Its all very interesting, but completely avoids the questions asked in my post.

What points did you make and what did I miss? You asked about reliability rates of BM systems and were going on about whether these factors play a role.

I answered that yes they do & these are considered. Which in turn influences inventory calculations.

Obviously, these differ from system to system, as I clearly pointed out. Now if you want to dig up current rates for existing systems worldwide, these will be classified and not available, whereas details for earlier missiles and logistics are available on subscription sources.

I even gave you an open book source to read up about what the considerations are, viz reliability which has an cite as matter of fact about ballistic missiles.

Anyways its ok we all do this some times you know when we have late nights etc…

What is this supposed to mean? Seriously Matt, as far as insults go, you have your attitude down pat. But actual information, not so much.

First you ask questions to which you yourself should have found the answer, but you wont do even the bare minimum digging to answer your own queries and expect the answers on a plate, in thread after thread. When you are given answers, and they dont meet your preconceived ideas, out come the insults.

Seriously, so far on this forum, never have I met anybody else who makes so many claims, and provides so little information or insight, yet expects others to do all the spadework for him. And fyi, that’s not an insult, but a mere statement of fact of how your posts come across. I do hope this is merely your internet persona, and not a real world problem.

Any navy planning to operate outside the range of its own shore-based aircraft, & within the range of enemy aircraft, needs a good AAW capability. Is the IN still thinking in terms of local operations only?

The IN is thinking of AAW but context matters. Historically, the IN has been more ready than the IAF & IA, to take an iterative approach to building up capabilities, especially via local production and development. They also have their eye on the ball viz regional capabilities, i.e. they are ok with a capability as long as it provides some advantage over their immediate adversary & or even parity, while more advanced systems are evaluated. In other words, they have rarely resorted to full scale imports unless local production just could not keep pace. e.g. Talwars.

In the case of AAW, I sincerely doubt we are going to go British or American in terms of entire platforms which a Type45 is. Some of its systems & capabilities may be pretty interesting though.

As to why not import off the shelf, one, its against the prior record so far especially since they have the P-15 series well underway & more advanced tech in development (there have been public reports of more advanced SAM derivatives beyond the 70km Barak8/LRSAM for eg & the 4 paneled AESA MFCR can definitely support longer engagement ranges).

The second is cost. Indian Navy sources in the past, have constantly stated that one of the biggest reasons they are focused on local shipbuilding is cost, foreign built platforms are simply too expensive. An example pointed out were Australia’s new proposed Aegis equipped platforms. So I really dont know whether they’d buy into a pretty expensive, though definitely capable Type45.

I very much doubt if BAe was thinking in terms of selling Type 45 to India. It was probably a case of trying to boost its visibility as a possible source of expertise in the development & production of Indian AAW ships.

Bingo! That could very well be the case.

Sensible words, and politely stated which a lot of folks could do with, instead of pettyfogging about Indian egos and what not. As if the CVF gives more bragging rights than a Type45 or vice versa.

Rubbish!

The original journalists article was regarding an invite to view a T45 launch. Now it may have escaped some Indian attentions, but, the IN has a gaping hole in its AAW capability. Now, call me stupid if you wish, but, if we want to make wild speculations about Indian journalists brought over to view high-quality British defence products for sales purposes does it not make a great deal more sense that:

a) the product that BAE would try to tout would be the finished item. Otherwise a tough ask for the journalist to offer/publish his observed opinions.

and

b) it would meet a need in the naval service from the country that the journalist comes from.

Now neither of those key factors applies to CVF but, wait a moment, BOTH apply, at face value, to the BAE Type 45!. What a suprise that is hey?. I know its not as sensationalist as clandestine links to 65kton future aircraft carrier offers and does, I’m sure, far less in stroking Indian ego’s but, from BAE’s stance, inviting a journalist to view a spanking new cutting edge AAW destroyer makes a lot more sense regarding a sales attempt for the destroyer doesnt it?.

Considering your near hysterical tone of voice & over the top jingoism -Indian this, Indian that, – it does seem your British ego got offended as versus your claims of the discussion stroking Indian egos.

And for what??

Thing is, we Indians, we couldn’t give a damn about whether it was the CVF which seems to excite you so much or some T45 launch or any other “high quality British defence product”. They are all gonna cost a pretty packet. Its not like we are talking of some free US Supercarrier donated with an airwing.

Also, that journalist happens to be an ex. IA Colonel, who commanded one of the IA’s most prestigious tank units and has extensive contacts in the Indian MOD. He can get it wrong at times & is by no means infallible, but do go easy on the clueless journalist bit as his military experience in a combat ready unit, probably matches or even exceeds your naval service.

