF is not giving a thought
to use Teajas Mk1 as LIFT ,what you have been saying.

July 28, 2012 at 10:16 PM 
so now the only hope for IAF is the Tejas Mk 2 , as MK 1 is totally useless now without CofA .

July 28, 2012 at 10:19 PM 

Too late MMRCA is gone wat high tech stuff does US want to sell that India cant buy elsewhere?

July 28, 2012 at 10:54 PM 
could this be true?
Funny would IAF or Ia would be interested?

July 28, 2012 at 11:05 PM 

Did India show interest in S400 sam?
I think Barak LR-MRSAM will suffice our requirement

July 28, 2012 at 11:07 PM 

Rightly so.
Are u aware of the program DRDO to be aired on Discovery Channel lets see will it be full of cock n bull stories!

July 28, 2012 at 11:28 PM 
To SK: The problems all are arising entirely from the Russian side, i.e. its inability to get its act together & complete the IL-476’s R & D process. For the past five years the IL-476 project has been in the works & till today no viable solution has emerged from Russia. Therefore, it is not just an issue of IL-76MDs having upgrade potential, but also about the future of the IL-78MKI aerial refueling tankers as well, which the IAF is addressing with its MRTT programme. Then there’s the A-50I PHALCON platform to be handled. All in all, the NDA government, in now appears, totally misread the prevailing situation in Russia & the CIS and placed all eggs once again into the Russian basket, and the problems are now for all to see & evaluate. The PHALCON project could easily have been based on the Airbus A310-300 airframe, & the same can be said for the aerial refuelling tankers as well. Indian strategic visioning clearly was absent when it was required most. In today’s world, therefore, it is far more safer to deposit all eggs into the basket of EITHER the US or EU, but is not at all financially viable when talking about sharing the eggs between these two baskets. Ukraine’s aerospace industrial viability too remains a huge question-mark, & for all intents & purposes the An-70 has almost morphed into the Y-20 strategic airlifter for China. Let’s now wait & see which of the two becomes more successful: Embraer’s C-390 or the IL-214 MRTA.
Regarding the HS-748 replacement, my personal appreciation calls for the expansion of C-130J fleet to eventually encompass the roles of both the An-32B & HS-748s. The HS-748s & An-32Bs were procured at a time when there was an acute lack of airport infrastructure. Today, with the proliferation of Tier-3 airports & ALGs capable of hosting black-top runways instead of grass strips, a turboprop-powered transportation aircraft fleet comprising C-130Js will be the optimum choice, as felt by a predominant section of HQ IAF. On the other hand, if for ‘political reasons’, the C-27J is selected, then it makes sense to increase the procurement order to eventually replace the An-32Bs.

To email@example.com: Before jumping to oversimplified conclusions, you ought to read something worthwhile in my previous blog at: http://trishulgroup.blogspot.in/2009/10/russian-approaches-to-combat-helicopter.html
IR jammers constitute the soft-kill option, while DIRCMs are hard-kill directed-energy weapons.

July 28, 2012 at 11:30 PM 
To RAHUL: Have already replied in part your queries on IL-76 life-extension in my reply to SK above. Neither HAL or the IAF has any depot-level maintenance capability for the IL-76 family of aircraft. And nor does Ukraine. Only Russia & Uzbekistan have such capabilities. And of these two countries, only Tashkent has all the documentation reqd for producing new-build IL-76s. An-32Bs can remain in service because all OEMs connected with the An-32 are Ukraine-based & has no dependency on any other CIS member for sourcing components & sub-systems. The same cannot be said about the IL-76, or even the Mi-17V-5 helicopters of the IAF, all of whose VK-2500 engines are being supplied by Ukraine’s Motor Sich JSC, & not by Russia’s Klimov JSC. There’s still time for Russia to get its act together regarding the IL-476 but if, by 2014 this does not happen, then the IAF will have no choice but to opt for an all-C-17A fleet of strategic airlifters. And mind you, IL-76MDs have severe limitations when it comes to airlifting MBTs & field artillery howitzers, whereas the C-17A is far more versatile.

To email@example.com: Regarding P.3, abiut 15 have been lost to air crashes. And from 140 you must subtract the 12 Jaguar IMs for maritime strike, which don’t require re-engining. On P.4, I don’t visualise the need for 100 additional Su-30MKIs. The nett amount of firepower required for tactical interdiction is easily achievable with the IAF’s future projected fleet that I had stated yesterday. Regarding P.5, the FGFA will replace the Su-30MKI in the air supremacy role. The Super Su-30MKIs will then take over the air dominance role.

To AK: Have already explained all that above.

