AbhimanyuDid anybody else catch this event on Pakistani media?
I did not.Regards,
Ashish
No. As mentioned, the test of April 23 was caught only by US intelligence agencies. It was not announced to the media and public by Pak authorities.
Though it is true that Pakistan already has the more advanced Babar cruise missile (and it’s air-launched version, Raad), it is trying to make it’s Harpoon – I missiles to double-up for land strikes also.
This will increase the absolute number of it’s land-attack cruise missiles, without actually inducting new missiles.
AbhimanyuIsn’t there a treaty between India and Pakistan about notifying each before hand about missile tests??
However, since there has been no comment from India on this matter, it is entirely possible that
we were intimated about the test.
No, the treaty mandates India and Pakstan to inform each other only before tests of ballistic missiles. Conventional missiles do not fall in that category.
Hence, India does not inform Pakistan prior to testing the Brahmos, Aakash or Nag missiles and neither does Pakistan inform India before testing it’s Babar missile.
AbhimanyuSee, that the yield of the 1998 nuclear tests was well below the claimed yield has been known and published in the public domain since many years now. Prominent amongst these are nti.org, fas.org and The Wisconsin Project (though, the last one is highly biased).
It is only now that an Indian scientist has publicly acknowledged it. However, the lay media is treating it as a “new revelation”, which is incorrect and unfortunate. Atleast CNN-IBN should have known better, as nti.org’s chairman is CNN’s Ted Turner himself.
The same was the case of Pakistani nuke tests. The first 2 devices were claimed to be 25 kT and 12 kT respectively, but siesmic data proved that their total yield was only 9 kT.
Reference :-
AbhimanyuQuoted, so this cant be edited later.
The above post has to be the most remarkable piece of fiction written so far in this thread. 😀
I’ll come back later and dissect this latest piece of art, if I have time.
See, sir your posts themselves are “shreds of art”, what with having been made fine examples of in this thread.
Instead, you can go and ask ex-IAF chief Shri SP Tyagi, Commander S.L. Surve (former Joint Director, Air Defence), and a certain Vice Marshall (now all retired, and on the payroll of Israeli arms firms) why did they “hog” so many IAI products during their tenure, and not even do as little as to ask DRDO for support.
The less spoken about the navy, the better (though it is far more indigenous friendly than the IA and the IAF). Please go and inquire Lt. Cdr. Ravi Shankaran (relative of Admiral Prakash who negotiated with IAI, and prime accused in the war room leak case), Commander Jha, Commander Rana, Lt. Cdr Kulbhushan Rana and half a dozen senior ranking officers. Also inquire Captain Kashyap Kumar (directorate, Naval Operations) — investigated by CBI — whether it was truly a co-incidence that IAI just had 6th sense to guage what the IAF really wanted, or was there a mutual “understanding” between the IAI and the IN ?
It appears that Israeli Aircraft Industries of “tiny” israel has been entrusted with the defence of Indian airspace and Indian waters, thanks to their “friends” at just the right places in the IAF and IN. They knew that they had a product in hand with the Barak-I. All they had to do was “tweak” it, and add a booster. Result : range extends to 70 kms and marketed as a “lightweight, cheap alternative to PAC-3”.
It may sincerely be hoped that the ordinary Indian jawan, or pilot or sailor who actually mans the border day & night, does never have to depend for his equipment and survival on the corporate officies of messrs IAI, Tel Aviv. Our “sarkari” DRDO would be just fine. It is when these “rotund” generals in the IAF start “hobnobbing” with foreign firms a little too much, then his position becomes “precarious”.
Abhimanyuabrahavt, it is a very common misconception that Israeli Aircraft Industries (IAI) developed their new bouquet of Barak-based missiles (MRSAMs, LRSAMs and what not) at the insistence of the IAF.
In 2004, visiting the then Admiral of the Indian Navy visited Israel. It is in that meeting that IAI told him their plans of developing a 70 km missiles that can target everything from cruise missiles to Scuds. This was the Barak-8 / Barak-II. He got impressed and ordered their purchase. India also funded (read:sunk) $330 million in it.
The IAF then “got wind” of this new product by the Navy and also ordered the very same Barak-8 that the Navy ordered. To preemptively quell the criticism over yet another foreign purchase, the IAF announced a “JV” with IAI and simply gave it a new name — MR-SAM.
