Nick_76I typed out a long post to Jonesy and lost it in a crash – aw shucks!
Nick_76Ok. Good post Nick. If I can say that without accusation of further condescension?
Not at all, thanks for that!
Perhaps so, but, as I said from the start there was no malice or ill will intended. Also I made my point about BR, potential inaccuracies inadvertent or otherwise, solely as it was used as source evidence in a adversarial post. I sought to point out that as a prime source it may, in some cases, not display enough objective depth of information. I have done so and, as you rightly pointed out, the nationalistic tendencies I perceive in some aspects of the site are nothing more than my own opinion. They do remain my perception however.
All I am saying is that as we can imagine, a single source cannot be expert on everything, and unless each admin is a subject matter expert, some portions will be more equal than others. For instance, IAF/IA history is excellent, ditto for Local missiles/ space program- reason being you have historians and aerospace engineers doing that bit. Now to the rest – they depend on Janes, defense news, stuff like that- and given the level of (in)accuracy in those sources from time to time, even the details on the pages get mucked about. Nothing particularly flag waving in it, I think.
Nick I’ve seen a great many Indian posters use the line that I can have no considered opinion on IN issues because I’m not in the IN – unless of course my opinion is in line with theirs, in which case my opinion is spot on and I am to be commended for it!. Whoops…sorry got near the nationalism thing again didnt I?. Remiss of me!.
Those posters aint me, mate.
Let me settle one thing right now – I am not concerned about the BrahMos threat to US/UK interests in the IO at all. This is because until the IN stops p1ssing around with white elephants like Gorshkov and BrahMos and starts to address the real threats it has in theatre its not that much of a threat – certainly not in blue water. Harsh statement perhaps?. Not a bit. Ask any Argentinian naval officer what its like facing competent SSN’s when your ASW aint quite all there!. How far off are the Akula’s/ATV’s?. Is there an Indian SURTASS programme – recently read something about Chinese strides in passive sonar ranging that might as well have had a picture of a Chinese SURTASS-type boat on it!. They get it – the IN doesnt seem quite there yet!.
Fair point- but thats your POV, I can say different, but then again given that we both agree that the India vs US matchup isnt a possibility, then going on the above tangent would be a waste of time.
Now as to the ASW bit- its being addressed, again not at the rate a US type procurement program could do, but nevertheless being done, by getting increasing numbers of ASuW choppers in service, getting the older ones upto speed as well as scouting for new ones (most probably from EADS). That apart the sensor fit on the Indian ships is going through substantial improvement & then of course theres the overall naval networking project due by next year.
Regarding ATVs and Akulas- they are good, but given India’s current strategy of deterrence, not really essential in the short term. India is best served by operationalizing its Agni-3 and deploying it asap. Given the size of the Indian subcontinent and pre-existing shoot and scoot methodology being utilized for this series, its a credible deterrent. The ATVs and Akulas, tho’ are essential for the Navy, to stake its claim to the nuclear deterrent.;)
In the long term – yes they are quite required.
About SURTASS, the IN is very leery of releasing details about its ongoing programs- take a look at http://www.mod.nic.in for instance and the service reports. Of the three the Navy usually achieves the most and talks the least- there reports are virtually empty so as to speak. Having said that there are some indications of the Navy wanting something of the sort, tho’ I wouldnt stake my claim on it being so, without first digging up a ref- which I’ll look for.
I agree on both points. That makes BrahMos even the more unfeasible as a weapons system requested by the IN as the optimum antiship platforms for the IO are SSNs and naval aviation. I cant perceive of the IN wanting resources, that could be used in those areas, going on a missile system like BrahMos!.
Well mate, heres we have to agree to disagree. The Brahmos is deemed by the Navy, as excellent and they want it on as many platforms as possible.
The issue is not one of robbing Peter to pay Paul, tho’ every service must suffer from that to some extent, but thats not the bit here- the issue is of Indian naval acquisitions which are custom built to its requirements, and cutting out the MOD decision making cycle to something more reasonable. In that vein, local built Brahmos will continue to come in, while financial resources for longer running programs are usually allocated over different budgets and are affordable. India is currently at a stage where it is still not spending as much as it technically can on defence- as a % of GDP for instance, hence the Brahmos doesnt rob any other procurement program or waste resources on a silver bullet.
Which, give or take, is exactly what I said. Further down the road than any other regional superpower….but not there yet were my words I think?.
