Know Your 'Rafale'

Punya Pratap

New Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2013
Messages
474
Likes
361
Country flag
Certain establishments of the DRDO has come to some sort of efficiency, while there are host of others who should actually be wound up or made collaborators with the private industry.

Can you explain how DRDO can make missiles that are of international standard (as you say with indigenous expertise) and yet was floundering with the anti tank missile NAG, which is not of such sophistry as, say, Agni ?

The design work on NAG started in 1988 and first tested in 1990.

It is now accepted but the work on NAMICA is still not through.
With all due respect Ray Sir, NAG/Namica are also victims to the environment they are supposed to function in. The heat seeker or NAG has trouble fixing in Thar desert where the surrounding temperature of the target itself is 50 degrees centigrade or more. Even today the temp of Jodhpur is 42 degrees while Jaisalmer and Barmer it will be at least 46-47 degrees and goes beyond 50 in May and June.
 

power_monger

New Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2014
Messages
642
Likes
653
Country flag
Certain establishments of the DRDO has come to some sort of efficiency, while there are host of others who should actually be wound up or made collaborators with the private industry.

Can you explain how DRDO can make missiles that are of international standard (as you say with indigenous expertise) and yet was floundering with the anti tank missile NAG, which is not of such sophistry as, say, Agni ?

The design work on NAG started in 1988 and first tested in 1990.

It is now accepted but the work on NAMICA is still not through.
Nag is more complex missile than Agni in all aspects.firstly Agni missile does not have any seeker(as most of ballistic missiles).

Nag uses IIR seeker.Let me give you idea on how it works, IIR seeker is coded to differentiate objects based on temperature. As a moving tank is always at higher temperature in normal conditions nag missile is said to working for distances even at 5-7 kms. But in desert since the temperature is quite hot in afternoons,there is not much difference between temperature of a tank and its surroundings. Hence Nag missile is struggling to get pass through this requirement. Even Javelin(american missile) is not known to have this capability. Barring this particular requirement Nag missile is done wrt all other requirements.By far Astra would be the most complex missile designed by DRDO(PDV missile will soon overtake it once done)

on the other hand Agni missiles to designed to hit a stationary target which makes its job quite easy.It just relays on inertial navigation t guide through its path.Hence theoretically Nag missile is quite tough than Agni missile.

BTW,Namica is just a carrier and if i remember it is being designed by L&T(co-ordinated by DRDO).as far as i know Army has been changing requirements to Namica carrier which is delaying its completion.
 
Last edited:

Ray

The Chairman
New Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
43,132
Likes
23,841
Nag is more complex missile than Agni in all aspects.firstly Agni missile does not have any seeker(as most of ballistic missiles).

Nag uses IIR seeker.Let me give you idea on how it works, IIR seeker is coded to differentiate objects based on temperature. As a moving tank is always at higher temperature in normal conditions nag missile is said to working for distances even at 5-7 kms. But in desert since the temperature is quite hot in afternoons,there is not much difference between temperature of a tank and its surroundings. Hence Nag missile is struggling to get pass through this requirement. Even Javelin(american missile) is not known to have this capability. Barring this particular requirement Nag missile is done wrt all other requirements.By far Astra would be the most complex missile designed by DRDO(PDV missile will soon overtake it once done)

on the other hand Agni missiles to designed to hit a stationary target which makes its job quite easy.It just relays on inertial navigation t guide through its path.Hence theoretically Nag missile is quite tough than Agni missile.

BTW,Namica is just a carrier and if i remember it is being designed by L&T(co-ordinated by DRDO).as far as i know Army has been changing requirements to Namica carrier which is delaying its completion.
I have fired missiles if you don't mind, and so I understand its working.

Thank you all the same.

Thanks to the large-scale employment of MALE-UAVs and ground-based long-range surveillance systems like the road-mobile STENTOR MR-BFSR & LORROS being available, the situation changes and so does the requirement.

