What to read next

11 Comments

  1. 1

    Anonymous

    Shiv, cant u announce your shows on HT in advance?

    Reply
  2. 2

    Anonymous

    Shiv, theres tons of stuff not on the list. Do you have a more complete one, or is this what you have? Curious..

    -Manoj

    Reply
  3. 3

    Anonymous

    Some of the stuff not included:

    Hand held thermal imagers
    Battle field surveillance radars- Medium
    Tac Computers and Terminals for Army..

    -Manoj

    Reply
  4. 4

    Abhiman

    The services trialed, negotiated and contracted or ALL these systems with such warp speed that is hardly visible while asking for Indian systems.

    India has indigenous systems in the offing, but the services prefer only imported hardware because of a premediated bias :-

    1) Barak — Akash.

    2) Spyder — Trishul.

    3) UAV’s — Lakshya, MALE

    4) Galil — INSAS (why 2 assault rifles are needed ?)

    5) ABM system — PAD & AAD

    6) SPIKE MPATGM (ARMY) — Nag

    6) Greenpine — DRDO has developed indigenous system.

    7) MEDIUM-RANGE SURFACE TO AIR MISSILE — Again Akash (what was the earlier Barak for?)

    For the Trishul, it has been 1 year since development work was declared over and negotiations between the IAF and DRDO for arriving at specifications for the proposed user-trilas of Trishul was announced. Leave aside the user-trials, news about the negotiations is yet to be released.
    In case of Akash, one may have easily forgotten when user-trials for the same were scheduled and delayed.

    As per the interview of head of DRDO Mr. Saraswat, Nag’s user-trials were also scheduled in this year. There are numerous news reports of 2006 lso as per which the DRDO has claimed the completion of Nag and Akash and expressed desire and hope for conducting their user-trials with the services.

    What is unclear is that when indigenous PAD and AAD are in the threshold of development, what is the immediate hurry in buying an Israeli ABM system ? As regards INSAS rifles, even Bussiness world’s latest issue has questioned the continued import of AK-47s despite the successful induction of INSAS rifles.

    Thank you.

    Reply
  5. 5

    Shiv Aroor

    manoj: that’s correct. like i’ve said in the article, this is only a list of the major contracts. the document contained six more pages with all the rest of the stuff, done to the tiniest nut and bolt. that of course included HHTIs, battlefield radars etc.

    abhiman: you’re well-intentioned but you’re little comparison of what we have in india is ridiculous. let’s not kid ourselves!

    Reply
  6. 6

    Abhiman

    Mr. Aroor, there may not be any need to purchase Israeli ABM when the indigenous PAD/AAD system is progressing well. Dr. Saraswat even described its working in brief and stated that it is infact superior to Israel’s Arrow system.

    A cursory google search can display news items for the various statement by DRDO stating that Nag has been completed and user-trials are awaited. The following are some of them :

    Nag missile ready for induction into Army 21 Feb 2003,
    http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/38180929.cms

    Akash/Nag missile trials next year: Aatre August 21, 2003
    http://inhome.rediff.com/news/2003/aug/21akash.htm?zcc=ar

    NAG test-fired successfully Jun 15, 2004
    http://www.blonnet.com/2004/06/15/stories/2004061502510600.htm

    Aerial version of Nag being developed (Land version ready) Mar 24, 2005
    http://www.hindu.com/2005/03/24/stories/2005032405311200.htm

    Thus, it is unclear why Israeli ATGM Spike is being purchased in place of Nag.

    The same state has been reached in case of Akash missile and Trishul missles. Reports from 2004 onwards till 2007 clearly indicate that Akash has been completed and user-trials are awaited. I leave that to the reader, as there are abundant news reports.
    For the Trishul, the 2006 reports about IAF’s pledge of conducting user-trials is as follows :-

    Trishul Missile Project Completed at the Cost of Rs. 275 Crore 29/11/06
    http://www.india-defence.com/reports/2701

    Govt denies winding up Trishul missile project 29 Nov, 2006
    http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/NEWS/India/Govt_denies_winding_up_Trishul_missile_project/articleshow/636092.cms

    Again, both the Spyder and Trishul are 12-15 km range LLRQMs. The Spyder due to its active seeker, has the fcaility of a slightly higher range that’s all. (marketed as LOAL mode).
    The Trishul’s 3-beam guidance is also unique, ensures high accuracy and almost jam-proof.