Your point was that the IN was putting the cart before the horse- I disagree, since the facts dont bear that out. The IN’s ISR system was planned for earlier induction, but as things go – they decided to make it even more wideranging, upgraded the specs etc and hence the NEWS is coming online next year, other assets will complement it thence. In contrast the Brahmos has been on track through out- so its merely a case of slight time mismatch. At no point does it seem that the IN went about it in a roughshod way without considering the “overall picture”. They definitely did consider the big picture & set about implementing it. The limitations that they face are often India’s own bureaucracy, which has a cumbersome set of checks and balances which take eons to complete, numerous tea & biscuit meetings between the powers that be in the MOD and finally a stamp on the file.
It wasn’t a ‘claim’….I think I said ‘it seems like’ i.e the events transpire that, at face value, give the appearance of a certain set of circumstances. Not about to argue semantics with you but to say I ‘claimed’ that the Indians jumped on the Yakhont bandwagon is exaggerating my words a bit dont you think!. Joint developments are part and parcel of most of the bigger arms deals these days though – Meko100’s to S.Africa using SA electronics, PAAMs to the RN using Brit radars etc, etc. Its not uncommon.
Again, I’m afraid thats comparing apples to oranges. Brits getting access to tech is no biggie. They are first world and NATO, doesnt get too higher than that. SAfrican electronics in Meko, well the Mekos arent getting totally built in SAfrica are they? These are basically limited offset programs which is again the norm.
What would have been a good comparison to the Brahmos is the Derby-Darter program, codevelopment. India’s take away from the Brahmos is substantial- its definitely more than an offset, but one in which Indian firms get to master the criticalities of a first class ASM system, whilst reducing the timelag associated with the learning curve by a huge margin. On their part, the Indians developed the FCS and its integration on various naval ships, the launchers, to providing parts of the missile itself.
Great!. Thats what I participate on the board for but I expect better opposition than ‘you’re not Indian shut up!’!.
Didnt say that, did I? But I would point out that what you wager is best for the Navy is not necessarily the same as being exactly that. They have access to far more data & the relevant details of their own systems and funding, regional threat profiles, and hence they can call the shots on their programs knowing exactly whats what. Something, which you & I as external observers can observe.
India didnt need the BrahMos joint venture to develop its electronics industry, it hasnt leveraged the propulsion technology from BrahMos into anything else I’ve heard of yet and I am actually at a loss to think of another weapon system that might benefit from such a propulsion system, the Indian miltary has no absolutely critical reason to go down the heavy antiship missile route because it has carrier and submarine programmes that can do antiship far more effectively.
India learnt from the Brahmos- its seeker tech & intricacies therein are something no Indian scientist would openly talk about, but the learning is there. The Indian electronics industry got a chance to scale up & apply their modular solutions developed for other programs to the Brahmos. The overall result has been a cruise missile system that is being deployed by all three Indian services- the Navy, the AF, the Army- the last of which is raising a Brahmos unit as well after having it trialled for their requirements. The propulsion technology will be leveraged- again MTCR prohibits the Indian side from yacking about it, but a longer ranged variant is on the cards. Most importantly, is the serviceability aspect of the entire program- with Indian companies developing and supplying the ATEs, the launchers and myriad other nitty gritties, the OEMs are no longer “unavailable” to the Navy.
It is my OPINION that India has very little, in reality, to gain from BrahMos other than bragging rights for packing a big missile in its inventory……be still my wildly beating heart!.
Thats your opinion. And as we all know, opinions can be very very subjective.
I could very well say that the IAF is only going to gain bragging rights for its MKIs because they could have made do with less etc, but then that would be fairly pointless too, dont you think?
Fact is: India scouted for an AShM which would give it a substantial advantage vs its regional rivals, given tech advances in the future, advance its local industry and scientific pool, and give all three of its services a substantial boost to their precision strike ability. It achieved all four of these.
That apart, there are the political & strategic aspects to this deal. India wanted a program which could serve as an “example” or be amongst the first of similar ventures- and demonstrate that such ventures could be successful. And it has. Today, with Russia- India has a host of other ventures lined up. With Israel, India is going for the Barak program & EW ones. With EADS-its a MAWs, etc.
All in all, the Brahmos was a tri-service program with far reaching ramifications for India’s defense procurement program & its achieved them. If it achieves some export success, that would be another step up for the Indian defense industry.