The same also applies to R & S units deployed over built-up terrain. And the 'enemy' too has such battlefield surveillance tools at its disposal, which increases the vulnerability to the NAMICA as it now exists. When fighting future wars no Indian tracked/wheeled AIFV or ICV will ever be employed as recce/scout vehicles for screening the terrain ahead of friendly advancing armoured formations—this practice was done away with by the late 1990s itself as the very survivability of such vehicles cannot be assured anymore. Instead, what will be required is a platform that can survive hostile ATGM hits, as well as engage hostile manoeuvring armoured targets from standoff distances if at least 7km. The Indian Army perfectly understands this, and consequently has asked for radical modifications to the NAMICA.

At the same time, the 7km-range version of the Nag should be used by such a tank destroyer, since the it doesn't make any sense to use a 4km-range Nag when the mast-mounted target search/acquisition sensor can easily look out to a distance of 8km. Only the DRDO knows why on earth the NAMICA-launched Nag's range was limited to 4km, when the Indian Army since the 1980s and recently has had the BMP-2-launched 4km-range Konkurs & Konkurs-M ATGMs.

I might mention initiated in 1983 by then DRDO boss, Dr APJ Abdul Kalam, the IGMDP set out to develop five missiles: the Agni and Prithvi ballistic missiles; the Akash and Trishul anti-aircraft missiles; and the Nag ATGM. Only the Trishul will have failed to enter frontline military service.

With all due respect Ray Sir, NAG/Namica are also victims to the environment they are supposed to function in. The heat seeker or NAG has trouble fixing in Thar desert where the surrounding temperature of the target itself is 50 degrees centigrade or more. Even today the temp of Jodhpur is 42 degrees while Jaisalmer and Barmer it will be at least 46-47 degrees and goes beyond 50 in May and June.
That is right.

It works for 2.5 kms.

But one can hardly change the environment.
 
Last edited:

Sakal Gharelu Ustad

Detests Jholawalas
New Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2012
Messages
7,114
Likes
7,762
Nag is more complex missile than Agni in all aspects.firstly Agni missile does not have any seeker(as most of ballistic missiles).

Nag uses IIR seeker.Let me give you idea on how it works, IIR seeker is coded to differentiate objects based on temperature. As a moving tank is always at higher temperature in normal conditions nag missile is said to working for distances even at 5-7 kms. But in desert since the temperature is quite hot in afternoons,there is not much difference between temperature of a tank and its surroundings. Hence Nag missile is struggling to get pass through this requirement. Even Javelin(american missile) is not known to have this capability. Barring this particular requirement Nag missile is done wrt all other requirements.By far Astra would be the most complex missile designed by DRDO(PDV missile will soon overtake it once done)

on the other hand Agni missiles to designed to hit a stationary target which makes its job quite easy.It just relays on inertial navigation t guide through its path.Hence theoretically Nag missile is quite tough than Agni missile.

BTW,Namica is just a carrier and if i remember it is being designed by L&T(co-ordinated by DRDO).as far as i know Army has been changing requirements to Namica carrier which is delaying its completion.
Sure, Agni does not so much require effort on target setting. But Agni needs increase in its range, making it complex in a different sense.

The two problems are different. I do not know how you can compare.
 

Ray

The Chairman
New Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
43,132
Likes
23,841
Sure, Agni does not so much require effort on target setting. But Agni needs increase in its range, making it complex in a different sense.

The two problems are different. I do not know how you can compare.
I totally agree.

Complexity in each is of different.

And to feel Agni is not a complex weapon would be misplaced.

**************************************


@power_monger

The Circular Error Probability is a measure of a weapon system's precision. Am I to understand that the CEP of Agni is not a complex issue and merely a child's play?





Therefore, is the mechanics to ensure a small CEP of a long range missile an easy task?

Accuracy of bullets of a rifle itself is a complex issue and to imagine a Missile's CEP is not a technical problem when compared to that of an anti tank missile homing system!

All missiles have their own singular requirement and complexities.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

sgarg

New Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2014
Messages
3,480
Likes
986
@Ray, understanding of technology is needed while framing requirements. Projects fail when requirements are not in tune with technology available.

It is preferable to let DRDO prove a 4km missile before it can try to build a 7km missile.