Note IAF’s “sleight of hand” here. This so-called MRSAM is the very same Barak-8 that the Navy ordered merely with a different name and a showpiece “JV” in which DRDO will merely develop the launcher and launch vehicle. In the same way, when the Navy ordered the so-termed Barak-NG (150 km range), the IAF also announced a copycat “JV” with IAI for the same missile under yet another name — LR-SAM.
AbhimanyuI dont even know whether to laugh or cry at the ridiculous extrapolations from dodgy data which you resort to in this latest post.
1. DRDO endorses the MRSAM – deal with it, stop coming up with ridiculous explanations to explain away the fact that the DRDO categorically keeps referring to the MRSAM as a JV which they raised to the IAF based on the Naval LRSAM project.
Coming to Prahlada – again, you demonstrate a clear inability to even determine the facts.
http://www.domain-b.com/aero/20090328_seeking_scandals.html
See, your entire argument solely rests on the above “crutches” that DRDO has no problems in pursuing this “jv” and is all for it.
See, the above may be “confounding”. In a very similar issue reported on BR forum a few days back, Dr. Sivathanu Pillai was somewhat apprehensive and critical of what he called Russians “calling the shots” in the Brahmos project (he was talking of going fully indigenous in it’s hypersonic variant). This, from someone who has always “hailed” Indo-Russian collaboration in this projct.
Similarly, I was not aware of this particular item above (which is actually a rebuttal opinion piece and not a news report). In news reports already posted earlier, Dr. Natarajan has publicly stated that Akash has suffered due to imported mssiles (ostensibly these new bouquets of Israeli missiles). So it is unclear why Dr. Prahlada has encouraged this MR-SAM, whereas Dr. Natarajan has criticized it in reference.
2. Nobody in the services or DRDO really care, apart from your self, about what IAI says about it being a sale or being a JV or whatever terms they use for their internal accounting standards. As it stands, the MRSAM project will have a substantial DRDO footprint and will be comanufactured by India, a JV in any term.
As reported, DRDO’s contribution in the MR-SAM will be limited to developing the launcher and the launch platform only. The missiles are already developed, tested and ready for sale to any customer who promises payment.
Your argument that IAI calls it a sale to placate it’s “shareholders” is a very long-fetched one. Corporates do not lie about deals of such magnitudes. Besides, Haaretz has carried “acres” of news on IAI and it’s blacklisting in India, and the last thing they would want is another controversy. It is only here in India that the media calls it a JV.
4. Your claiming that the IAF is not going to “exercise that option anywhere” is nonsense. As of January 2009, the IAF was already drawing up plans for the Akash extension. The MRSAM project, including the numbers, the 18 batteries aka 9 squadrons were decided in the FY08 fiscal year, aka more than one year back before the Akash induction was being finalized.
News reports backing the above have been posted earlier (if you bothered to read them). If you have any credible information that claims otherwise, you can share.
This is but another example of your shoddy research and your ability to twist the facts to suit a preconceived agenda- namely, the evil IAF denying the Akash a chance.
At least there is “research” by way of news reports to show. You make claims based on heresay and conjecture.
The Barak/MRSAM will have LOAL capability.
That is not LOAL capability as in 15-km Barak. As mentioned earlier, the MF-Star has the target locked at all times, and cues the flying Barak NG to the target (via datalink), before it’s own seeker takes over. This has been the standard procedure in all A2A missiles since many decades. By your logic, AiM-120, R-77 Astra etc. are all LOAL missiles.
LOAL is in Barak-1, where the missile is fired in the general direction of the last known location of the target before it’s seeker takes over. This can work only in Barak-1 due to it’s very short engagement envelop and fast reaction time.
8. IAF didnt pick up any “bug” from the IAI – next you’ll be saying our ABM project is because we picked up a bug from the Arrow – do you even realise how ridiculous your claims sound to any serious observer? Their requirements were based on clear operational requirements based on current threat perceptions.
Incorrect. IAF’s “operational requirements” were modeled on a new Israeli product — which is a light-weight missile that can target jets and Scud-type missiles at long ranges. IAF is the only Air-Force that devises strategy based on products (of course, imported). All other Air-Forces which are grounded to reality devise products based on startegy.