Thank you for telling me what I’m allowed to post here Nick – do I have to salute when I see one of your posts in future?. Am a bit out of practice but I’m sure I’ll pick it up again!!!! 😉
Thats quite alright, I wont hold you to it. 😉 😀
My background is in engineering and support. I’ve seen the impact of wasteful logistics and ludicrous numbers of different systems, performing near-enough the same function, on operations budgets and its something of a pet hate. Wherever I see examples of such inefficiency it triggers a reaction and will be something I comment on. Oh well, next time you see a Kashin or Viraat come back to port early because of insufficient or inadequate maintenance at least you can console yourself with the knowledge you have BrahMos missiles!.
Fair enough, but your point would be valid if the IN did not pay attention to its logistics and concentrated on purely silver bullet acquisitions. If anything, they have stressed on logistics to the utmost. Their entire policy of being a local sourcer stems from that. Note the Chief talking of the directorate of indigenization, to streamlining spares & support etc- these are yardsticks already achieved with many other programs underway. I would most definitely go out on a limb here, and predict that given a)India’s economic progress and b) The Navy’s remarkable outreach to industry -especially local, the serviceability and generally logistics situation of the IN is going to be pretty good.
Err dont remember comparing Ka-31 to E-2 on this thread!?. It was said that Ka-31 is the answer to long-range targetting of BrahMos – I said, again, it wasnt and it isnt!.
The KA-31 is but part of an overall chain. There will be many components to it- not just KA-31’s or individual ships and their search radars (limited to the horizon), or ESM systems or LMPA’s…
_______________________
Rest for later I’m afraid, work calls!
Nick_76Hi Harry, from this I gather its a nav unit which the ship probably needs to know its position wrt the Ka-31 and hence have the proper frame of reference for its data.
The Navy’s fleet of Kamov-31 airborne early warning (AEW) helicopters, one of its prime force multipliers, cannot effectively operate off all Naval warships — apart from the three Talwar-class stealth frigates — because of the absence of a crucial but expensive Russian navigational computer called the Elman system.
The IIT graduates, part of an incubation outfit at IIT-Kanpur called Whirlybird Electronics, were invited on board INS Viraat during the Indo-French Naval exercise Varuna in March. The team then put to the test its equipment, called NELM (an inside joke for “Not-Elman”), or technically as shipborne inertial aligment & transfer unit.
Lastly, even I think the KA-31 vs E-2 is much ado over nothing.
This is an useful OTH targeting tool and radar picket for MiG-29K’s and SHars thats about it. Its not a proper AEW & C intended for fighting off hundreds of massed enemies in an “outer air battle”.
Well of course, if India had gone for a system of that nature we’d have comments like: “careful there, Harry- you didnt need that kind of system to deal with your regional adversaries, and by doing so you have provoked/ threatened the USN “. 😉 :rolleyes:
Nick_76Nick I started this politely. If your really going to get that sensitive and defensive over an open conversation on an internet bulletin board so be it. I’m afraid I’ve heard ‘you cant criticise anything Indian cos youre not Indian’ routine before and I’ve no time for it again.
I have been polite tho’ theres a touch of sarcasm there in reply to what I feel are gross generalizations being passed off as fact. Hence I would prefer to be civil yet, call a spade a spade and call you out on what I think is subjective opinion (which you are welcome to have) but not necessarily the whole truth.
Similarly, I am not getting sensitive or defensive- I am just being blunt.
Your claims on BR are as I have politely pointed out, a tad uncharitable- because you havent contacted them or tried to point them on the right path-hence imputing motives to them without even determining the cause is simply jumping to a conclusion.
Now the other point.
The Brahmos for the IN debate has little to do with you cant criticize anything Indian because you are not Indian (nice try there, mate!)- but it has a lot to do with your opposition to the choice of Brahmos for the IN because you see it as a threat to US/UK naval interests in the Indian Ocean. I have seen dozens of your posts on this matter and you dance at the edges there, about how the IN should not have done this etc etc & it all basically comes down to this basic point. Now before you claim that I have misrepresented you, am an uncivil so & so etc- sorry Jonesy, but thats the way it does come across.
And since it does, then its a fair call to say that you or I dont decide what the Indians decide to do with Brahmos or whether they deserve it, need it, or dont. As similar to the US proceeding with the Raptor for its requirements and India or China or Korea having little say in the process.