For DRDO, it should use some other type of seeker if IIR is not suitable. Why to get stuck on a single type of seeker.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Ray

The Chairman
New Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
43,132
Likes
23,841
@Ray, understanding of technology is needed while framing requirements. Projects fail when requirements are not in tune with technology available.

It is preferable to let DRDO prove a 4km missile before it can try to build a 7km missile.

For DRDO, it should use some other type of seeker if IIR is not suitable. Why to get stuck on a single type of seeker.
When we have 4 km range Konkurs, then why have another 4 kms range NAG?

Where is there the issue of technology?

I am afraid I don't buy your contention - It is preferable to let DRDO prove a 4km missile before it can try to build a 7km missile for the simple reason that India has no loose change to play a doting grandfather to any organisation, including the Army or DRDO. Also, when one has a 4km missile, there is no need to reinvent the wheel.

Further, you must understand that technology changes fast and so do the adversary's weapon inventory. Therefore, does that mean that we remain static and not respond to changing scenarios and technology?

Do people have the old mobile phone still or are they with the touch screen and other stuff like Bluetooth and all that?

Why have they changed and responded to technological change?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

sgarg

New Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2014
Messages
3,480
Likes
986
@Ray, you are questioning the basic sanction of the development of Nag missile. Your statement is basically that GOI made a mistake as 4km Konkurs was already available. To prove your statement wrong would need a lot of unpublished information.

Let us assume that GOI had a valid reason to develop Nag like a. Import substitution, b. Better quality etc.

DRDO selected a seeker technology which it thought would be best alternative. Later on (it seems) that seeker did not perform well in all possible conditions. If I am a project manager, I would develop two versions with different seekers rather than using a single seeker. The version with IIR can go to deployments in colder area, while a wire guided missile can be used in Rajasthan.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Khagesh

New Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2015
Messages
1,274
Likes
870
@Ray saab,

Mobiles is actually a very apt example but you have juxtaposed the real technology (mobile networks) against the features level technology (bluetooth and swipe screens). You will arrive at an entirely different conclusion if you compare Mobile networks with the old PSTN lines. Being an old timer you will know the quantum leap mobile networks were. Unfortunately not all technology is as helpful or even may be required. For example in the case of Rafale. I would say it is better in terms of technology compared to Su30MKI but it is a tech that we really have only niche uses for. Moreover despite it being much better tech the real business end of hitting and killing is still going to be done on the Su30MKI and in a far better manner. This is the aeronautical equivalent of the Vietnam war where a peasant army due to its personal commitment chased out two european powers and the superpower of the era.

Regards the seekers vs ILS guidance. Seekers are definitely a much bigger tech jump compared to calculation of ballistic trajectories, which Indians have been doing for ever.

Coincidentally you and sgarg are discussing the seekers in the 4 to 7 km range. For a seeker of a poorer quality it is given that it will take some extra time to detect, track and target. The 7 km one is easier actually. This is again not too different from what you must have experienced in your younger days. An enemy at longer range, even if overwhelming in numbers, allows you time to revise your tactics but two jawans of the pakis in the bushes behind the bund represent a much more pressing challenge with lesser answers in your hands and lesser time to find answers.

Time is the real weapon. Now if you are allowed lesser time then you have to evolve completely new ways of dealing with the challenge. New ways that may not necessarily have existed beforehand and you may never have practiced it. Thus at this point you will exert your brains to get to your goal and hence your brain becomes an equal weapon. Equal to the weapon of time itself.

TIFWIW
 
Last edited by a moderator:

power_monger

New Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2014
Messages
642
Likes
653
Country flag
@power_monger

The Circular Error Probability is a measure of a weapon system's precision. Am I to understand that the CEP of Agni is not a complex issue and merely a child's play?



Therefore, is the mechanics to ensure a small CEP of a long range missile an easy task?

Accuracy of bullets of a rifle itself is a complex issue and to imagine a Missile's CEP is not a technical problem when compared to that of an anti tank missile homing system!

