Misraji, any Air Force knows it’s requirements, which can be comprehended by a non-military person. Even if they are not in the public domain (as in case of the IAF), we can indeed compare — and question — the specifications and merits of what they are purchasing vis-a-vis what is available indigenously.

This argument is somewhat like the one made by ultra-religious scholars — like Dr. Zakir Naik. “You are not Muslim and not Arabic, so you can’t comprehend the Quran. Even if translated in English”. The fact is, Quran or any book can be comprehended and understood by any school kid. A Haary Potter has more literary and creative merit than ANY religious book.

This is exactly what we discuss. IAF may know what it wants, but admit it that a military enthusiast can comprehend and question it’s purchases while neglecting similar equipment made indigenously. And after this, there are charges of corruption, what with the Central Vigilance Commission, the CBI and even Dr. Natarajan of DRDO commenting that a sequence of events led to Akash’s squadrons being curtailed, then the IAF invites itself in the dock of criticism and questioning.

IAF not knowing best is from the guy who thinks that LCA will NOT have any problems in the future and will be on time, who proposes LCA Mk2 as MRCA, and whose only source are news articles from journalists whose credentials are questionable at the best.

Arey, how much are you going to hedge against Tejas’ possible delays and possible failures. By buying even more foreign fighter jets ? Why couldn’t it see the Tejas Mk. 2 to quick fruition and avoided the MRCA altogether ?

Now in this case, as we have discussed earlier, the IAF is clearly guilty of dereliction of it’s responsibility of working shoulder to shoulder with the DRDO.
In countries ranging from USAF, to China and even Pakistan, their Air Forces work in unprecedented ways with their respective Defence Research Establishments. The Pentagon and USAF work in tandem with the private contractors from drawing board to finish. The Pak Air Force owns the Pakistan Aeronautical Complex, Kamra that has gotten the JF-17 in the air by any means possible. It’s Air Chief doesn’t make public comments like, “We were disappointed by Akash, and so bought Spyder” (like S.P. Tyagi, who is now an agent of Israeli firms).

A book has been written by Air Marshal Rajkumar, who also highlights this issue. The culture of working in tandem with the research establishment has just never been there in the IAF. In it, he has also said how the IAF dithered in giving clearance to the Tejas project in 1993, when it was to come in 1990. But no newspaper or commentator has questioned the IAF for this lapse. But if DRDO delayed the first flight of Tejas by 6 years in the wake of sanctions, tech. denials etc. then no effort is spared in criticizing it.

Hence, had the IAF taken the Tejas project with more seriousness, dedication and most importantly, commitment, it would NOT have felt the need for an MRCA now, because in all likelihood the Mk.2 is going to be identical to Gripen – NG. Instead, a non-committal attitude has slowed down in what otherwise could’ve been a brilliant 4.5 G fighter.

Debating stuff is one thing, maligning the Armed forces at every given opportunity and having a holier than thou attitude is a bloody waste of time

I think you are clearly mistaking criticism for “malign”. Maligning means abusing, infamy, or derating. This, nobody here has done. What we have discussed is highly questionable purchases, and allegations of corrupt officials.

When I say that Tejas Mk.2 can be an MRCA, I’m not merely voicing my opinion. It is the opinion of Vice-Admiral Raman Puri and Ex-scientific advisor (2006) Mr. Parthasarathy. When I say that Akash’s squads have been undermined by foreign missiles, it is the opinion of DRDO’s chief. And also if IAF is criticized for having a penchant for foreign arms, then no less than Dr. Natarajan of DRDO has said that our services prefer Parisan perfumes to desi hamaams.

And unless you, or me or anybody for that matter, can prove, by declaring their credentials, that they are better judge of what IAF needs, based on IAF orbat, strategy, future planned acquisitions etc, we better leave such judgements to IAF itself.

I’m not an IAF officer, and have never been in the IAF. But I think that by studying military equipment since the past few years from the internet, newspapers and magazines I think I’m qualified enough to question IAF’s preference for foreign hardware over equivalent indigenous ones. You can call me a “nobody”, “internet junkie” or any slang nomenclature, but this is what is my opinion of myself.

You are really confused. First make up your mind.

