Battlefield management system for Indian Army

[Lions Of Punjab]

L&T, BEL consortia set to get Rs 40,000-crore project | idrw.org

The National Democratic Alliance (NDA) government is poised to award its first 'make' contract, in which the Ministry of Defence (MoD) will fund two Indian consortia in developing a Rs 40,000-50-000 crore 'battlefield management system' (BMS). This digital wireless network will interlink soldiers and battlefield sensors through voice and data channels, providing a common battle picture to each jawan.

Business Standard has learnt the MoD has selected two consortia from the dozen companies invited to bid in November 2013. One is a consortium between Larsen & Toubro (L&T) and Tata Power, and the other between Rolta and Bharat Electronics Ltd (BEL). These winners – termed development agencies – could be announced any day.

Under the 'make' category of the Defence Procurement Policy of 2013 (DPP-2013), both consortia will develop separate prototype BMS systems, with the MoD reimbursing 80 per cent of the expenditure. A special MoD 'integrated project management team' (IPMT) will select the better prototype, and both consortia will then bid for the contract to mass-produce the BMS for the military.

While development agencies are chosen on the basis of their technology and indigenisation plans, the contract to mass-produce the BMS will be awarded to the lower bidder.

The 'make' category procedure mandates an Indian company must lead a project, though it could have foreign partners. At least 30 per cent of the system that is built must be indigenous.

The development and procurement of BMS networks is estimated to cost Rs 40,000-50,000 crore for the entire army. This includes developing the software and building hardware to interlink 500-900 soldiers in each of the army's roughly 500 combat units. Four types of custom-designed networks will cater to the army's armoured, mechanised, infantry and special forces combat groups.

While the BMS interlinks frontline soldiers, another mobile digital backbone network called the tactical communications system (TCS) connects them with commanders and support weapons in the rear, allowing the secure passage of reports, photos, data and verbal and written communication.

Two consortia are developing the TCS in India's first-ever 'make' project. BEL leads one, while the other comprises Tata Power, L&T and HCL.

Senior MoD officials, including Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar, believe 'make' category procurements will drive indigenous design and development. "I intend to simplify the 'make' procedure," Parrikar had told the media earlier. To bring in micro, small and medium enterprises (MSMEs), the MoD is ready to reimburse up to 100 per cent of a company's development expenditure, provided 20 per cent of the work is outsourced to MSMEs.

"Whatever percentage of work you do with MSMEs, we can increase your MoD subsidy by that percentage," Parrikar said.

The software-intensive BMS treats each soldier and weapons platform (tank, helicopter, jeep) as a separate digital entity, monitoring its location and combat readiness. The BMS also pools inputs from battlefield sensors such as surveillance radars, seismic sensors, long-range optical sensors and thermal imaging devices.

The BMS will plug into other components of the futuristic high-tech army.

These include a command information and decision support system, which allows commanders to control the battle; a battlefield surveillance system that oversees the battlespace; an artillery combat command and control system that optimises artillery firepower; and an air defence control & reporting system, which monitors and controls airspace.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

The BMS design by BEL with collaboration from IMI, Exsisted since long time ..

I assume L&T will be given manufacturing under Tot transfer from BEL ..

 

[ezsasa]

The BMS design by BEL with collaboration from IMI, Exsisted since long time ..


I assume L&T will be given manufacturing under Tot transfer from BEL ..

Is this image old or new? Problem is with the mention of pentium 3 processor which makes it atleast 12 year old hardware design/concept.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

It does not require more than that for such tasks ..

Is this image old or new? Problem is with the mention of pentium 3 processor which makes it atleast 12 year old hardware design/concept.

 

[DivineHeretic]

It does not require more than that for such tasks ..

It's certainly true that the Pentium III specifications should be good enough for the tasks expected when the system was first conceived. Perhaps they still are capable of handling the requirements, but even so, it would be logical to go for an upgrade, both from financial perspectives and technical expediency.

From the financial perspective, you can't find Pentium III, or for that matter compatible hardware easily, if at all. Consequently, it gets much more expensive to set up the system on such an archaic setup, which again, is less capable than a modern one, at less costs. Just for comparison, a DDR-II RAM 512 MB costs more than a DDR-3 2 GB.

Technically, the option of going for a modern system is far more appealing. One, the modern processors and architecture are far superior to their predecessors in every aspect, in addition to being faster. This enables the entire system to be lighter, less bulkier and more stable than the earlier hardware.