All missiles have their own singular requirement and complexities.
CEP is important.But you need to understand that Agni missiles do not have the difficulty to target a moving object.They target a stationary objects.And they have lesser(lot lesser) weight and size restrictions.
On other hand,nag missile have to identify the target which is essentially moving. For example, A nag missile will be taking 250 images per second,analyse it and track the moving object using complex codes.Analyzing 250 images per second and determine target via complex algorithms makes its life very difficult.This has to come in a short missile which has firstly less power on hand to do such computation,and secondly there is cooling issues due to over heat due to high computation and thirdly navigating the missile towards the target in short range(higher G's),All this in limited size and weight missile definitely makes it much more complex than a Agni missile without seeker.

Thats the reason you see,why many countries have been able to design and develop ballistic missiles,yet have not made any progress in Tactical missiles.Seeker is what is stopping them.I hope i answered you.

Ps: The above post do not assume that Agni missile technology is not complex.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Armand2REP

CHINI EXPERT
New Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2009
Messages
13,811
Likes
6,734
Country flag
That is because IAF hardly much used the Mirages. Without using a capability you should be getting 100% serviceability. 90% implies a 10% deficit in serviceability, even when a platform is favoured beyond other platforms.

:lol:
It is rather impossible to achieve a 100% serviceability rate for any squadron much less an entire fleet. At any time there will be aircraft in maintenance and service rotations.
 

sgarg

New Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2014
Messages
3,480
Likes
986
It is rather impossible to achieve a 100% serviceability rate for any squadron much less an entire fleet. At any time there will be aircraft in maintenance and service rotations.
Khagesh's point is valid - the availability is a factor of usage of the fleet as well. More usage results in higher wear and tear.

If Russian planes are used more, likely the reason is that these are used more often for training, means these are more critical to the war.

GOI would be very happy if IAF can achieve a gross 70% availability for the entire fighter fleet. This goal is realistic. All it needs is timely orders of spares, good management of parts inventory, and timely servicing of planes.
 

Ray

The Chairman
New Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
43,132
Likes
23,841
Adversaries mobile land-based missiles are mounted on transporter erector launchers (TELs).

These high-end opponents are capable of mounting multi-axis saturation attacks.

The success these weapons enjoy by hiding and moving to where they are needed means that virtually all new land-based missile systems, whether short-range anti-aircraft weapons or intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), are now deployed on TELs, with mobility built into their operational concepts. These mobile systems are now operated by China, Russia, Iran, and many other.


A Topol-M on MZKT-79221 mobile launcher

Modern ICBMs typically carry multiple independently targetable reentry vehicles (MIRVs)

Circular error probable is crucial, because halving the Circular error probable decreases the needed warhead energy by a factor of four (see inverse-square law). Accuracy is limited by the accuracy of the navigation system and the available geodetic information.

ICBMs are with Regiments and the Regiments have batteries.

Having completed it fourth experimental operational development flight test with three successes in a row the new semi-mobile MIRV'ed, ICBM was approved for field regimental operational experimental deployment with the Russian Federation,
RS-24 / SS-X-29?
Therefore, to believe that Agni would only be used only for stationery targets would be misplaced.

Indeed all missile systems have their complexities, but it is not correct to state 'A' type of missile is more complex than 'B', even if it the sole purpose is to prove the point that you are canvassing for.
 

Ray

The Chairman
New Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
43,132
Likes
23,841
It is rather impossible to achieve a 100% serviceability rate for any squadron much less an entire fleet. At any time there will be aircraft in maintenance and service rotations.
You are right.

It is impossible to have serviceability at 100%, even if the equipment is not used and is sitting idle.

Modern day military and commercial aircraft systems are an integration of a large number of sub-systems and components. Each of these systems has different reliability characteristics and different probability distributions
governing their failure rates. Space constraints and structural layout of the aircraft govern the position of each
component. The accessibility, reliability, and snag diagnostic-ability determines the maintainability of the aircraft.

Operational Availability: Operational availability is the degree to which the aircraft are in an operable and a committable state at the start of the mission when the mission is called for at an unknown (random) time.

Net Fleet Serviceability: The net fleet serviceability is obtained by the ratio of the number of aircraft in the fleet
available for operations to the total number of aircraft in the fleet. The total number of aircraft includes the aircraft
undergoing scheduled maintenance and the aircraft awaiting spare parts.
 
