I am inclined to believe the pic IS of DARIN-3

http://forceindia.net/images/June-2008.jpg

Given these of the DARIN-2:
http://forceindia.net/images/June-2008.jpg
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/media/AeroIndia2007/Display_Stalls/DarinII/Darin+II+Jaguar+Cockpit+Display+04.jpg.html

So the Su-967 HUD has been retained, so has the Tarang (now probably the R118) RWR in the top left, but two new MFDs has been added. Whats not visible is the new OSAMC which is developed by DARE(DRDO) & HAL, and other avionics items, including (per reports) a radar (Probably the Elta 2032), which would replace the LRMTS.

The EW fit, namely the RF jammer, is unknown – could be a new DARE version, based on what they are supplying for the IAF MiG-29 Upg, the LCA, the MiG-27s et al.

Look at page 8 and the NFTR Facility. See a certain system there. 😉

http://www.drdo.com/pub/techfocus/june03/techjune2003.pdf

Thing is till Pakistan launched the Kargil War on India, Indian defence planners had got used to living with meager handouts.

Thats also why there is so much acrimony between earlier officers and defence R&D guys. Both were competing for the scarce peanuts on offer & bitter memories remain, about each others one-up manship.

That apart, the point was everything was moderate sized to fit in with a projected conservative outlay. It wasnt expected GOI would actually fund anything major consistently.

Now the Kargil War woke up the political establishment and the brass. Big deals were signed, and thereafter, the next admin which came in slept on the job for 5 years, had umpteen attacks, till even these new dunces realised that spending on defence is not a luxury or jingoism…but a necessary need.

What that has meant is that earlier requirements are going out of the window.

An IAF which in the early 90’s said 40 MKIs would form a “core” of technology now has 230 (-2) on order and aims for 50 more.
The Navy which didnt even expect funding now has enough clout to get local shipyards revamped and have purpose designed SAMs for its ships.

So all this means that the plans of the 80’s-90’s on which the first tranche of orders were made are now obsolete and they want something far more.
Thats become even more relevant now that Paks re-arming has become obvious and the PRC is saber rattling over the North east.

Ergo, such a mishmash of orders.

Speaking of radars, 2009 has been a very good year for DRDO.

The Bharani & Aslesha have apparently cleared trials. The Army has already ordered a few Bharanis and the IAF apparently wants some 20 odd Asleshas. Further orders from the Navy are likely.

And so has the purpose Army specific 3D TCR – Tactical Control Radar. Significant orders can be expected here as well. The Army has long been looking for a state of the art system to supplant and complement the shorter ranged Reporters and Flycatchers and the 3D TCR fits in well.

The Rohini had its orders upped from 7 to 37 units, and with Akash orders, the Rajendra has entered production in respectable amounts.The Weapon Locating Radar also recently cleared trials – so that makes some 36 orders for Rajendra based systems.

Revathi is also a very useful system for the Indian Navy – as the Navy Chief recently remarked – with EW, radars and sonars being success stories in indigenization.

BEL has put up the systems on its website (BEL is the manufacturer of these DRDO-BEL designed systems).

Bharani –
http://www.bel-india.com/index.aspx?q=&sectionid=438

Aslesha
http://www.bel-india.com/index.aspx?q=&sectionid=441

Rohini
http://www.bel-india.com/index.aspx?q=&sectionid=435

Revathi
http://www.bel-india.com/index.aspx?q=&sectionid=443

And the all new 3D TCR
http://www.bel-india.com/index.aspx?q=&sectionid=436

Note they have redesigned the system from 3 vehicles to 2 and incorporated the radar processing and control unit into the radar carrier itself, a significant achievement to meet Army mobility requirements.

Tactical Display
http://www.bel-india.com/index.aspx?q=&sectionid=68

That apart there are the multiple AESA systems developed by DRDO which the organization does not publicize much on account of their strategic capabilities.

Whats interesting in the comments by Dr Saraswat is the amount of maturity already achieved in high end AESAs for land systems.

The LCA X Band AESA FCR & the AEW&C AESA will mark a crucial step in maturing capabilities and development in airborne systems.

I’ve seldom heard any leak being bad how his own side. Remember the Indian pilots after they flew to the States ? Well, leaks from their side said they were the best around. Leaks from the other side were less glorious…

I dont know how many times this has to be clarified. FYI, the Indian side did not leak anything.

