TeerGiven the closer relationship between the PAF and CATIC/other Chinese companies, particularly in light of the JF-17 program, it’s natural to assume the PAF would receive a greater level of ToT compared to the French, particularly for things such as source codes. The PAF team at Farnborough 2010 mentioned that they are performing a significant amount of the software integration work at PAC Kamra, particulalry for other weapons. I’m not sure if the French option would have provided the same level of flexibility for the PAF. It’s probably significantly easier for the PAF to integrate the MAR-1, RAAD, H-2/H4 and other weapons on the Chinese package than it would have been on the French package.
IMO, this wouldnt be a big advantage for CATIC vs the French per se, because even the French would have assisted in terms of integration of third party systems. Even the ROSE Mirages carry H2/H4 et al, dont they. For the Indian Mirage 2000 Upgrade, the deal includes an Indian OSAMC (http://www.haledgewood.com/images/osamc-data-sheet.pdf) in the aircraft. This will allow customization locally by the IAF/HAL etc as and when required.
Plus even with source codes, unless Pak., has an extensive radar D&D capability to assist weapons integration with and is willing to take the time consuming route to check out everything on their own, they will have to approach the OEM again.
From what I know the deal for both the French & Chinese systems is virtually the same, assembly of avionics systems in Pakistan, with build to print, technology transfer as is common for such systems. And over time, repair and overhaul of select systems, which is always a plus.
I think the MICAs was the original reason for the PAF considering the French option. However, as with avionics, given the advances made by the Chinese, perhaps the PAF saw greater long term potential with the Chinese option.
Possible, but I think it was not just the MICAs, but the entire package. Sagem and Thales had offered a complete suite of their systems – perhaps not the absolute best as on the Rafale, but very competitive nonetheless. It included an all glass cockpit to Mirage 2000-5 standards up from the original Topsight upgrade, a HMDS, an IRST, an internal EW suite, mission and navigation computing, the RC400 radar, Micas, HOTAS, A2A/A2G radios, and unspecified A2G munitions.
It would have made the JF-17 equivalent to (say) a F-16 MLU in terms of avionics, with even some niche advantages – eg the IRST. The Chinese package is not as comprehensive, and I daresay, the French systems are more mature, and also well regarded internationally.
TeerMy point is, Indian Navy came there looking to take over the operation for PR purposes back home. Pakistani Navy being the opposing force did not help either.
When one eagle tries to snatch some other eagle’s catch, it always results in some ruffled feathers!
Both of them need to grow up.
Thats clearly wrong, so the Indian Navy came to “take over the operation”, says who?
The Navy sent them there to *assist* if *required*, based on orders from the Govt of India. Which in turn was forced to act, based on public opinion.
They hailed the MV Suez (which had a Pakistani captain) – no response. They hailed the Babur – no response and then this dangerous business. And they left. If they intended to “take over the operation”, the Godavari does pack more punch than the Babur, last I remember. It could have done more. It did not, it left.
Furthermore, you posit humanitarian options as some sort of “eagles catch” – how is that? This is expensive, serious work – intended to keep SLOC open. No glory in it bar the occasional job well done pat on the back thing.
Lastly, even if all you said was correct, and the Indian Navy arrived on the scene and Babur regarded it as “stealing its glory” – does that justify such dangerous antics.
No – I dont think both Navies need to grow up. If anything, that Captain of Babur who did something so crazy, needs to be hauled up and docked, unless he was asked to behave in such a manner.
Having your crew stand around chanting while you try to play chicken with another warship is not professional. He could have sunk both ships causing significant loss of life, and over what.
TeerMy point is, Indian Navy came there looking to take over the operation for PR purposes back home. Pakistani Navy being the opposing force did not help either.
When one eagle tries to snatch some other eagle’s catch, it always results in some ruffled feathers!
Both of them need to grow up.
Thats clearly wrong, so the Indian Navy came to “take over the operation”, says who?
The Navy sent them there to *assist* if *required*, based on strict orders from the Govt of India, that is it.