Last edited:

Ray

The Chairman
New Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
43,132
Likes
23,841
In the captain's seat

- Putting Indian aeronautics on the international stage
Brijesh D. Jayal




There is something about the procurement of fighter aircraft from Western commercial sources that generates interest far greater than perhaps the sum of its economic or strategic content. The entire spectacle of open tendering, nail-biting selection followed by endless negotiations, all played out in the public arena, resembles a soap opera more than the very serious business of dealing with a strategic weapon system for war fighting. In the heated debate that has followed the latest announcement by the prime minister regarding Rafale, the sanest voice has been that of the raksha mantri when he said that such strategic systems should not be "open tendering and lowest bid" affairs, but of agreements between national governments.

We have, since 1962, procured and licence-produced Soviet and Russian fighter aircraft in hundreds so that the Indian Air Force's inventory today is predominantly Russian. More recently, the IAF and the Indian navy have procured aircraft worth over $10 billion from the United States of America alone. As the defence minister said, these have all been government-to-government deals. None has elicited the feverish media debate and partisan comment that some others following the tender route have done. One example of the latter is when, after the 1971 Indo-Pak conflict, the Indian air force began to look westwards to both diversify its sources of supply and meet its long-range strike requirements. At the time being, an integral part of the planning and procurement process within Air HQ, this writer had a ring-side view of the media scrutiny and games played by vested interests of all hues.

There were then three contestants, the Mirage F1, the Jaguar and the Viggen. With two contenders left, a news magazine published what was portrayed to be adverse views on one of the test pilots involved in the flight evaluation. With the decision pending with the cabinet committee on political affairs, the then prime minister, Morarji Desai, was concerned enough to request the air chief to arrange for the test pilots to meet him one-to-one. It was only after the prime minister had met the two very distinguished test pilots, P.K. Dey and Pirthi Singh (both now deceased), and satisfied himself of the report being fabricated, did the CCPA proceed to consider the matter.



One is reminded of the above history, because the IAF's current proposal for medium multi-role combat aircraft has been facing its own share of problems. Having won a stiff competition, Dassault Aviation, the makers of Rafale aircraft, have made little headway in negotiations lasting three long years. One of the main obstacles being Dassault's reluctance to take responsibility for the quality of aircraft produced by Hindustan Aeronautics Limited, a pre-condition spelt out in the initial tender and one they must have been privy to. Why, one wonders, was such a self-defeating condition put into the tender in the first place? What does this say about HAL's confidence in itself specially when its website claims its vision to "become a significant global player in the aerospace industry"? Did this amount to a tacit admission that it was not confident of manufacturing an aircraft like the Rafale fighter without being shepherded by Dassault?

Since the principle articulated in the foreword to the defence procurement procedure is for the process to be impartial and transparent, we were now caught in a trap of our own making. This is where process becomes more important than the outcome and no one dare deviate, even for valid functional or operational reasons, for fear of being accused of mala fide intent at some future date. Fortunately, the framers of the DPP had the dexterity to put a clause allowing for deviations arising out of strategic considerations, which, in turn, allowed flexibility for imperatives of strategic partnerships or major diplomatic, political, economic, technological or military benefits. That the government has taken the bold step to invoke this clause to wriggle out of the corner it found itself in merits applause, because for the first time there is a message to the armed forces that their essential operational needs will not be held hostage to abstract notions of transparency and impartiality.

In Paris, the PM announced that in view of the critical operational needs of the air force he had requested the French president for a quick supply of 36 Rafale jets in flyaway condition through an inter-governmental agreement on terms better than those demanded by Dassault as part of a separate process. Not surprisingly, this announcement has taken both the strategic community and observers of the Indian aeronautics scene completely by surprise, used as they are to being slaves to the DPP and which, as the defence minister admitted, got us into a "loop or vortex with no solution in sight".