To firstname.lastname@example.org: Of course they can & will be. I’ve already explained above how the problems can be sorted out. Solutions are always available, even if it comes to choosing the lesser of the two evils. The Tejas Mk2’s R & D process will logically derive several valuable lessons from the Tejas Mk1’s R & D endeavours. This is the universal evolutionary process of negotiating the learning curve & there are no other alternatives available to this. It wasn’t me who stated that the Tejas is the most unstable aircraft. Nor did I claim that 2nd-generation manufacturing processes were employed by HAL. That news-item was reproduced by me from another blog.

To DASHU. No, not the Tejas, but the F-117A is the most unstable combat aircraft built to date. All the AoA-related deficiencies of the Tejas are resolvable, as I had explained yesterday. Therefore, let us not make a mountain out of an anthill. Try to be a pessimistic optimist like I am.

To email@example.com: National wargaming centres, tri-services cooperative engagement capabilities, architectures for C4I tactical communications systems, technologies reqd for satellite-based ballistic missile early warning, just to name a few. The list is quite long.

July 28, 2012 at 11:32 PM 

Tall claims again will it be true

July 28, 2012 at 11:56 PM 
To email@example.com: That should be extremely interesting, & I hope that the DRDO officials to be interviewed do manage to give a firm datelines of the BMD network’s deployment schedule, especially those concerning the test-firings of the AD-1/AD-2 interceptor missiles. We can then compare such data with the DRDO’s earlier discredited claims of fielding the PDV interceptor by 2011. That should put an end to all the jingoistic tirades of constipated arse-fucked morons in other chat-forums that never fail to confer praises on what is up to now simply an end-to-end simulator for theatre missile defence.
And as for the presence of the IAF’s then Vice-Chief of the Air Staff P K Barbora in July 2010 at Wheeler Island (see: http://www.thehindu.com/news/article535042.ece), just look at his amber overalls (worn when one is flying either a helicopter or a combat aircraft over the high seas) & one will realise that he was neither present to evaluate the test-firing nor was he heading any IAF delegation to witness or evaluate the test-firing. In fact, he had gone to the PEE facility at Balasore a day earlier & was due later to fly over to the ITR to take stock of Sudarshan LGB prototypes’ pre-scheduled launch-evaluations & since he had a bit of discretion of time available in his hands, he hurriedly made a last-minute decision to fly to Wheeler Island to just witness the test-firing of an AAD but not as an officially deputed observer, since the IAF NEVER sends a single-man observation/evaluation team.

July 29, 2012 at 12:19 AM 

Will the Project 15B destroyers house the Brahmos II,100 km range Barak ERSAM and Nirbhay missiles.I have read that the 1st vessel will be named INS Bengaluru and its construction has already started.


Is that true?What will be their likely improvements over project 15A destroyers and how will they compare over existing Chinese destroyers?



July 29, 2012 at 1:30 AM 
To ANAND: The 3 P-15B DDGs, just like the 3 P-15A DDGs, will have the BrahMos-1 Mk1 ASCM & Barak-2 MR-SAM. No LR-SAMs or Nirbhay, whose only known variant to be under development is the ALCM version. What has begun is fabrication of various modular sub-sections of the hull, which will all be fitted together AFTER the official keel-laying ceremony takes place. Externally, the P-15Bs will closely its P-15A counterparts & the LW-08 radar will be replaced by the RAN-40L, while the 100mm ARSENAL-built main gun of the P-15A will be replaced by the 127mm main gun from OTOBreda. Extensive use will be made of composites-based armour panelling throughout the hull, and licing quarters will be a lot more spacious (this will be on the P-17A FFGs as well) & this is where Fincantieri of Italy's role will be pivotal, since the architecture & fabrication quality of living quarters of the Fincantieri-supplied fleet replenishment tankers--described by the IN as 'mind-blowing'--has now been adopted as the definitive standard for adoption on board the P-15B DDGs & P-17A FFGs.

July 29, 2012 at 2:26 AM 
To ANAND: When compared with PLAN's DDGs, in terms of overall crew comfort, combat firepower & net-centricity, the P-15A & P-15B DDGs plus the P-17A FFGs will be a generation ahead. But existing PLAN DDGs & FFGs already have something which their Indian counterparts don't: secure SATCOMS connectivity for individual crew comfort, i.e. specially created workstations where off-duty crew can send & receive e-mails to/from their loved ones, & also engage in web-browsing. One hopes that with the launch of GSAT-7 fleet comms satellite, such facilities will be made available to Indian naval crew complements as well.

July 29, 2012 at 2:32 AM 
u talk about the c27j or c130j super hercules replacing the entire an32b & avro fleet..that would require atleast 150 plus aircraft atleast..is there ant chance of super hercules making the cut..is anything like that in works at the air HQ..moreover sir , then what aircraft will the MRTA replace..& y not order more MRTA over any other aircraft..mrta is atleast party indigenous..& large order for it would be good for the country..