They hailed the MV Suez (which had a Pakistani captain) – no response. They hailed the Babur – no response and then this dangerous business. And they left. If they intended to “take over the operation”, the Godavari does pack more punch than the Babur, last I remember. It could have done more. It did not, it left.
Furthermore, you posit humanitarian options as some sort of “eagles catch” – how is that? This is expensive, serious work – intended to keep SLOC open. No glory in it bar the occasional job well done pat on the back thing.
Lastly, even if all you said was correct, and the Indian Navy arrived on the scene and Babur regarded it as “stealing its glory” – does that justify such dangerous antics.
No – I dont think both Navies need to grow up. If anything, that Captain of Babur who did something so crazy, needs to be hauled up and docked, unless he was asked to behave in such a manner.
Having your crew stand around chanting while you try to play chicken with another warship is not professional. He could have sunk both ships causing significant loss of life, and over what.
TeerGuys, lets leave the RN out of this. It started as a rejoinder to an intended bait, and lets drop it before the bait serves its purpose of trolling the discussion into an irrelevant sidetrack.
The RN is not the issue here, besides which the IN & RN both enjoy a decent professional camaraderie.
TeerAnyways Indian navy was not in the area and isn’t a member of Task Force 151, so Pakistan Navy was given the duty of escorting the hijacked ship to safe waters.
I dont think this part is under dispute at all. The Indian ship was definitely a latecomer to the scene, and that too because the Indian media attacked the Govt nonstop that despite the IN being on piracy patrol, there were no IN ships in the vicinity. Hence the GOI was forced to respond by asking the Navy to send a ship to see if it could offer assistance. The issue, of course, is what happened thereafter.
This business of ‘kicking INS xxx” /almost ramming it, is pretty dicey. In reality, both ships could have been severely damaged and worse.
TeerFirstly, you should be sorry, and I accept your apology, thank you. My comments regarding the Pakistani and Indian Navy, in a topic about the professionalism of those navies, is perfectly valid. Discussions of the British Navy are not valid, and have only been made with the intent to provoke anger, or worse to deter others from expressing a view that doesn’t conform to the Indian view else they and/or their country will be flamed.
Nice rant there and you seem to have a lot of time on your hands to post a lot of fancy words and take umbrage. Who appointed you the sole arbiter for the British Navy and furthermore, to take umbrage on their behalf and be angry? Seems to me to be a rather sophomoric tough guy approach.
There is nothing wrong with my signature, and I have discussed this with the administrator on a previous occasion.
Yeah, an impartial video mocking the French, never mind your own posts whenever any discussion comes into the picture. What happened to that line “French UAV technology” – whats the purpose of that?
I am perfectly impartial when it comes to discussing India and Pakistan, though who are you to be telling others who is and isn’t impartial? Who made you judge and jury? As for the French, where is my topic “about the French”, there is no such topic, such topics are not even permitted on this forum. Your implication that I dislike the French is something I find deeply offensive, as I have no bad feeling towards towards the French. It is good that you have apologised for this, but I think it would be better in future if you just leave the statement out completely and focus on the topic, rather than apologise and then make these kinds of statements.
A lot of verbose talky talk there, but in your own words, you claim to be impartial when discussing India and Pakistan, when you are anything but. In prior threads, you have been busy flaming away at several Indian members & engaging in verbal fisticuffs. Clearly, no bias there. As to those posts and the ones about others, you can trawl through your own posts.
Second, before claiming to be offended for it being noted that you have a bee in your bonnet against the French, take a look at your signature sometime. It belongs to the kindergarten and reeks of a tendency to score one ups not anyone serious.
Coming to judge and jury and what not, nothing of the sort, just showing you the same courtesy which you show everyone else.
And no I didn’t apologize to you – perhaps you missed the point but let me make it clear to you. That “sorry” was clearly – “nice try, but it didn’t work” viz. your attempt at equivocation and trying to posture as being better than Anant, which you clearly aren’t.