In tanks, this reduced size means more room for the crew, or more space for additional armor, or another sensor. For a solider, this means a tiny lighter device instead of a backpack, and 72 hours of continuous operations instead of 4 hours. It makes him less conspicuous and more agi

Secondly, The modern systems enable better and more complex (and better) algorithms to be used, improving performance. I use algorithms for loading, deformation, strains and a bunch of other analysis for structures (bridges and stuff) and I know the difference what a faster CPU with better architecture can make. With limited CPU performance, you are restricted to use sub optimal algorithms, using large approximations (meaning errors).

And yes, besides all that, you normally only need to tweak the source code to enable it to operate from a new set up, so shifting to a new set up wont consume too much time.

 

[Hari Sud]

What would the Indian Military forces Wouk like to have - tanks, artillery, guns, submarines, fighter jets, higher pay, roads & rail links or battle field infrastructure like the way described in the lead article.

Let me rephrase it, if the money supply is limited, what will be preferences today?

My vote is for battle field infrastructure.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

@DivineHeretic, Military OS and hardwares are not same as Civil use products, For example their are Battlefield computers that have window 98 OS but modified and different in application for military use ..

What may seem outdated and hilarious is quite logical, We had a Military software engg in DFI before but seems he is now busy, Hope when he comes back he can contribute more on the topic ..

 

[Ankit Purohit]

@Kunal Biswas dont they use win Xp ,Win 7 ,Linux ?

 

[Kunal Biswas]

These gadgets are hard to see around, I saw these units in PARA and Signals some time back ..

It is possible they use more sophisticated OS by now, Perhaps custom design by our own ..

 

[syncro]

It's certainly true that the Pentium III specifications should be good enough for the tasks expected when the system was first conceived. Perhaps they still are capable of handling the requirements, but even so, it would be logical to go for an upgrade, both from financial perspectives and technical expediency.

From the financial perspective, you can't find Pentium III, or for that matter compatible hardware easily, if at all. Consequently, it gets much more expensive to set up the system on such an archaic setup, which again, is less capable than a modern one, at less costs. Just for comparison, a DDR-II RAM 512 MB costs more than a DDR-3 2 GB.

Technically, the option of going for a modern system is far more appealing. One, the modern processors and architecture are far superior to their predecessors in every aspect, in addition to being faster. This enables the entire system to be lighter, less bulkier and more stable than the earlier hardware.

In tanks, this reduced size means more room for the crew, or more space for additional armor, or another sensor. For a solider, this means a tiny lighter device instead of a backpack, and 72 hours of continuous operations instead of 4 hours. It makes him less conspicuous and more agi

Secondly, The modern systems enable better and more complex (and better) algorithms to be used, improving performance. I use algorithms for loading, deformation, strains and a bunch of other analysis for structures (bridges and stuff) and I know the difference what a faster CPU with better architecture can make. With limited CPU performance, you are restricted to use sub optimal algorithms, using large approximations (meaning errors).

And yes, besides all that, you normally only need to tweak the source code to enable it to operate from a new set up, so shifting to a new set up wont consume too much time.

The Pentium III military grade is one the hardenest (against all electromagnetic interference, EMP effects, etc...) CPU on the market... alot of military devices and almost all space devices use them.

The requirements for operate in military sector are not the same of civil sector... speed is not all... for a little example, the garantite life of a Pentium III military grade is about 3 times of other "normal" CPUs.

The simpliest of aircraft or drone for electronic warfare can jam or toast ur uber CPUs in microseconds

 

[shekhar]

These gadgets are hard to see around, I saw these units in PARA and Signals some time back ..

It is possible they use more sophisticated OS by now, Perhaps custom design by our own ..

Is there any specific time for induction

 

[qafir]

After this ,perhaps we could better in battlefield......

 

[cobra commando]

BEL Consortium Selected For $8 Billion Indian Battlefield Management System Project

India's Battlefield Management System Prototype To Be Ready By 2017

 

[Kay]

It is just painful that a India does not have a wafer fab even today, though some are coming up now. GOI was dragging feet since 2009. We have no home designed CPUs even when free CPU designs are scattered all over the internet. Pentium III was designed as a commercial processor, not as a specifically hardened processor. It simply happens to be better than its successors. And we are expecting battlefield EMP bombs in the future.
The only OS I am aware of that GOI came up with is a Linux distro. Don't know if that or a variation is adopted by the army. Don't know if they have any security enhanced features.