They kept their mouths shut, said Red Flag was a good learning exercise, that they wanted to replicate something similar in India because it was a) expensive and b) disrupted normal training schedules for any batch taking part.

That was it. They didnt brag, they didnt say “wow we did this, that, anything”.

It was a non participant at Red Flag by the name of Terence Fornof who made a bunch of incorrect, self aggrandizing claims about the IAF in front of a bunch of Daedalians, a community of USAF/ANG people.

It was put up on YouTube. Again, the IAF did not leak, respond etc. Only when the controversy snowballed did a couple of authoritative Indian journalists, one who had been to Red FLag during the exercise, and another who is a long standing historian of the IAF, give the “other side of the story”.

Again – even these accounts were relatively balanced and were focused on rebutting Fornof’s ludicrous claims. They did not seek to put down the USAF by making outrageous claims like the ones Fornof did, ie they acknowledged that MKI radar is inferior to that of the F-22 etc.

They did not “leak” for instance how the IAF did during the main Red Flag exercise. If they did, you’d know what all they had to be proud of.

They did not “leak” how good/bad the personnel from the USAF etc were. They made NO comments about them, unlike the manner in which Fornof behaved.

To this date, the IAF has not “leaked” what has happened in several exercises. The details are classified. Compare and contrast to the manner in which AWST et al publish how 1 F-22 took out 10 F-16s etc or what APG-80 etc radar ranges are. When was the last time the IAF published anything rah, rah about their equipment and gave away such details?

Two things – One, the IAF is a professional service which does not believe in courting too much publicity via sharing operational details of its exercises etc to the media, Second – there is a draconian OSA (Official Secrets Act) hailing from British times still in law, as such no serving member of the Indian Armed Forces will risk his commission by shooting his mouth off to the media.

One can get the details, but there is no gain in shooting one’s mouth off about one’s own service which for operational reasons, plays it cards close to the chest.

I dont have any problem with the logic that IN wants something more advanced that Mig-29K. That still does not answer my question though. Why would IN want three types of fighters for three (?) careers…provided its serious with both NLCA and the new (more advanced) type?

The assumptions here are that there will only be three carriers & that the aircraft are only for the 3 carriers. The Navy is increasingly looking towards a variety of roles & may indeed earmark some aircraft for land based roles.

That may impinge into IAF territory but the IAF I daresay, may actually let it be, because they’d want every airframe for their primary roles vs the PLAAF & PAF.

My point is India’s defence journos have been long conditioned by an inferiority complex and suitable inducements to automatically assume that an order for an import or even a suggestion to that end, means that local has been rejected. Whereas the reality is often more complex.

There were reports in the 90’s that the IAF was ordering MKIs because there was no LCA, never mind the two types had little in common & were intended for entirely different doctrines & roles.

This report is much the same thing, given that the Navy first ordered two demonstrators, and then ordered for six once the program showed maturity. And will order more once the definitive NLCA is developed, based on a combination of the LCA MK2 and the two seater which flew recently.

You have it right. That pic is of the Rustom-1 TD, based on the LCRA. Probably the same one that crashed.

Thanks for the quote.

It actually corrects what I had said, I appear to have mixed up a couple of programs.

The Chukar is actually a Northrop drone imported by India & the local drone for SAM etc seems to be Ulka.

On Chukar:
http://cgi.ebay.com/BQM-74-Chukar-Northrop-BQM74-Missile-Wood-Model-Rocket_W0QQitemZ390120952286QQcmdZViewItemQQimsxZ20091120?IMSfp=TL091120199009r21113

Some more on the BQM-74.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BQM-74_Chukar

Its still in production, in the Chukar-3 variant.

India should ramp up Lakshya production & mod them (as well as retired MiGs) based on this:

Gulf War combat use

In the 1991 Gulf War, BQM-74Cs were used as decoys during the initial air attacks into Iraq. The USAF Big Safari group was put in charge of the decoy effort, which was codenamed “Project Scathe Mean”.

The Chukar drones that were available were usually launched from DC-130 director aircraft, and could also be launched from strike aircraft such as F-15s or F-16s. These launch resources were not available, though, so the Navy found twelve ground launchers in their inventory that could be made serviceable, while RATO booster units were found stockpiled in Belgium. Each BQM-74C was fitted with a pair of passive radar enhancement devices to give it a signature similar to that of a strike fighter.