Ahh so you are an Indian, that rather explains you attitude in the first paragraph.
Heh, this line of yours shows your attitude clearly, no hint of a bias there..clearly. So you insert a throw away line about the Indian nuclear structure, I respond factually, and that makes me an “Indian” and hence my “attitude”.
If anything, it shows *your* attitude, which is patronizing, rude and boorish. Though, I daresay there are enough UK members in this forum with standards better than yours, and which makes your behaviour, yours alone and not because you are British.
TeerIt seems evidence but as with any tv report, if you take it out of context it gets new meaning: what – if anything – happened (right) before this video was shot?
Also, how can one objectively determine from this footage whether a) the Babur overtook and turned to port into Godavari or b) the Godavari reduced speed, dropped back and turned to starboard, cutting of Babur?
No oibjective to flame, simply curious to here various answers/arguments.
Fair points, but see the video, and see how the crew is expectant and how they begin a cadence towards the end (the chanting).
Dont know whether you grasp Urdu, but as the Babur approaches, the excitement level rises towards the end, when the near collision occurs wherein the crew is chanting AOA (A….ho Akbar) and definitely, Nara O Takbeer.
Not going to get into religion here, but from a purely social perspective, its a motivational chant used at wartime, competitive times etc. eg
http://www.pakpassion.net/ppforum/archive/index.php/t-120417.html
In otherwords, Babur was overtaking the Godavari, and the crew was anticipating the “chase” coming to a close and start chanting in anticipation.
Coming to the hows and whys and wherefores and what nots.
In particular, the issue is expected to be because of the captain of the PNS ship who is ex-ISI.
FWIW:
This mentions the captain bit and prior issues.
http://www.indianexpress.com/news/babur-tried-to-disrupt-war-game/807026/
This the overall context.
http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report_govt-hands-over-pictures-supporting-charges-against-pak-s-pns-babur_1556847
Ditto, note the description which matches the Pakistani video.
http://www.indianexpress.com/news/nervous-govt-pulled-godavari-off-routine-mission-to-help-mv-suez/806019/0
All FWIW. No point in raking up professionalism and what not, but that bit by Babur damaged the Godavaris helicopter landing nets. And so far, no other navy has had any issues with the IN, AFAIK for these antipiracy missions.
TeerSorry PPP, your statements on various topics regarding the French including your rather weird signature, clearly show how impartial you are when it comes to nationalism or what not. Furthermore, if you considered the comparison to the Iranian Navy an attack on the RN, thats no different than Anant who considered the comparison of the IN to the PN likewise. Neither of you are in the right or better than the other per se.
Furthermore,
“Rumour has it the Pakistani nukes are in the control of a fairly sane general. Not sure about the situation with the Indian nukes.”
“Rumour has it”….?
The Indian nukes are under the control of the Indian decision making authority, which includes the Prime Minister and under operational control of the SFC (Strategic Forces Command) which reports to civilian authority.
India has a democratic setup, and no General, sane or otherwise, has sole discretionary powers over the Indian arsenal.
Teeragree with you Nic. Looking at the general timelines of GAMCO’s -9 upgrade work on the UAE’s earlier Mirages, they are quite similar. Quite a bit of time was spent on developing the first prototypes (39 months in the UAE’s -9 configuration case) and then training UAE technicians to upgrade their Mirages at GAMCO’s facilities.
Any idea of the cost for the UAE TOT for upgrade processes, the kits would have come from France anyhow. If the Indian cost is significantly higher (reported at $500M for HAL facility) then it means the deal includes manufacturing TOT for the airframe or some systems as well. Not just how to integrate the kits.
TeerIt was most likely a number of factors, cost being one of them, although most likely the most important. However, the PAF have stated that there was no significant difference in capabilites between the French and Chinese options, in some aspects, the Chinese package outperformed the French option. No doubt the greater technology ToT and a clearer upgrade path to an AESA option with the Chinese package swung in its favour.