Frankly, I think the US-India relationship is only going to grow stronger and it wont ever get into shooting war, so have a cold one, mate- its nothing to ‘fuss about. Plus given India’s economic growth, the Brahmos is only going to be the tip of the iceberg, given the correlation between economics & defence expenditure.
Now with reference to the IN setting up the ISR to support Brahmos for its needs- the sources bear out that the network is being set up and will support much more than just an AShM, and its well underway. Whether a dancer or a streaker or whatever, a long ranged AShM of any kind will be benefited by this network and it is being addressed.
Lastly, Garry has a fair point regarding the technology in the Brahmos. Your claim that the Indians just jumped onto the program as they were offered the Yakhont is also incorrect & such tech transfers are part & parcel of the usual is also incorrect. The Brahmos has a level of codevelopment, which given the MCTR & other restrictions – make it substantially different for India. The Indo-Russian coop has seen India in a position to make the seeker or components thereof, and indigenize the propulsion – per recent reports. This is a fair deal for India and will impact its other programs. All in all, a fair amount of thought has gone into the Brahmos from the Indian side- hence to claim that its merely an illthought out venture, without considering all the ramifications & that you know better, is your POV, but it will of course be challenged on an open internet bulletin board.
I’ve made all my points about BrahMos and similar supersonics anyway….to return a compliment if Garry posts something following up from my earlier post I’ll happily argue with it!. Otherwise, unless someone civil can dig up that 3M-54E pic, I’ll leave this here!.
Stick to the technical points mate & be dispassionate about it. Frankly, if it only comes down to “cost effectiveness” etc – then if India can afford the program, and given its economic growth, sustain it- its a moot point. And by all indications, it very well can.
Nick_76The Iranians are obsessed with do it yourself fully indigenous projects, by which they seem to mean using whatever they have available within the country already- that is what I was working from. I would also doubt very much that any country- china included would be willing to co-develop combat aircraft with the Islamic republic- remember the pressure the US put on Russia just for selling outdated equipment let alone sharing modern technology.
Iran faced a do or die battle with Iraq and barely came through. I think that experience has convinced them that they’d rather field obsolete but fully locally serviceable aircraft, rather than more modern ones which they’ll have to depend on others for. An understandable, but in my opinion, flawed strategy. Because against their potential enemies- ie Israel/ US, these systems will be very very vulnerable and liable to be knocked off within moments.
Nick_76Try not to see it as a copy, but as an upgrade. Here is my take on it:
-We like the F-5, but a bit more kit in the nose would be good.
-Okay, let’s enlarge the nose and put some more stuff in it. Like a radar.
-Hey, the windtunnel model of that bignose F-5-thingie we developed shows it’s really crap in yaw.
-Let’s do what is always done as an afterthought. Let’s add vertical surfaces!
-Allright, but not such a boring ventral fin like they always do. Foldable fin? Nah, the Russians did that on the MiG-23, the Chinese xeroxed that on the J-8, others have been there and done that.
-Double fin then? A bit like the F/A-18? Would be kinda cool.
-Yeah, would be cool. And an obvious way to show-off with that totally indigenous homebuilt design.In this view, the F-5 actually makes sense as the airframe is relatively simple to (re-)build and/or adjust (remember that Iran did appearantly turn former Ethiopian F-5 single seaters into duals), whereas the Phantom is a far more complex beast. Also, the F-4 is big enough that you can easily gut it and put other systems inside without having to increase the size of the aircraft to put all sorts of new stuff in.
Again, it’s pure speculation, but it does make sense. Besides, the IRIAF is a big airforce, with their F-5s getting a bit old in the tooth, they need to have a similarly sized/priced/capable replacement at hand. Saeghe fits perfectly: still an F-5 where the F-5 sufficed, but improved in areas where improvements could be made.
Could the earlier F-5s be rebuilt into this aircraft?
Nick_76Really, any embargo is beside the point! Iran does not have the legal right to copy the F-5……………… 😡
China didnt have the legal right to rip off the MiG-21 as it did. Did it stop them? Is anything stopping them even today, as they rip off designs galore?
Same thing applies to Iran.
Besides, the F-5 is waaay obsolete.