ABM is not a product, but a concept like “anti-tank missile” or “A2A missile”.
9. “Arguement of urgency is always given” – implying there was no urgency to begin with – do you even understand what urgency is?
There were only 24 FU’s left of the 60 odd SAM-3 FU’s by fiscal 2008. By 2010, the numbers would have declined further. The Spyder acquisition came out of absolute necessity and was not a moment too soon.
The Spyder announcement came many months the Akash completed successful tests in Dec 2007. Why didn’t IAF choose Akash ? Israel would also take the same time to manufacture the same number of Spyder squads, as Bharat Dynamics would, with the Akash.
I have explained why in my post above, look at the differences f.e. between the Patriot versions & what happens when a missile is optimized against Ballistic versus air breathing ie aircraft/CM targets.
I am not going to type it out all over again, but the use of AAD against CM & aircraft targets, is to use a very very specialized expensive hammer to hit a cheap, fly.
After Dr. Natarajan , Dr. Saraswat has also stated clearly that the AAD can be utilized to target fighter jets.
“The AAD could be used to target aircraft,” Dr. Saraswat said, adding that its successful launch has opened up a ‘new era’ with the development of supersonic interceptor missiles that can be used for defence against Cruise missiles.
He said that the AAD part of the missile defence programme is completely independent from surface-to-surface missile programme and that it is purely a spin off of the entire project.”
Now, these two scientists stated this while intending to actually put it into practice. It is understood that the AAD would have to be modified for this purpose. They did nt merely mean that “it can be”, but said, “it should be and will be”.
AbhimanyuThat news report is three years old, i.e. from when Gripen NG was a paper project, a year before the launch. Since the SAAB website has full information on Gripen NG, & there have been many more recent news reports, I wonder why you used it.
See, I remembered reading that report some time back, and I did not follow it by navigating elsewhere or on SAAB’s webpage. Besides, I’m sure that this information must’ve been added recently on SAAB’s website, because otherwise as far as specifications are concerned, it contains less information. Canit.se and FMV.se are more detailed, but yet do not mention about Gripen NG. I have quoted from these 2 sites earlier on this forum.
The report you linked to is, as stated earlier, way too old and it even has references to the GE-F414G aswell as a likely engine. You could not possible have missed this fact.
See, Tejas Mk.2 is unlikely to adopt the GE-F414 from the current GE-F404-IN, because it will involve many changes to the airframe (stated by ADA officials). This is because the F414 is much larger than the F404. Hence, it was unexpected that Gripen – NG adopted the GE-F414.
How can you make a claim like that? The Su-30 and Gripen doesn’t share any avionics whatsoever. It’s a too generalistic claim to assume that they will be on par with eachother.
The make of the avionics are different in Gripen and Tejas, but the functionality is the same. The Tejas Mk.1 is equipped with Litening target pod (the one on Israeli F-16 Sufa), Tarang RWR, radar jammers, datalinks and a highly modularized core avionics computer from the Su-30 MKI. The Tejas Mk.2 will feature IRST, increased sensor fusion and possibly an AESA radar.
Abhimanyuhttp://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=90432
NG will have the F414, which implies more than 20% increase in thrust.
Are your sources informing you that the MK.2 will have “avionics, weapons, EW suite, RCS, radiolinks, upgradeability etc. equivalent to NG” as reliable as those informing you that NG will have a mere 10% increase in thrust over the current version?
Or perhaps you have no sources ?
L
Loke, as per this news report Gripen – NG being developed for India is to have a 10-15% thrust increase from the present RM-12 engines. I agree that I did not check SAAB’s official website in which it is mentioned clearly that Gripen – NG now has GE-F414 engine with 98 kN thrust. Actually, SAAB’s site mostly has “advertising rhetoric”, and I did not visit it in many months.
Now, it must be noted that the IAF’s Su-30 MKI jets have been the testbeds for installing avionics meant for the Tejas. Thus, all avionics on the Tejas will be equivalent or superior to the frontline Su-30 MKI jets of the IAF. This must equate with those of Gripen – NG. Note that EADs has also offered an AESA radar for the Tejas.