A 40-person team of specialists, obtained from disbanded ground-launched cruise missile units, was assembled in a few days and designated the “4468th Tactical Reconnaissance Group”. The 4468th moved on a fast track, with trucks modified and obtained from a California commercial trucking firm, tool kits purchased from Sears, and field gear bought from war surplus stores. The teams were given quick training, equipped with 44 Navy BQM-74Cs, and sent to Saudi Arabia in two six-launcher teams in about two weeks, arriving near the Iraqi border on 15 October 1990. The northern team was sited to cover Baghdad and large military bases in that area, while the southern team was sited to cover Basra and Kuwait City.

When the air war began on the night of 17 January 1991, Iraq was hit by waves of F-117 Nighthawk stealth fighters and BGM-109 Tomahawk cruise missiles. A group of 38 BQM-74Cs were assigned to be launched as diversion for the second wave of attacks, with the launches generally in groups of three, and 37 were launched successfully in precisely timed waves. One group of three was intercepted by Iraqi aircraft, while all the others made it to target.

The drones flew over 500 kilometers (310 miles) at 630 km/h (390 mph), then began to orbit Baghdad for up to 20 minutes. Iraqi air defense radars probed for the drones, and were immediately destroyed by allied strike aircraft firing high-speed anti-radiation missiles (HARMs). The Navy also launched TALDs to contribute to the countermeasures blitz. Iraqi air defenses never recovered from this blow, and though large Allied aircraft losses had been predicted, the Iraqis only succeeded in shooting down a handful. After the war, the 4468th was disbanded, and one of the remaining BQM-74Cs was donated to the National Museum of the United States Air Force at Wright-Patterson AFB in Ohio, where it is now on display.

Thats just 38 drones. Instead, I doubt the IAF has even investigated this aspect of what it already has in terms of local capabilities, and what it can employ them as.

I’m sceptical of this article. The first paragraph doesn’t seem to be based on any facts but seems to simply be the writers opinion of why the Indian naval issued the RFI. Secondly “a source said” just isn’t good enough. Its these unnamed sources that have been behind most of the India’s BS defence news in the past.

In the end, if this all turns out to be true then I was right about NLCA being the reason of this RFI. It’s just another case of Indian military not supporting their indigenous projects again. 🙁

That TOIlet article is by Rajat Pandit. Since he wants to throw a lot of mud without having any real muscle behind his allegations , he chose not to put his name on the byline.

Nowadays after a few so called journalists got on the MOD radar after planting fake stories about the Indo-PRC thing, they are acting smarter.

Has an RFI been issued to MiG? Or anyone else? An awful lot of stories come out of India about purchases of this or that weapon, & many of them turn out to be false.

An awful lot of India’s so called journalists have alternative sources of income which are directly related to such stories. Another lot could not find their butt without a map, and would fail even then. Making them prime patsies to print all sorts of dubious reports on behalf of a clique of rtd servicemen & arms dealers.

Many of these claims and reports appear to be written over a bottle of cheap liquor, but they get printed without even the least attempt to cross check them. In any other nation, all of these guys would be behind bars for the amount of muck they rake.

The usual thing is to take aim at India’s local manufacturers and a representative list of products, eg LCA, Arjun, xyz missiles, INSAS etc. Dismiss all of them as failures usually with some c0ck and bull story “sources tell that” or “i talked to..”. The next few paras would be about privatization. This because the article then begins to come across as a honest attempt, and not muck raking, whereas it is anything but the former.

The last para would be interesting & speak of specific OEMs and products available from the market. It bears remarking that such propoganda has become far more sophisticated than in the past, where the “authors” would directly say ” XYZ should be cancelled” and “ABCS” should be purchased. It was not uncommon to even have rival OEMs duke it out in the press.

But some attempts remain phenomenally crude…some time back there was a sustained crusade run against local defence R&D under the guise of reform. Most of it was based on dodgy facts and hearsay. While masquerading as reform, the articles were in reality motivated by a simple reason. The agency in question had played a lead role in scuttling attempts by some players to cancel India’s offsets program. A few weeks later, the series was run.

I can actually give more cases, but it’d be OT..