And yeah, it did’nt escape our Indian attentions that the author of the article himself made a reference to the CVF as compared to the Type45, which sparked this entire discussion. BTW, till date there has been little to no press in Indian trade journals about the T45 but there have been several quotes about the CVF whenever the Indian carrier program has been discussed.

Is that an opinion or a fact? Especially with respect to the US failure results also you mention that it expects 40% of all missiles to miss targets that is not the same as 40% of all missiles to fail from launch. Also for what missile system is that figure from?

Also when you mentioned that Prithvi II has been launched a lot can you give any numbers ?

Some links would help as well have tried to confirm your reporting but nothing found so far.

Failure rates are a fact. That you dont know about it is fairly surprising.

All BM system’s have a certain failure rate determined by both extensive simulation and real world testing. As a rough rule of thumb, you can have around 10 – 20% failures expected in real world conditions, unless the technology is significantly mature and has been proven by many decades of service. The problem in that case is that many of the onboard systems are obsolete, making their maintenance hard, and also the overall performance may not be optimal.

Reasons for failure can be many & even the most predictable peace time processes and methods can end up being short circuited during wartime, posing new challenges.

At any rate, is the reason why countries prefer to have rather decent stocks of ballistic missile systems and rely on multiple methods of delivery, not just aircraft or missiles. There have been several incidents where entire missions had to be scrubbed because of snafus, in maintenance or mission planning.

Note what I am saying about systems– today’s missiles are not just align and shoot ballistic missiles with rudimentary gyros. They are highly sophisticated, software intensive units with many complex subsystems, and many of these systems happen to be on the critical path for overall success. Read page 138.

http://books.google.co.in/books?id=0vfDUNyUZlUC&pg=PT150&dq=ballistic+missile+failure+rates&hl=en

Its always a trade-off at the end of the day, despite all the attempta designers make, i.e. design for simplicity, redundancy etc.

Kramer,

If the above article is correct, it would imply that the Ge414 will make its appearance on the LCA MK1 itself, and not the LCA MK2. The latter having more extensive modifications than the MK1. IMO, the journo messed up and the MK1 would still receive the Ge404IN20, as otherwise, the order for the GE414 initial tranche, would be 119 engines not 99.

Re Teer

Thanx for informative answers. Though IAF+DRDO has to start on a heavy ‘indigenous’ AWACS ‘now’ as “after” all EMB-145 are delivered will delay the project. The design and manufacture of a suitable platform itself will take anything upto 5-7 years.

Any EMB-145 follow on program will officially be launched once the first is delivered, and the program is matured by then.

Hi, any plans for bigger Indigenous AEW after Emb-145s based ones?

Yes, various options are on the table but depends on what the IAF proposes/requires after the first three are delivered.

I think that 10-12 LRTRS may also be coming??

I think that the “plan” was to have 12 but the RFI may be only for 4?

Lets break up the HPR- High Power Radar Category.

LRTR aka Long Range Tracking Radars are developed specifically for the ABM mission and will be procured separately, as part of each battery.

Currently India relies on the THD-1955. These recently got upgraded, and will be around till 2020-25. So a replacement has time to come in.

Then there are Aerostat HPRs – 2 inducted, IAF wants 9 more but Navy is also picking up a few, that helps IAF allotment.

IAF is also looking at HPRs (LRSR – Long Range Surveillance) for hilly terrain, which is the latest RFI. Deal to involve both TOT & offsets. The RFI does not mention aerostats, but it could be one & the same. The hilly terrain bit implies not just weather conditioning but also the capability to pick up targets against severe ground clutter/interference. Hence aerostats are a possibility, provided they can be deployed in such conditions.

Any more Akash orders coming, say for Navy??

More Akash for the IAF are a possibility. For the Navy, doubtful. Current Shtil-1 is VLS, has existing logistics and a range of 50 Km, even if it lacks the airbreathing sustained performance of a ramjet. LRSAM in development has dual pulse motor for trajectory shaping, active seeker & comes with a long range MFCR (300 km +). So the Navy is likely to rely on Shtil1 and then move to LRSAM.

Long range F-16s, conformal tanks and AMRAAMS gifted to Pakistan are a massive change in Indian defence scenario. I wonder whether IAF has gone for induction of towed decoys, DIRCMs and EWs on the aircrafts.