AbhimanyuStop babbling – not only do you embarass yourself with your lack of understanding of the subject, you continue to make false assertions without any basis in fact.
First – Dr Saraswat & Prahlad have been very clear about the MRSAM project, have endorsed it and pointed out DRDO is ok with the project as it cuts development time. No equivocation here, despite your conspiracy theories.
No, you are “conspiring” by calling this an endorsement. If in a presentation they spoke about it, or if in a newsletter or annual report it is mentioned, it does not mean that DRDO “endorses” it. It was simply a statement of DRDO’s projects.
Besides, you do know that IAI itself officially calls this a sale and not a “JV” or “co-development”. It is only here that the media calls this as a “JV”. In this regard I’m also sure Dr. Saraswat and Dr. Prahlada must’ve given an as-is statement of the same (i.e. India developing only launchers and launch platforms) without going so far as to calling it a “JV”.
Second, you obviously have no clue of what the AAD is meant for and what it does. Its a hypersonic “dart” meant to take out an incoming BM (range of upto 2000 Km) as fast as possible. To do so, its adds weight in terms of motor size and seeker capability to a substantial extent. Capability which is totally uneccessary for a missile meant for airbreathing targets. Its size and weight also limit its capability to conduct sustained manouevers at high G since it is NOT meant for engaging maneuverable air breathing targets at the end game!
The above is your own inaccurate assessment only, because Dr. Natarajan himself has stated that it can be used to target cruise missiles. It goes without say, that it has to be modified to do that. It can then also target fighter jets and tactical ballistic missiles also.
Get this straight – no matter how much you ramble, how much you BS, it wont change the fact. That the AAD is NOT meant for interception of air breathing targets especially at low levels. Using it is overkill and a waste of scarce resources. DRDO’s focus using the AAD baseline are the AD-1/AD-2.
The above is in fact your own “ramble” only, in complete incognizance of what Dr. Natarajan has publicly stated.
Third – there are two links earlier on mentioning the negotiations for follow on Akash orders once the initial units are delivered, as mentioned by the Akash lead & DRDL head, Prahlada himself. Your attempts to spin this away are useless.
Arey, I myself posted links to those follow on orders, but I’ve also posted news reports that say that IAF is NOT going to excercise that option anymore. Those will be supplanted by Spyder and the MRSAM.
Mistakenly thought – or rather you made it up since you knew diddly squat, and needed to argue something. First get things straight, since you are babbling nonsense again.
The LRSAM is the Indian Navy specificdesignation of the Barak-8 project. Its 70 km in range, not 150 and it has nothing to do with France.
Second, the MRSAM is the IAF specific project and it has two more phases with extended ranges planned.
Third, Russia did not provide the seekers for either the PAD OR the AAD. Agat cooperated with DRDL/RCI for subassemblies of one seeker.
Sir ji, the last time you were over the hill “explaining” to me the LOAL and LOBL features of the MR-SAM, which as I pointed later do not exist. It’s not like the LLRQM Barak of the navy.
Now the LRSAM designation has indeed been the source of much confusion, just like the overlapping nomenclatures of Barak-8, Barak-NG and others (read this). Basically all these missiles are a series of missiles starting from 70 kms upto 120-150 kms range. The point is, that these could have been avoided by a combination of Akash-AAD for the IAF and possibly a navalized AAD for the Navy.
Fourth, the ABM project is entirely different from the tactical missile program.
Please understand that the tactical missile program is NOT an innovation of the IAF. It is a marketing term used by IAI for their Barak-8/NG bouquet of missiles that they have developed to target fighters, cruise missiles and Scud-like tactical missiles (refer IAI’s website, which is full of this). The IAF caught this “bug” from IAI and is incorporating all these bunch of Israeli SAMs like Barak-8 / NG and what not under equally unclear nomenclatures like MRSAM, LRSAM, etc. & etc.
As stated by Dr. Natarajan, if AAD can be modified to target cruise missiles, it should not be difficult to make it a so-called “tactical missile program”. It is only a single stage Prithvi rocket.
Again, as per this news report, Dr. Saraswat himself has said that Russia has assisted in developing the RF seekers for the PAD/AAD.
Fifth, the SpyDer is a ready missile system available NOW, for deployment NOW. One squadron has already been delivered, with deliveries of the second underway. The Maitri/SRSAM specifications are STILL being drawn up, with a formal program start yet to be cleared.