Nick_76Austin
The only limitation it sees as of now is the ability to down link the Ka-31 data is now limited to few newer ships and IN would like to have it on as many ships as possible
Righto, thats why:
http://www.indianexpress.com/story/7438.html
IIT-Kanpur helps Navy ships ‘talk’ to eye-in-the-sky choppers
Shiv Aroor
Posted online: Wednesday, June 28, 2006 at 0000 hrs Print Email
Russian communication system expensive, so IIT ‘incubation’ team builds one that passes with flying colours on board INS Viraat
NEW DELHI, JUNE 27:In an effort to extricate itself from the prohibitively high costs of equipment in the international arms market, the Navy has begun to look within. And not without success.
Following a report on May 11 last year in The Indian Express about a team of young IIT-Kanpur graduates making a mark in the country’s guided missile programme, Naval Headquarters hired the services of the same group to fix a fundamental flaw in how warships “talk” to helicopters.
The team recently went on board aircraft carrier INS Viraat and proved equal to the challenge.
The Navy’s fleet of Kamov-31 airborne early warning (AEW) helicopters, one of its prime force multipliers, cannot effectively operate off all Naval warships — apart from the three Talwar-class stealth frigates — because of the absence of a crucial but expensive Russian navigational computer called the Elman system.
The IIT graduates, part of an incubation outfit at IIT-Kanpur called Whirlybird Electronics, were invited on board INS Viraat during the Indo-French Naval exercise Varuna in March. The team then put to the test its equipment, called NELM (an inside joke for “Not-Elman”), or technically as shipborne inertial aligment & transfer unit.
Of 15 communication tests conducted between the aircraft carrier and a Kamov-31 helicopter, NELM passed 14. The error was described as a “planned error of limits.”
Now the Naval project manager, Cdr C Raghuram, has asked the IIT team led by aerospace engineering graduate Bhrah Dutt Awasthi to fine-tune their device and bring it back in four months.
“The project was initiated by the Navy chief’s scientific advisor B Lalmohan in coordination with the Weapons & Electronic System Engineering Establishment (WESEE), and is now in progress,” a Naval spokesperson said. A helicopter on a ship does not have independent means to read the ship’s own course and other parameters and requires this vital link at all times, in order to perform as a sophisticated early warning system.
“We have created a clone of the Elman through 100 per cent back-computing and reverse engineering. In four months, we will take back a fully operational product for further testing,” Awasthi told The Indian Express from Kanpur. The Navy soon wants to use early-warning helicopters to be used across the fleet.
Nick_76Nick,
No intent to slam anyone here. I actually thought I was being fairly polite!.
C’mon Jonesy, your post drips condescension about nationalism overruling facts. When you dont know what or why they wrote what they did, given the info, why impute such motives?
Information on that site is in direct contradiction with a reliable, objective, source I am aware of. The contradictory information has been public domain for years yet the BR version holds that the 54E variant has been inducted regardless of any other concern with no mention of the E1 variant reported as delivered through Russian sources. I find this selective approach…accentuating the presence of the more capable system with no apparent confirmation….suspicious in the extreme.
Give me a break. They merely reported what other sources have told them or rather printed. Are you aware of the amount of bilge that is often printed in Janes or Defense News? If you knew better as you claim, then did you contact BR or have them change their writeup? Without even making the attempt you promptly impute “nationalism” as the motive.
Not all things on BR are accurate, nor can they be- they do the best with what they have. The main site for instance, quotes the R73RDM2 because a few years back, that was the missile quoted as being the latest R73 Variant. Today we know that its the R73E, so does that make them nationalists for relying on the earlier information?
Lastly, the website is huge- there are but a handful of people running it, on their coin (without donations) and in their spare time. In the process, they have come out with the IAF’s unofficial 65 war history (a first in India), and are serving as a historical archive for service veterans. In the process, they might miss a missile here or a page there- point it out to them and they’ll correct it. Calling them “nationalists” or saying its suspicious when they dont know what the mistake is fairly pointless. Make the effort, make the call and contact them & then you have some locus standi to argue that they are going ahead with outdated info, despite knowing better.
So the IN now has its Ka-31’s, MPA’s, UAV’s escorts and tactical fighters tied into a common JTIDS-like net with extra-theatre links back to an establised command net have they?. Last time I checked on this it was certainly not the case. The IN has indeed come a long way in a year!