– The performance of the MRSAM is entirely germane to the procurement as the IAF is facing a severe threat & performance considerations matter.
– Newspapers write all sorts of rubbish, doesnt mean you can pick & choose what to believe. Till the other day these idiots were calling the Akash names, despite facts to the contrary, and now they are its saviours? Please grow up- the hullabaloo is clearly because a rival to IAI- Rafael has spread some muck to have the deal cancelled. Not because these experts like Josy Joseph ( a famous DRDO baiter) have suddenly discovered a conscience.

See, the problem with your arguments is that you keep on extolling the MR-SAM and say how “good” it is for the IAF. It rests on the repeated argument that the “IAF knows what it wants”, and therefore the MR-SAM must be ‘good’.

While the efficacy of the MR-SAM is not debated, nor is the increased threat scenario now being faced by the IAF, it is also reportedly true that :-

a) This deal was executed more by lobbying and “wheeler-dealing” than the threat scenario faced by IAF.
b) Point a) could’ve been a non-issue had it not been for extant indigenous systems that can also meet requirement.

Point b) has been elaborated upon in this news report also, by Dr. Natarajan who spoke about foreign missile systems taking Akash’s place.

Secondly, do not ‘debunk’ the news reports or journalists or news reports because it suits your argument. While it is true that Times of India and Indian Express are select “mouthpieces” of foreign arms lobbies, the same cannot be said of DNA, Telegraph and The Hindu which have often voiced DRDO’s opinion in the past, as in this news report. Josy Joseph had also reported in 2002 that Akash will be inducted in 2004 (the same was reported by The Hindu also via an interview of the then chief of DRDO).

What are you going to do if it comes to your kind attention that the MRSAM is a first step in creating a family of missiles with ranges far beyond even 120 km. 😀
The MRSAM is the first of a series of missiles.

Note that the proposal to acquire a 120 km range SAM had originally been there, but this 120 km range has been brought down to 70 kms. If there are plans to develop a beyond 120 km range SAM, it anyway comes under the likes of Arrow, Patriot, Aegis etc. As we know, India has embarked on this route since 2006 and it is unlikely to go beyond purchase of some items for the same like an Israeli radar and a Russian seeker. It is unlikely to go upto JV stage.

Secondly, stop dragging in the AAD into this discussion. The guys who initially noted this – Adm. Puri et al, havent continued to write on this. Clearly they got additional details later.

The above is inaccurate, as it was Dr. Natarajan and not Adm. Puri to have stated that AAD should be able to handle cruise missile intercepts (and hence fighter jets too) (news report originally from CNN-IBN). Besides, it remains pertinent after stating it only once by such an authority. He needn’t repeat it.

Oh man, you can quote all the brochure stuff you want, but do you understand how it works?

Heres the fact, the BLR & launchers are colocated, even if the FCC (Flight control center) is far away. An ARM strike would either disable or rather suppress the quantum of missiles that are in the air versus targets! Thats enough in the case of a surge. An ARH equipped missile can be surged far more easily.

Wrong. The MRSAM architecture is very similar to the Akash’s only that its missiles have the capability for fire and forget ops, in a manner of speaking. They can LOAL, whereas the Akash cant. It was not meant to, different needs as well.

In case of Akash, there is also a 3rd radar called Battery Surveillance Radar (BSR) that can communicate with the GCC. It can track targets at a range of 100 kms. The GCC then transfers the target to an appropriate battery at real-time, to be tracked and guided by the battery’s BLR. It’s significance will be discussed shortly.

Now all Israeli missiles from Barak-1, Spyder to this MR-SAM have to have LOAL and LOBL, because they aren’t guided by a tracking radar while in flight (they are not ARH missiles). So this is NOT some featured capability, but simply a method of operation only. If the target is within seeker range at the site, it is launched in LOBL mode, else in LOAL mode (after being given general directions like an extremely short-sighted person). **

Now, the range of Kh-31 is 110 kms, whereas the MR-SAM is operative at 70 kms, even in the “hyped” LOAL mode. This does not make it invulnerable to Kh-31 at all. If certain “hide-seek” tactics are deployed like last-minute radar track etc. the GCC of Akash is very well suited to do this to the BLR after it gets real-time target info from the BSR.