This argument of “urgency” is always given be it for MRCA, or Spyder, or PAK-FA. In this way, DRDO will always be on a “steepening treadmill”.
You lack even the basis to have a knowledgeable debate about the issue, since you are limited to fanboy speculation based on media conjecture.
Stop wasting my time with such ridiculous trash.
I may suggest to you that you may stop wasting your own time first, by not posting the same inaccuracies over and over again, and debunking any and all media reports.
The Trishul experience has something in common with the Maitri which is all that Sujan Dutta has said.
To say however, as you have done, that the the Maitri is simply to be a Trishul missile, with an active seeker assembly supplied by MBDA is to plumb the depths of ignorance, which reflects a new abysmal low by any standards.
The Maitri will use the Trishul airframe as developed by DRDO (news report). It goes without say that it won’t use the progressively narrowing 3-beam switching guidance, but a new guidance architecture consisting of an active seeker assembly and a new fire-control radar. That it will have “new jet vanes” or a “smokeless motor” are modifications to the basic Trishul frame itself.
AbhimanyuSign, Gripen – NG is stated to have upto 10% more thrust than before i.e. upto 87 kN or 88 kN only. Tejas MK.2 can have either EF-2000 (90 kN) or GE-F414 (100 kN). The RFP for these two engines was reported to have been sent last week to EADs and GE.
As regards avionics, weapons, EW suite, RCS, radiolinks, upgradeability etc. it will be equivalent to Gripen – NG.
Abhimanyuswerve Tejas’ undercarriage is to be redesigned because is heavy. Reduction in it’s weight will undoubtedly increase Tejas’ range. Lot of telemetery equipment will also be removed, avionics will be modularized into fewer modules and extra weapon stations will be added. After all this redesign, Tejas Mk.2 will weigh atleast 800-900 kgs lesser than Gripen – NG (it is currently at 6.5 tons, compared to 7.1 tons of Gripen – NG).
Thus, Tejas shall weigh ~ 88% of the Gripen – NG, besides having more thrust (90 kN vs. 85 kN). This will result in Tejas’ combat radius being equal to Gripen – NG on similar weight loadings.
AbhimanyuBut in uss novice’s post similarity to Tejas was grounds for exclusion. If a=b and b=c then, yes, a=c, which means Tejas should be excluded. Not that this debate was worthwhile in any way, considering the developmental stage of the Tejas project.
See, USS Novice’s logic was incorrect. If IAF thinks Gripen is MRCA capable (and so invites it for MRCA competition), then Tejas is MRCA capable too.
As mentioned before, the IAF should have first developed Tejas Mk.2 for it’s MRCA purpose, and invited foreign jets for the same only if the Tejas Mk.2 failed to meet requirements. Instead, what it is doing is that, it does not want to wait for Tejas Mk.2 — even though Tejas Mk.2 is slated to be introduced in 2012 and MRCA in 2014 — and is inviting foreign jets. What’s even worse, 2 of the invitees namely Gripen – NG and F-16 have the same range-payload specs as the estimated ones of Tejas Mk.2.
The F-16 only has the advantage to carry nuclear weapons and cruise-missiles, which is why it’s advertised max. payload is equal to Su-30 MKI i.e. 8 tons. It’s never going to carry that much in ANY mission profile. In a typical combat config. it’ll carry no more than 2.5-3 tons on 11 stations, which is what Tejas Mk.2 will be configured to do.
The 4 twin-engined contenders are also close to Su-30 MKI in range-payload specs. Their introduction in the IAF would also be redundant.
A big missunderstanding in this forum is
nearly same size = nearly same capability ?!!?
See, Tejas Mk.1 has 8 weapon stations (same as Gripen C/D), an empty weight of 6.5 tons (same as the C/D), a variants of the GE-F404 engine. Fuel load is also very similar.
Now, under EADs’ consultancy Tejas Mk.2 will undergo a redesign of it’s undercarriage to reduce weight (and possibly increase fuel load). The company will also increase multiple weapon-stations on the Mk.2. Also, in a week’s time an RFP for a 90 kN- 100 kN engine will be sent.