Again- how many Brahmos have been deployed and what evidence do you have that the current sensor chain is NOT enough for these ships? Read the interview by Arun Prakash in the other thread. By next year, the entire NEWS is going to be deemed operational. That – for anyone who follows how India has inducted other systems in the past- means that the program is well underway. You are basically making a mountain out of a molehill. The whole IN fleet does not need to be networked overnight to have a handful of Brahmos shooters linked up. And the entire plan is being done concurrently along with the Brahmos project, as is evident. This itself renders your claim of putting A before B, incorrect as its clear that both projects are proceeding apace & the Navy was aware of the need for a proper sensor chain, for the Brahmos and for its other assets as well.
How is the concept of a technology push facile?. Its one of the most common facets in the international arms development game?. You state that the IN planners knew what they were doing yet what they’ve actually done is to deploy a missile that is in no way needed to engage any surface fleet that the PLAN can deploy for the next ten years, nor any surface fleet that the PakN could deploy in twenty years – and that came from an officer in the PakN!!!!.
Again, this is your bias speaking, I am afraid. Who are *you* or *I* to determine what the IN needs or not? Are you aware of what the IN deems its future threat scenario to be? Can you speak for them? This is like some Indian dude complaining that the USAF does not need Raptors for air superiority- well guess what, they are going ahead nonetheless.
As stated a missile that has raised the issue of the IN as a potential agressive threat in a very economically sensitive region to the USN whilst not actually being capable of threatening the primary instruments of USN combat power – the CVSG!
Really. If the USN indeed regards the IN as a threat, they are welcome to. The IN cannot tie its aspirations or what it deems fit or unfit based upon the USs perceptions of its policy. If the USN wants to test all its missiles against talos and reassure itself that its “safe”, then its welcome to- who’s stopping them? India will procure what it deems to be in its best interests. Those interests are determined by Indians & Indian Naval personnel.
Lastly its a missile that has caused the Australians, Chinese and thusly Japanese, So. Koreans, Singaporeans etc to enhance their naval technologies to counter precisely the threat that BrahMos like weapons pose. Thereby dramatically reducing the value of the system in the first place!.
Right. The above, bar the Chinese are of little concern to the IN -we arent planning a war vs them, and so its frankly irrelevant. As regards the Chinese, you are basically confused- on the one side you claim that India didnt need this missile vs the PLAN otoh you claim that it will be defended against. Take a side and stick to it old chap. You seem to be cut up that the IN now has a weapon that seems fairly offensive and could pose a threat to- I dunno the US, UK etc and this seems to get you worked up. But the fact is that the IN & India will continue to go their own merry path & choose their acquisitions. If India’s MKIs make RAAF get JSF’s – well sure, let them do so, who’s bothered!
This isnt like upgrading to a more modern fighter variant or enhancing national surveillance capabilities with AWACS…this is introducing a weapon designed to hold-at-risk targets that are not specifically regional in nature. That is a big strategic shift, and not a smart one, did those planners you spoke to mention that?
Sorry thats pure hyperbole, if I ever heard any. In any context, India acquiring theaterwide AWACS & IFR, gives it far more offensive capability than any handful of Brahmos. India’s MKIs give it a strategic reach, hitherto limited solely to a handful of AF’s. One may well argue that these are acquisitions not specifically regional in nature and not a smart one, but given India’s growing economic and regional role, they were required and acquired.
Sorry old bean, your arguements dont make much sense. You may argue about the relative cost benefit of dancers vs streakers, but thats about it. The rest of the entire bit about what Indias strategy is or is not, is best left to the Indians. If the USN etc are indeed inducting whatevers required to defeat a Brahmos, what has you so worried about the “strategic shift” then?
Nick_76Hi Jonesy,
Thats an unecessary slam on BR. They arent subject matter experts (bar the Indian missiles section and the IAF history bit) so they have to reply on open source reportage. That bit about 3M-54Es came from Defense News- if you have access, you could check it? Nationalism has little to do with it, and if you know better, you can always email the admins or PM Rakesh Koshy (who’s on this board) and maintains the Navy site.
As regards the IN trumpetting something for which they havent go the targetting sorted out- how exactly would you know this? Note that the IN began its NEWS program almost six years back and has been steadily increasing and modernising its onboard and offboard sensor chain, so its definitely sufficient vs the PN/PLAN threat. In other words, there is no indication that the Navy’s plans for a proper sensor chain for the Brahmos hasnt been deployed.