Those news reports are junk. My information is not from “news reports” and the like but from several events where DRDO itself disclosed what Akash plans were.

As posted above, Dr. Natarajan himself has said that the order of Akash squadrons is curtailed.

Stating “in my view” is correct, because as in most things, the IAF and DRDO disagree with you. And part of the reason is that the MRSAM is not going to remain at 70 km either.

See, it is an MR-SAM because it is of a range of 70 kms. 120 kms and beyond is the domain of theatre missile defences, which are also configured to target fighter jets and cruise missiles, like the S-300. This can be handled by our indigenous PAD/AAD missiles.

The JV is under investigation because the idiots in the UPA are sh!t scared of anyone accusing them of another Bofors.

MRSAM is hardly “on paper” – its well ahead in development & with systems, including the propulsion component supplied by DRDO. The key components such as the Elta 2248 are also having new derivatives developed- I’d invite you to look at the Alpha and what it tells us.

Arey bhaisaheb, when IAI’s chief Itzhak Nissan himself describes the MR-SAM to India as a sale and not as a JV here, it is the least that the Central Vigilance Commission is investigating this JV. He expressly said that IAI will manufacture and sell this to India.

I think this may have fallen under the offsets clause, so some local players may have been “roped in” by IAI to make some components. This, you are “blissfully” mistaking for a JV.

Besides I note how you coolly sidestepped the entire issue of tactical missile development at DRDO and their radar, missile capabilities apart from the Akash. Just dont know enough about it, do you?

If you did, you wouldnt be ranting about corruption and this and that.

It is unclear why you are linking an unrelated issue (as usual) of tactical missiles with the current discussion of MR-SAM. If you are hinting at Israeli help in Swordfish radar, then as mentioned above it has been mentioned by the chief of DRDO and it was bought only because India did not have such a radar already, and developing the same would take much time. The same was done vis-a-vis active seekers for the PAD/AAD, which were acquired from Russia.
The guidance software is entirely indigenous, as per an interview by Dr. Natarajan. He also explicitly stated that India will never acquire any ready-made system, only some components that it needs.

Footnote :-

** It is unclear what happens if the target maneuvers since the launch and is in the vicinity of a friendly. What will the MR-SAM lock onto then, once it “opens it’s eyes” ?

In early 2008, it was reported by “The Hindu” newspaper (obviously, as Times of India and Indian Express hardly report on indigenous missile successes), that IAF has ordered 2 squadrons of Akash with an option of ordering 8 more. Since then, the Spyder missile purchase was placed under CBI investigation, and the defence minister went on to say in an interview that the 30 km Akash can’t be compared to the 70 km Israeli MR-SAM.

The Telegraph (and not “mouthpieces” ToI and IE) in March reported that the CBI investigation has revealed that Israel Aircraft Industries has a network of agents who are former IAF officers themselves, to influence the IAF to make mega-purchases of their missiles like Spyder, MR-SAM etc. (news report). The report also says that the CBI and the Central Vigilance Commission are also investigating whether this MR-SAM is merely being “disguised as a Joint Venture”.

What was even more “amusing” was the Hindi-movie song and dance sequence that the IAI representatives put up at Aero-India 2009. Not only was it embarrasingly stupid, it also demonstrates how ‘pathetically’ Israel actually thinks of / treats it’s Indian partners. The lyrics of the “item-song” are here (courtesy, The Telegraph).

There has also been no confirmation that the Spyder missile will be purchased by the IAF after the CBI started investigations into wrongdoings in it’s purchase. ToI’s Rajat Pandit “gleefully” reported late last year that the government may clear it’s purchase, but nothing else has been heard of since then.

externally they are identical, the internals have simply had a fresh makeover; guidance system and other electronics

The Akash shares SA-6’s ramjet propulsion only. The 3 types of radars are entirely different from the singular radar of SA-6. The operational scenarios are also entirely different. As talltower has posted, it’s internal electronics are modern ones, instead of Soviet ones. Thus, they may not be described as “simply a fresh makeover”.

Considering that from 1930s it was only Russia that worked extensively on ramjets, it was adopted on Akash by DRDO because the Indian Army used the Soviet-origin SA-6. Besides, the top speed of Akash is M 3.5 compared to M 2.8 of SA-6, and max. range is 30 kms compared to 24 kms of SA-6.