It has. The IAF has been exercising extensively with advanced F-16s for several years now for the very reason to see how it shapes up. So far, the MiG-29, Mirage 2000 (non upg. both) have shown parity while the Su-30 MKI is substantially superior. The Bisons did ok against Block 30/40s but not the Block 50 series. The weakest link in the F-16 kill chain is the radar & AMRAAM combo, as these can be jammed, deceptively. (The Mirage IR/RF Mica combo is harder to combat) The IAF’s current Elta SPJs are fairly capable in the role with DRFM. Better EW is also in procurement and induction.

Towed decoys have pluses and minuses. They impose maneuvering restrictions on carrier aircraft and are expensive, limiting their use. The Rafale for instance still does not have towed decoys. In the IAFs case, a program is underway to develop the tech.

I thought that Mirage and Jags were still not done deal

Jags are a done deal, with work already underway on the configuration for demo’ing to the IAF, with HAL/DRDO. MOD report 2010 (“The upgrade of DARIN-I Jaguar aircraft to DARIN-III standard has been approved. The design & development activities will commence forthwith and the upgrade is planned to be completed by 2017-2018.”) Deal value at current exchange rates, for ~68 aircraft reported at $523M (including Elta radar, talk about cost savings, when one can integrate/incorporate own items!). Mirage 2000, deal will be reportedly signed when Sarkozy visits in December ($2.1B, includes complete avionics refresh and Mica missiles).

Yes, indeed.

The IACCS btw will integrate all the radars we are getting and have, bar the obsolete ones which will anyways be retired.

Am now waiting for updates on the ODL to be made public. This is a state of the art datalink designed for both current and future IAF needs and several of its features outmatch any fielded today in the subcontinent.

http://www.stratpost.com/iaf-network-goes-live

The gigabyte digital information grid of the Indian Air Force (IAF), AFNET (Air Force Network) went live after Defense Minister Arackaparambil Kurian Antony inaugurated it in New Delhi on Tuesday.

A demonstration of the capabilities of the network was conducted with ‘a practice interception of simulated enemy targets by a pair of MiG-29 fighter aircraft airborne from an advanced airbase in the Punjab sector, neutralizing intruding targets in the western sector’, according to a statement issued by the IAF.

Network Centric Warfare ability was also demonstrated with video feed generation from Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) and pictures from an AWACS aircraft.

The statement said, “AFNET Project with an estimated expenditure of Rs 1077 Cr, comprises of Internet Protocol (IP) Multi Protocol Switching Protocol (MPLS) based Network with Optic Fibre Cables (OFC) as backbone. The AFNET Project has SATCOM Network as overlay, Line Of Sight (LOS) Radio for Metro Area and difficult terrains, as a back up to OFC links. The network is secured with a host of advanced state-of-the-art encryption technologies. It is designed for high reliability with redundancy built into the network design itself.”

The IAF says that all ‘major formations and static establishments have been linked through a secure Wide Area Network (WAN) and are accessible through data communication lines’ and that ‘AFNET incorporates the latest traffic transportation technology in form of IP (Internet Protocol) packets over the network using Multi Protocol Label Switching (MPLS)’, adding, ‘a large VoIP (Voice over Internet Protocol) layer with stringent quality of service enforcement will facilitate robust, high quality voice, video and conferencing solutions’.

According to the IAF’s spokesman Wing Commander Tarun Kumar Singha, “Integrated Air Command and Control System (IACCS), an automated command and control system for Air Defence (AD) operations will ride the AFNET backbone integrating all ground-based and airborne sensors, AD weapon systems and C2 nodes. Subsequent integration with other services networks and civil radars will provide an integrated Air Situation Picture to operators to carry out AD role.”

The IAF says multi-layer security precautions have been planned by ‘incorporating encryption technologies, Intrusion Prevention Systems to ensure the resistance of the IT system against information manipulation and eavesdropping’.

Stakeholders in the development of AFNET included the Ministries of Defense and Communication and Information Technology, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL) Cisco and HCL Technologies. “AFNET will be the largest Multi-protocol Label Switching (MPLS) network in the defence segment,” said the statement.

AFNET replaces the IAF’s old communication network set-up using the tropo-scatter technology of the 1950s.

According the IAF, AFNET is part of the overall mission to network all three services. The mission comes in the backdrop of an IT Roadmap document of the Defence Ministry stipulating automation, simulated training and mandatory computer proficiency in the services.

“While all three services are engaged in large scale automation and computer-based networking, the IAF is the first among the three to complete the project of interlinking major installations throughout the country on a high bandwidth network,” it said in a statement.