As regards technology push vs the others, thats a facile arguement I am afraid. The INs planners knew what they were after (I have spoken to a bunch of them) and they preferred this solution, knowing the PNs and PLANs limitations. By the same token, India shouldnt go for AWACs or Su-30MKis or Fifth gen fighters either, because it will “push” the Paks or Chinese to do likewise.
Nick_76Well the photos look genuine.
If this is the sum total of the indigenous Iranian aerospace industry, adding a second vertical tail to the F-5 and squaring off the air intakes, its quite frankly pathetic. Maybe if they spent less time spewing hate, spreading violence, subjugating women, cutting of peoples limbs etc etc and more time engineering they might achieve something worthwhile.
Sure, but its still far better than any other aerospace industry in the Islamic bloc, tho’ thats not saying much is it? 😮
Nick_76The picture is a mig 29 and not F-14. The RD-33 would be small for a F-14 sized plane. Are these series-3 RD-33 or the older ones? Judging from the massive amount of smoke seen in the pic it is the older RD-33 series. Why are they upgrading with N019-ME? Why not Zhuk-M which is clearly superior. The range is clearly BS. The N019 has a detection range of 100Km for fighters. I think the N019-ME is around 120 Km.
Picture is of the Saeghe, and the smoke is from the rockets.
Nick_76Dear Member,
There maybe some truth about the KORNET “order of its componets”. The KORNET does not have a probe with a precursor HEAT warhead so it could degraded with ERA. Many manufactures of ATGW are relocating the main HEAT warhead to the rear of the missile (with a tunnel through the substainer motor and other componets). I have no idea but if the KORNET’s main HEAT warhead is located in the front part of the missiles body this can cause a problem.
The French with their ERYX located the smaller precursor warhead in the frotn and the main warhead in the rear. (see link below). But either way the US Army should try and find out for sure one way or another. Either the Russians have accomplished some astonishing advances in HEAT warheads (the last great advance was the Swiss development of the trumpet shaped cone) or they have not. We need to know. Remember the US Navy had a disaster at Pearl Harbor because they believed it impossible to air drop torpedoes in shallow waters of that anchorage.
Jack E. Hammond
Hi jack
The Indian Army recently placed a bulk order for Kornets and is license producing them, that process would have involved trials as well. IOW, if there were serious defects with this product, it wouldnt be an export success.
That apart, note Vas Fofanov speaks of a >750mm penetration and his data is from a few years back. Todays Kornet does 1000mm plus ERA, so it can be expected that these are upgraded units.
Lastly, I am certain the US has evaluated the Kornet or knows what its capable of. If it deemed it less of a threat, there wouldnt be such a brouhaha over when it was “thought” that Kornets could go to Iraq. All in all, I dont think the Kornet is a flop/ has design flaws- KMDB makes multiple tandem warhead missiles, and not all of them have external precursors, take a look at Metis and Refleks as well, they too have tandem warheads!
Nick_76I don’t know exactly what the antenna size is, but the Jaguar nose wasn’t designed for a radar, & when they re-profiled the nose for the Agave, it still didn’t give much room. It didn’t need to, because the Agave was small, being designed for small-nosed aircraft such as the Super Etendard. Electronis have got smaller, but even so, I wouldn’t think there’s much room in there.
Does anyone know for sure what the actual antenna size is?
Ah! Found this – Harry posted a message 23-05-2005 saying “The antenna aperture of the EL/M-2032 in the Jaguar-IM’s nose cone is too small to offer any real utilisation for long range BVR engagement, so the Derby can’t be used to it’s full potential.” But he didn’t say how small.
http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=39719
Thanks Swerve,
Bloody stupid of the IAF if you ask me, they should have tried for an antenna like the bulbous one on the Blue Vixen / SHar 2 and fit in a larger antenna there. That way, plus with a few Derby’s the Jaguar IMs could have transitioned to a self escort role.
Nick_76http://www.fas.org/asmp/resources/govern/109th/Pakistan_06-10.pdf
and they will get JHMCS under MLU for older F-16 also. => AIM9x for sure. must be a madrasa educated typist tapped that first doc out.
JHMCS yes, AMRAAM C5 yes, but AIM 9X no. Guess why? Because Uncle Sam dont wanna give MuNNA latest stuff…like we saw in the EW case (no DRFM), and there are better AMRAAMs C7 on the way for the USAF, but Aim-9X is latest and best, and a round could be “misplaced” in firing exercises.. :rolleyes:
Sign In