July 29, 2012 at 4:47 AM Vikram Guha said...

Hello Prasun,

If I have to take a look at blog posts from 2006 , 2007 etc in your blog , how do I do it ?


July 29, 2012 at 11:04 AM 
1.How can the FGFA replace the Su-30 ? Then the nos will again decrease.The Su-30 isb the most new addition to IAF,s fleet .It will continue to serve for many years to come. The FGFA will supplement and not phase out the Sukhois.

2.Previously u had said that all of the Sukhoi-30 fleet will be upgraded to the Super standard in phases.Not the 1st 50. The 1st 50 will differ from the rest of the fleet in that it will be stucturally strenghthened to carry a single Brahmos in its centre-line pylon. The Sukhois will continue to serve in the air dominance and superiority role.This segment will also be partly shared by PAK-FA/FGFA. But the main role it will perform is deep strikes well into the enemy,s hinterland where the stealth factor will play a huge role for surpassing enemy cap and iads.

3. If u look at the acs IAF is about to order , u will find that the acs no will almost remain stagnant. If DRDO can deliver Tejas mk2 , as planned huge nos are expected to be ordered.

4.Has the IAF mentioned such AESA , IRST for the deep upgrade of its JAguars or it is still formulating the package?

6.How can u say that PLAAF had not ordered a total of 450 Su-30/27 right from the beggining. When deliveries will be completed the total Sukhoi fleet will no 450. It will include Su-30MKK/MK2,Su-27 and J-11.Read about this in ausairpower , wiki .

July 29, 2012 at 11:50 AM 
HI Prasun, why will the P-15A not feature Brahmos 2 with 550 km range? Will it carry the Rawl LW-08 radar? It is a very old radar and has become obsolete. In wiki it is mentioned that it will have Elta 2238 L-band STAR. What happened to it?
And isnt its weapons complement is:
• Anti-ship: 4× 4-cell BrahMos UVLM
+ 1 x 100 mm AK-100 gun
• Air-defence: 2× 32-cell VLS Barak 8
• CIWS: 4AK-630 gatling guns + 4× 8 cell Barak 1
• Anti-submarine warfare: Torpedo tubes and 2× RBU-6000

Why isnt it having updated point defense sam such as RAM , VL-MICA & Palash, Palma. The vessels are new and these systems can be fitted no if the IN wants .

July 29, 2012 at 1:22 PM 
Hi, if the Russian option fails, why cant IAF HQ straightaway apporach Tashkent for overhaul of IL-76. As u said, Tashkent due to having the entire documentation can build new IL-76.Then they can as well rebuild and zero-lift the old ones . Also why dont the Uzbekistan aerospace companies come up with an upgrade of the Ilyushins?As far as things stand, the IAF will wait till 2014 & then take the final decision. The 10 C-17 that IAF has contracted for will supplement the existing strategic airlift fleet. And if things go wrong in 2014 with the IL-76 then the IAF will replace the entire fleet with an equal no of C-17 .

July 29, 2012 at 5:06 PM 
Why do you prefer the C-130 to replace the HS-748 & An-32 ? Both of these aircraft's are twin-engined and have a payload between 5-9 tons. C-27J with its 14 Ton payload will bring additional capacity still being twin engine. Its operational/running costs will be less. The four-engined C-130J will only brings a additional 6 ton payload to the table but doubles the running cost.
Or are there any performance related parameters on which u based ur C-130 preference.

July 29, 2012 at 9:26 PM 
is it arjun mk1a or mk2?

July 29, 2012 at 9:39 PM 
Sir, what are the various impediments to adopting 3 shifts in the naval shipyards for faster production?Is it the absence of enough skilled manpower or the MoD is unwilling to have 3 shifts ?

Why was the Brahmos plant created in South India? Why dont we import Brahmos off the shelf? Upto now i thought that Brahmos aerospace manufactured everything except for the seeker which is made by Granit. Now i see almost everything is made in Russia and imported to us. Who had the brilliant idea of setting up this plant.This money could have been used to expand HAL's production facilities.

July 29, 2012 at 9:52 PM 
To email@example.com: I wasn’t referring to the stretched C-130J-30 Super Hercules, but the C-130J version as replacements for the HS-748. The MRTA will take over the roles of some An-32Bs, but in most cases the MRTA will be inducted for the expansion of the IAF’s aerial logistics capabilities. In future, maritime patrol versions of the MRTA are likely to be ordered to replace the existing Do-228s of the IN & ICGS.