Now it must be noted that the parallels with Gripen NG are “striking”. The Gripen C/D underwent exacly the same transformations above to become the Gripen NG, as the Tejas Mk.1 will undergo to become Tejas Mk.2. Undercarriage redesign, a more powerful engine, and multiple weapon-stations. Thus, Tejas Mk.2 shall be equivalent to Gripen – NG and superior to the Mirage-2000-V.
AbhimanyuReverse logic. The logical conclusion from that would be that the Tejas would not be suited for MMRCA either.
I disagree with the above. If a=b and b=c, then a=c.
Similarly, if IAF thinks Gripen is MRCA capable and if Gripen is close to Tejas, then Tejas is MRCA capable also. The same may be extended to the 4 twin-engined contenders vis-a-vis Su-30 MKI, and hence all 4 are unnecessary. The F-16 also has the same range-payload specs in the “fighter” config that Tejas Mk.2 will have, and it is also needless. Thus, the entire MRCA proposal is redundant, useless and wasteful.
I think that Tejas must be atleast be given a chance to prove itself. If it fails after that, then only the IAF must call for a foreign jet as a final resort. This is the standard procedure in non-Banana Republic nations, because Banana republics are either unsure of their indigenous developments, or have none at all.
Now, some argue that IAF needs an MRCA because “Tejas is delayed”, even though both — the IAF chief (Major) and DRDO’s chief — are on record to say that Tejas Mk.2 will arrive by 2012. Since enough sorties are not taking place, the IAF can delegate a couple or more pilots for the sake the project. This will accelerate the sortie rate and help meet the 2010 deadline for IOC.
AbhimanyuJunked: France joint missile plan
SUJAN DUTTAA senior defence ministry source, when asked today about the defence deals that figured in discussions during Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s visit to Paris, said that a $500-million (Rs 2,430 crore) proposal from European missile maker MDBA to jointly produce low-level quick reaction missiles (LLQRM) — or short-range surface-to-air missiles (SR-SAMs) — was “not happening”.
The scrapping of the Maitri project may have worked to the advantage of Israel. In 2007, the Indian Air Force contracted 18 Spyder missile systems for about $395.4 million (Rs 1,800 crore) from Israel. Israeli company Rafael was the contractor with Israel Aircraft Industries (IAI) being the major sub-contractor.
But in May this year, IAI was blacklisted after defence minister A.K. Antony ordered action against all seven companies named in a CBI investigation into the deals by the former ordnance factory board director-general Sudipta Ghosh. Ghosh’s houses in Calcutta were raided and he was arrested.
The Maitri missile project involved a technological collaboration between MBDA, India’s Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) and defence public sector unit Bharat Dynamics Limited, the only company in the country that makes missiles.
The DRDO was also hoping to use its experience gained in working on the now aborted indigenous Trishul short-range missile project and marry it with the advance seeker and guidance systems from MBDA’s MICA missile.
In my view, it is unfortunate that the “JV” with MBDA was scrapped, because as mentioend in the above news report, the Maitiri was simply to be a Trishul missile, with an active seeker assembly supplied by MBDA. Now, regretfully this will be supplanted fully by upto 1,000 Spyder missiles by a whole gamut of blacklisted Israeli firms.
This was Trishul’s last chance to be revived, as it was hoped. With this development it will be shelved permanently.
AbhimanyuGripen/Saab Strengths: Decent tech, performance, meets original IAF needs.
Solid price, offset program, diversification of inventoryWeakness: V.little political clout, nightmares from the past- Bofors saga, too close to Tejas mkII. Questions about ability to provide reqd. TOT/independence for U.S parts.
USS.
See, if Gripen is seen too close to Tejas then the next logical line must be :-“Tejas must be the MRCA”, instead of “Don’t select Gripen, and choose from the remaining 5”.
In fact, even F/A-18 Super Hornett, Rafale and Typhhon are similar to the Su-30 MKI in terms of fuel-weapons. These jets can carry upto 8 tons of fuel internally and externally, along with 5 tons of weapons. This is exactly the same as the known fighter config. of Su-30 MKI. Please note that an MKI is almost never likely to fly with 8 tons of weapons, as in that case it’s range will be severely limited and it won’t execute it’s main requirement of being a long-range striker.
Sign In