Basically, per reports at the time, India lobbied the French heavily to prevent the package. The quid pro quo would have been this deal (amongst others – there are several big ticket Indo-French deals underway, including the SRSAM and Scorpene). Coming to TOT,benefits are limited to a transfer of manufacturing processes, which would have been the same for both French or Chinese offers. Coming to AESA, we really don’t know enough about at this point of time, especially whether a Chinese AESA array can just be retrofitted to the KLJ-7(or is 9) backend. The French offer would have brought in far more combat mature capabilities to the JF-17, developed in part for demanding export customers like the UAE, Greece et al.
TeerIt does appear to be the case, the avionics/radar setup is almost identical to the proposed offer for the JF-17. However, it seems the reluctance of the PAF to accept the offer in light of the Chinese radar/avionics package, not to mention the greater technology ToT, was probably a better decision for the PAF over the long term. Seriously, why is it taking so long for the upgrade?
Is there any particular source regarding the “greater technology TOT”? Pakistan intended much the same for the French package- license production of cockpit avionics, radar, self defense systems such as RWR etc.
In fact, given Thales, Sagems world class capabilities and the similar items on the Mirage ROSE upgrades, Pakistan would have learnt more with the French package, at least on the manufacturing, assembly and QA side of things. Besides which TOT only goes so far. Assembly of foreign designed systems, on imported machines, with build to print designs transferred, software designed and developed by others, test equipment and procedures likewise, does not count for much beyond a point, unless coupled with own programs.To leverage either this or even the Chinese TOT, ultimately, it needs its own programs as hard or expensive as they may be.
Also, as mentioned earlier, the French kit had several unique capabilities, especially the IR MICAs. The ICMS is also considered a very modern integrated set. Overall, as an integrated suite, the IAF would be more concerned with a French suite, than the Chinese one the PAF has currently got. The Sagem/Thales suite would leverage all the technology that has been developed for the Mirage 2000-5, 9 MK2 and even the Rafale (MDPU) and would be reasonably mature and combat proven.
Coming to the timeframe, BA has covered the reason why its taking so long.
After giving it some thought, the only factor that supports why the IAF is blase about the timeframe, is because of the scale of inductions and upgrades.
Over the next five to seven years, ie, by 2016-18, the IAF will be receiving ~150 MKIs, beginning the upgrade of at least 42, inducted around ~60 LCAs of two types, 60+ upgraded MiG-29s, 60+ upgraded Jaguars (DARIN-3, already cleared) and probably the first 1-2 squadrons of MMRCA.
So if they don’t tweak the deal by having the French deliver more kits and HAL to ramp up deliveries per year, they’ll probably allocate each squadron a mix of upgraded and non upgraded aircraft and stick with ~9 years.
There are three Mirage 2000 squadrons currently, with two full strength and a third with lesser numbers and more two seaters. They are based out of one airbase but operate in detachments at wartime.
Probably, they’ll allocate the Mirage 2000-5’s and H’s so that each squadron has a mix of multirole capabilities.
The current H’s are not bad in the A2G, EW arena. They can carry jamming pods, Litening, Paveway LGBs, Popeye variant missiles.
Its in A2A, BVR weaponry (RDM-7 radar has decent range) where they are showing their age, with the Super 530D (Mica requires RDY).
A squadron with both types could have Mirage 2000-5s escort Mirage 2000-H’s.
Teerwait & watch buddy……. lets see how long the Prithvi is going to hold on against the much better Prahaar. I feel that Prithvi will be replaced eventually by Prahaar as IAs battle field missile.
ultimately every missile system will get replaced with another one, fail to see your point.
the question is, is there a crying need to replace prithvi today with prahar or build up stocks of both as complementary.
As you said 1ton for high valued target….that can be done by Prahaar with a salvo of 6 missiles totalling 1,200Kg. Or are you skeptical regarding the accuracy of the 6 missile fired to reach the same target?
lol, dont you see the issue right there? whats the point in using six missiles with a greater cost than a single missile which will be less expensive. also, your comparison comparing tonnage is way off, unless more details are revealed on prahars guidance & cep. the indian army may well choose to use its inventory of prithvis and prahars for different taskings and operational purposes.