To VIKRAM GUHA: My earlier blog, which took off in September 2008, is at: http://trishulgroup.blogspot.in/

To firstname.lastname@example.org: I’m referring to the role-replacement, not aircraft replacement. For the Jaguar IS, no AESA-MMR or IRST sensor has been specified as yet. When it comes to combat aircraft/turbofan orders placed to date with Russian OEMs for the PLAAF, I prefer to rely more on credible sources like Russian OEMs, instead of third-party sources like the ones you’ve mentioned.

To PURBAYAN ROY: The BrahMos-1 Block 3 with 550km-range is for land-launch & land-attack only & possesses top-attack capabilities. It will be of no use for naval warfare. Furthermore, the IN lacks the means reqd for providing over-the-horizon mid-course guidance cues for long-range missiles like either the BrahMos-1 Block 3 or Nirbhay. In fact, even now none of the three Project 17 FFGs can engage maritime targets beyond 50km with the Garpun Bal-E/3M54E Klub-N combination, simply because the 10-tonne shipborne MRH helicopters have not yet been acquired, & are unlikely to arrive before 2015. EL/M-2238 is an S-band radar, not L-band. The LW-08 is by no means obsolete.

July 30, 2012 at 12:18 AM 
To AK: MRO is not the impediment here. The IAF’s IL-76MDs have been going to Russia for periodic MRO. Service life-extension & its airworthiness certification is a totally different affair & is not the same as periodic MRO. IL-76MD service life-extension & its airworthiness certification can be finalised & guaranteed only by Russia’s Ilyushin OKB. The main problem is between Uzbekistan’s TAPO & Russia’s Ulyanovsk-based AVIASTAR, with TAPO refusing to permit the transfer of the IL-76MD’s entire industrial production facilities to Ulyanovsk. Therefore, while TAPO can only produce the original-design IL-76MDs/MFs, it doesn’t have the support from Ilyushin OKB for producing the IL-476. And on the Russian side, AVIASTAR has so far been unable to replicate the IL-76’s manufacturing facilities in Ulyanovsk, and without this, not even an IL-476 prototype can be built.

To SK: While the direct operating cost (DOC) of the C-130J is higher than that of the C-27J, on the other hand, the C-130J, due to its greater payload-carrying capability, has to fly far fewer sorties than the C-27J, thereby incurring lesser expenditure in total operating costs per logistics assignment. In India’s case, be it for humanitarian relief operations or for transportation of armed forces/CAPF personnel, one will always have to deal with far greater numbers of personnel & greater volume of materials to be transported within the country. The same applies to overseas aerial logistics support under UN auspices. In addition to all this, fleet standardiisation alone will result in far lower life-cycle costs for the aircraft inventory. Most importantly, smaller STOL aircraft were reqd during the era when there were more grass-strips available than asphalted runways. That is not the situation anymore.

To MADHUP: Arjun Mk1A MBT.

To email@example.com: The main impediments are A) intention; & B) Mindset. Shortage of skilled manpower has always been a problem and that’s why most of the MoD-owned shipyards have periodically been recruiting contract-workers, especially skilled welders. That’s the reason why one doesn’t see the hulls of warships built at these MoD-owned shipyards as being smooth & uniform. Different welders have different worksmanship attributes & one can see them all in different varieties when the fully fabricated superstructure is visible to all. And as to who had the brilliant idea of setting up BrahMos’ final-assembly plants in India, it was none other than Dr A P J Abdul Kalam. Anyway, here’s the latest info: The 32nd flight test of BrahMos supersonic cruise missile was carried out at 1030 hrs from a test range at Chandipur off Odisha coast as part of Development trails, today on the 29th of July 2012. The objective of the mission was to evaluate some of the newer subsystems which are produced from the Indian industry as part of production stabilization. More than 25 such systems were incorporated in the development missile. The 32nd launch was primarily aimed at testing the new power systems, materials for airframe components, guidance scheme and various electric systems. The data obtained from multiple telemetry stations of ITR are being analysed for large scale production by the Indian industries.

July 30, 2012 at 12:39 AM July 30, 2012 at 12:16 PM 
Hey , Is the P-8 a viable replacement for P-3C. The latter had 4 turboprops while the former have 2 turbofans. If any of the engines on the P-3C malfunctions or goes out of service the aircraft would have no problem in returning to base. Whereas in P-8 the failure of a engine would result in the ac tilting to one side.The chances of returning to base would be very small.Also the weapons payload of P-3 was 9 t and it had hrdpoints versus 4 of P-8. Performance wise which acs radar and other sensors are the best-IL-38,P-8I, Tu-142 with Sea Dragon suite. Does the P-8I, C-130J have infrared jammers ?

July 30, 2012 at 3:35 PM Bud Furn said...

Thanks for sharing, I will bookmark and be back again.

Modular Workstations Chennai

March 28, 2016 at 2:00 PM