    It is also unclear as to why Israeli 5.56 mm assault rifles like Galil are needed when INSAS has already proved its mettle during the Kargil war. It is also not clear which other surface to air missile is being procured from Israel after the already incumbent Barak and ‘Maitri’.

    Thank you.

    Reply
  7. 7

    Abhiman

    CVC to probe missile deal with Israel The Hindu, Sep 14, 2007.

    The SPYDER missile deal, has also proven to have been executed by bribery and underhand dealings, like Barak was in the year 2000. The excellent news may be that the Spyder deal will be cancelled, thus giving a lease of life to the Trishul. The media will of course start justifying this scam, by the routine blaming of Trishul and a final retort of, “commissions are an age-old accepted part of this field”.

    It is unclear how a Spyder system is more advantageous than Trishul other than in having a range higher by 3 kms. Like Trishul, a Spyder TEL also has 4 missile units aimed at a specific direction. The Trishul is continously guided by the radar affixed at the TEl, but as per army-technology.com, the Spyder is instructed to change course in the ‘general’ direction of the target, just prior to being fired. As soon as it is fired, it keeps going as per stored instruction, until its active seeker locates the target and goes after it on its own. That’s why its seeker has a 100 deg. boresight capability, so that even if it is highly off-course well into flight, its seeker can swing it around to the correct course as soon as the target is within the seeker’s range.

    It is unclear how it will handle a cluster of closely spaced targets. The Trishul on the other hand can do that perfectly, as its radar at the TEL only tracks one target for each missile throughout the missile’s flight.

    Also, a SPYDER is dependent on a CCU for operation, whereas a Trishul can be self-sufficient system ensconed in a TEL itself, because the TEL has the tracking and guidance radars. A provision to communicate to a higher-level surveillance radar away from the TEL should be possible.

    Thank you.

    References :-
    http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NEWS/newsrf.php?newsid=9433

    http://www.army-technology.com/projects/spyder/

    Reply
  8. 8

    Anonymous

    Shiv,

    Thanks,

    Do you have the entire six page document with you, can you post more on it? The smaller items are often more interesting than all the big guns and tanks and stuff.

    -Manoj

    Reply
  9. 9

    Abhiman

    The following excerpt is taken by a seminal paper titled, “Indo-US Nuclear Deal: Where are the Blocks? “, authored by Reshmi Kazi, Research Fellow, IPCS and
    Amit Kumar Singh, Research Officer, IPCS. It was read at the Seminar held at the IPCS on 18 May 2007 :-

    There is a fundamental difference between Homi Bhabha’s policy of growing science and the policy of importing science. The process of growing science does not involve a jump from the base level to the most advanced aspects without undertaking the intermediate trial and error methods.Cutting edge technology is not given by any state that acquires it for the obvious reason that in the present day, the technology edge sets nations apart. The technology that would be handed over, therefore, will be second- or third-rate.

    It could not have expressed it so exactly and lucidly. Hence, what the media thinks is “co-operation” between India and Israel is nothing more than the sale of these weapons.

    Nowadays, even licence production rights are marketed as “join-venture” and “strategic cooperation”. This is exactly what is being presented to the Indian public on the PAK-FA program.. The PAK-FA is to India what JF-17 is to Pakistan :- The contribution is only in funding, in return for licence production rights.

    Similarly, Israeli SAM projects are also not JVs in the real sense of the term. IF they do materialize (which is unlikely considering the corruption case regarding SPYDER and the dubious track-record of Barak), Israeli contribution will primarily be in sensors/seekers whereas Indian contribution will be in propulsion, integration, and other sub-systems.. Neither party will share their actual technology of their contributions with the other. Only the external interfaces of their technology will be shared so that they can be ‘put together’ to work in tandem.

    Thank you.

    Reference :
    http://ipcs.org/US_related_seminars2.jsp?action=showView&kValue=2323

    Reply
  10. 10

    Anonymous

    i didnt find ELTA EL/M 2032 derivative(?) for the LCA MMR as HAL and LRDE jointly goofed up indigenous development.

    Reply
  11. 11

    Anonymous

    I wonder why should India give out so much information in the name of Transparency. Do you ever get to hear anything about China’s plans like this?

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © . All rights reserved.