Teershould there be any surprise to his remark? We have seen the case of IAFs recently inducted radars being claimed as “indigenous”
thats irrelevant. first, sengupta has been wrong time and again, on multiple topics where he has been caught fibbing and second, the entire claiming business was because to keep designations for a single radar class (MPR) simple, the IAF named its inducted israeli radars, the same as an in development system. nothing to add to sengupta’s credibility. before the prahar details came out, he was busy claiming all sorts of stuff about it, making a lot of people realise that he is unreliable when the true details came out.
Prithvi was, is and will be cumbersome battlefield missile when compared with other similar systems. It was the reason why Prahaar was born. The accuracy of Prithvi was improved in the later on variants…
not necessarily. prithvi is “cumbersome” if it is deployed to the operational area, unrefuelled and without fitting out. but the army, af et al have the option to do the fuelling & modifications for use, prior to deployment, which will proceed as is, making it as easy, logistically, the same as prahaar. this is the preferred option to get around the logistics issue.
the prithvi once fuelled, has a life of several years (5+) leaving aside specifics apart before it needs to be refurbished.
the key advantages for prahar is not that it is less cumbersome per se. it is that it more advanced in terms of guidance options, has six to a launcher and requires less basing infrastructure (making it cheaper in the long run).
Simply because ss150 is the only option will not make it less cumbersome or undo the fact.;)
there is not just ss150, theres ss-250 and ss-350 as well, plus dhanush (similar to ss-350). the last is the one with iaf. prithvi remains the workhorse of the indian forces thanks to its high tonnage, relatively low cost, good CEP, effective countermeasures (tailored trajectory with waypoints).
its also present in substantial numbers. overall, its a trusted, reliable missile.
coming to options, there is no dearth of options. the army, af can also take the shourya. the point of prahaar is to create a tactical battlefield missile that can be mass produced in huge numbers, at lower cost. this also feeds into the ABM program as the same infrastructure will be used for AAD.
TeerShould we take this as a hint that the Mirage 2000 will shift more and more towards the ground attack role? Possibly even getting more of a strategic role with Scalp-EG.
Is there any word about the AASM being integrated?
Nic
Its hard to say Nic.
Generally, more and more IAF squadrons are moving towards multirole. With PGMs, you need to train for specific profiles very intensively but it also confers greater survivability, as you well know. Both the MiG-29 and LCA MK1 are havign a lot of emphasis on MR capabilities.
Regarding AASM – its on offer though SPICE is competing. If India goes for an integrated package from MBDA, I’d expect AASM could be included.
Personally, I think this deal was a sort of recompense to the specific firms for cancelling the JF-17 deal with a very similar avionics setup. Apart from the stated reason of keeping the Mirage 2000 modern. Otherwise, the long timeframe for delivery does not cut it.
I also think, as with the Sukhoi-30 MKI program, some decisions will be made to speed it up. The Su-30 MKI program originally had almost half the planes in Phases 3 & 4 (ie local production) and a delivery rate that would allow the 140 deliveries to be made by 2017-18. The IAF cut it to 2014, by having HAL move aircraft to Phase 3 & reducing indigenization percentage to 80%. Hydraulic items for cost reasons & timeline were again reverted to Russian suppliers (though HAL intends to indigenize these over part supplies).
Hopefully, this deal may yet evolve.
TeerLots of typos in my previous post. Sorry.
Basically, in 1997-1999, it was noted that the RC400 had simpler hardware – less powerful TWT, and receiver not as advanced as that of the RDY. But it would be much cheaper at $1Mn, and the most powerful RC-400 would offer all the modes and 80% of the range of the RDY.
Thereafter, RDY2 was developed which is stated to be 10-15% more powerful than the RDY, in terms of range. The RC400 was also rebranded as the RDY3. The RC400 may also have been developed further over its 1999 version, but its logical to state the RDY2 will be a more powerful radar overall.
Sign In