DRDO scientists working on Akash have got a patent to increase it’s speed and range (news report), not used by any other country before.

The following are excellent posts by Austin made on Bharat-rakshak forums. I fully agree with his views :-

“No i really think that kind of money ( $10 Billion ) is spent better by funding and encouraging our own programs and our own people. It might sound illogical to many now but in the long term it will help us become more self reliant.

The IAF has fetish for foreign toys , they can give 100 reasons to buy this or that in the name of this or that country or worsening security etc etc , but they will never fully support or encourage our own programs because there is nothing they personally gain from it.

What we will get in the end is loads of black boxes and few source code and some TOT and in the end it will be Lic Manf will some technology transfer , we gain nothing and spend our money funding LM , Dassult or Mig.

I fully agree with the above views. The IAF’s oft quoted “excuse” that it is pursuing MRCA due to “delays” in Tejas falls flat, because everyone from test-pilots, ADA and the chiefs of IAF and DRDO themselves have stated that Tejas Mk.2 will be introduced in 2012. When this is even earlier than the projected / estimated / predicted date of MRCA introduction, then why doesn’t the IAF look at Tejas Mk.2 as an MRCA ?

Many members there have also expressed the view that instead of purchasing 40 Mirage-2000-9 from Qatar, India may as well increase the production of Tejas Mk.2 as it would not only be much superior, but also cheaper.

In my view, what has happened is this :-

20 years back, IAF wanted Tejas to be a MiG-21 equivalent having a normal loaded weight of 8.5 tons.

However, over the years it’s weight has increased a lot because of housing modern avionics, and many other technologies that IAF kept demanding after flight tests began in 2001.

This resulted in Tejas’ weight being 10.5 tons in the normal configuration. Notwithstanding the fact that this is perfectly normal as other modern jets like Gripen C/D, JF-17 and T-50, IAF “nonchalantly” declared to the media that Tejas is 2 tons overweight and needs a new engine. In short, IAF “washed it’s hands” and proclaimed DRDO the wrongdoer.

Arey baba ! 8 tons normal load is the weight of those Vietnam era MiG-21s. What is the IAF thinking Tejas should weigh in the 21st century after adding 8 weapon stations, a fuel-load twice that of MiG-21 and Su-30 MKI’s avionics ?

But some would say it is right, because the “IAF says so”.

The IAF is in the best position to assess the LCA, if they believe it is nothing more than a Mig-21 replacement, then so be it. DRDO can hype it up as much as they want, but if it were as capable as the Mirage 2kV, there wouldn’t be a need to have the MRCA.

See, as already mentioned earlier, the argument of “Customer is king” is your final resort.

You keep on contradicting yourself, you keep saying the LCA was intended to be a Mig-21 replacement, then go on to claim the LCA is as capable as the Mirage 2KV and is gearing up to be a deep strike platform…then go on to claim it can’t compete for the MRCA!!…you are more confused than a ******* on fathers day!!

Again you are not comprehending the arguments properly. Abusing is not going to validate your arguments.

We are discussing that IAF’s assesment of Tejas is incorrect. It is the view of a former Vice-Admiral (retd) and ex-Scientific advisor to GoI that Tejas is equivalent or superior atleast to Mirage-2000 (read: “The case to support indigenous LCA”, The Hindu). It’s payload is equal to IAF’s serving MiG-29s and MiG-27 — not MiG-21. It’s combat range is also estimated to be equal to MiG-29.

Tejas today weighs 6,500 kgs which is the same as Gripen C/D. Tejas Mk.2 will have a refurbished undercarriage, more weapon-stations — just the same transformation that Gripen C/D undertook to become Gripen – NG. Mk.2 will have an even more powerful engine than Gripen – NG has.

Now it is nearly ineveitable that IAF will reconsider it’s decision to induct Tejas Mk.2 in lieu of foreign planes as MRCAs. Now, IAF claims that Tejas was meant to replace MiG-21s. So, even if we keep this line, it can induct over 400 Tejas’ because at one time it’s MiG-21 fleet did number that much.

I have not said Tejas Mk.2 cannot be a MRCA (have always maintained that consistently) . You are providing a false argument.