^^^
On a related note, does the Indian Army have any other UAV for battlefield surveillance?
The specifications of Nishant look pretty similar to the Phoenix system, UK.

Point being, that its not the case that a foreign analogue is being bought off the shelf. The Army seems to be waiting for Nishant.

~Ashish

India has the heron, harpy (kinda a UAV) and some others which i can not remember.

Hardly this would just mean MRCA will go down the FMS route. No bribe no scandals, everything accoutned for.

I wish this happens and the IAF buys the Mig 35 or Gripen D.

Go Gripen
Go Mig

Well its true, the current ministries are nothing like the combination of Gujral and Fernandes when it comes to making sure that certain arms purchases go through.

Its amazing how the purchase of the P-8i’s , C-130J and C17 are going through without these long drawn procedures. and yet transport and logistics is just as important as the sharp end of the stick.

Anyone know of how late the MMRCA will come into service?

Sounds like we may get PAK FA before we get the MMRCA.. good old MOD and IAF. reliably late.

FWIW, the AMCA requirements stated by the IAF are currently being evaluated by ADA.
link

That last line about using Kaveri just automatically flashed up the words “DOOMED PROJECT” in my head.

Have they even down selected a partner and signed a contract yet??

So where does this sit with the PAK FA and the MMRCA and the LCA?

Anyone know why HAL manufactured trainer aircraft are or were grounded? Surely there is a quality control and design issue and confidence issue. If HAL manufactured trainers are grounded than what of other HAL products?

Was it the same plant? a management type person being extra curricular about how it supplied parts?

Selling those to Iran is an irresponsible thing to do anyhow.

depends on the point of view you look at it.

Will china be buying the Pantsir 1 to protect the S-300 units?

Anyone got any information about the LCH specification? What is it supposed to and able to achieve?

________________________

With regards to Matt’s comments regarding weapons yield being so important with regards to maintaining a credible deterrent (sorry I didn’t answer this two weeks ago, the meat world is a very harsh and demanding mistress).

Though a demonstrated weapons yield does get people’s attention, what gets lost in general conversation is a discussion of the delivery system’s CEP. If I’ve go a delivery system that has a small CEP, I don’t need a big weapon to make up for the circular error probability in taking out a target.

By being able to use a smaller yield weapon, and with the appropriate level of mastery of the art of nuclear weapons design a smaller, lighter weapon, due to a small CEP you use less very expensive materials for a specific yield and can add either or both more RVs or penetration aids to your delivery vehicle without sacrificing range.

For that matter, if the CEP is small enough, conventional weapons can be considered for servicing some targets, which really gives a nation a lot more options with regards to deterrence and escalation in a crisis. As an example, if you need to put out of commission a C4IR facility within an urban area, and have a delivery vehicle with a CEP of less than 25 m, either due to the guidance system on the vehicle and or the use of a MARV, you could use a penetrating conventional warhead for the payload and take that facility out of operation without killing the entire city.

Possibly your correct when war breaks out and there is a nuclear exchange maybe CEP matters more, however until there is a nuclear war we wont know. It could be a placebo for people i.e. it makes them feel safe for the fact that their nation does not have a large enough yield to play in the big leagues. Its simple if we get to a point where we end up in a nuclear exchange with the PLA then our nuclear weapons have failed i.e. they have not deterred.

Yield does matter no matter what you tell yourself, your weapons should be big and bold enough to make sure people think twice before forcing our hands. When playing mind games this is done by big numbers. Most of your weapons may be low yield placed onto highly accurate rockets but you would still want 1 or two big bangs to make people sit up.

Anyways thats my two pennies worth, nuclear weapons are not to be used they are for scaring, if you have got to the stage where you need to use them then they and your strategy have failed.