By opting for the government-to-government route, both countries have no doubt been guided by self-interest. On our part, since aeronautics is the greatest driver of technology, Indian aeronautics needs to strive to find a place amongst the international players. Only when this happens can we hope to reap the benefits of "Make in India" in the field of aeronautics. There are no short cuts, and finding strategic partners is the only cost effective route. Those critical of the prime minister's move as being against the "Make in India" concept clearly fail to understand what modern aeronautics industry and its broader eco-system truly entail. On the other hand, military aircraft R&D and costs are spiralling with orders dwindling worldwide and manufacturers like Dassault finding it difficult to use economies of scale to make affordable products after amortizing R&D investments. For them, the way ahead is to find reliable strategic partners, share costs and benefit from economies of scale.

It is even possible that recognizing India's operational imperatives and looking at its own longer term interests, the French government may be willing to let IAF Rafales take priority over French air force orders on the production line. This perhaps explains the two-year ambitious delivery that the defence minister has stated. It is worth recalling that in the case of the Jaguar purchase in the Seventies, the United Kingdom's ministry of defence had diverted aircraft on loan from the RAF reserves to help IAF bridge the gap in anticipation of its own deliveries.

In the absence of the contours of this decision being available in the public domain, this writer would like to believe that the surprise announcement by the prime minister in Paris was a consequence of a well thought out and strategized move for putting Indian aeronautics on the international stage in keeping with its human and technological potential, a journey that must encompass the genius of the Indian private sector, the large public investments in aeronautics and international strategic partnership.

Planners of the prime minister's "Make in India" mission are only too aware that in the longer term it is the aeronautical industry that will add technological depth to this mission. They are mindful that in the United States of America, a Congressional commission on the future of the aeronautical industry in 2001 had reported the sector as a whole contributing 9 per cent of GDP and 11.2 million jobs. In China, there has been a dramatic growth in the aeronautical ecosystem during last 10-15 years. The Chinese are using terms like "aeronautical patriotism" and have invested large sums in this ecosystem. Viewing these developments with equanimity is inimical to our national security.

To begin this ambitious journey of Indian aeronautics, the first priority clearly was to make good the IAF's operational requirement with a weapon system that had been found the most suitable after due evaluation and to leverage this for the longer term "Make in India" vision. The next was to reach understanding at the highest levels in France for a strategic partnership in the aeronautics sector. For India, the take-away is partnering with one of the most sophisticated aeronautical countries in the world, one with which we have a history of aeronautical ties from the days of Ouragans, Mystères and now Mirages. It is also one that has never flinched in product support during crises, and has a major presence in the international civil aeronautics field with the Airbus series of aircraft. It is commercial aviation that will be the primary driver of any aeronautics sector of the future, so the prime minister's visit to Airbus Industries assumes significance. For France, the problem is that purely military aircraft business is becoming unsustainable without finding suitable partners and with the focus shifting to the Asia Pacific region. A regional footprint adds commercial flexibility to their military aeronautics.

Third, the concept of joint Indo-Russian design and development of a fifth-generation fighter has been rendered sterile with Russian prototypes already flying with no Indian design involvement so far. This can usefully be replaced by a joint Indo- French successor to the Rafale that would be an attractive option for the future international market. And finally concurrent with this strategic partnership will be the development of an aeronautics ecosystem of small and medium, high technology enterprises in India that are the backbone of any mature aeronautics country. This fledgling ecosystem, presently struggling because of the absence of our aeronautical footprint internationally, will get a well-deserved boost.

If, indeed, this has been the strategic vision behind the prime minister's bold announcement in Paris, then all that is left for his planners to do is dust out the already existing proposal for a comprehensive national aeronautics policy, prepared by the Aeronautical Society of India and let the proposed aeronautics commission take the captain's seat in guiding Indian aeronautics to its rightful place in the international market.

The author is a retired air marshal of the Indian Air Force
In the captain's seat
 

sgarg

New Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2014
Messages
3,480
Likes
986
The assumption that Indian aeronautics can develop on the crutches of France is inherently flawed. This is amply proven by Rafale episode where the entire tender exercise has been rendered irrelevant by mismatch of expectations of the parties.

The policy can be implemented ONLY if it is practical.

Only basic and applied R&D in Indian organizations will result in development of aviation industry. Otherwise India will remain a screw-driver nation. This is the reason why LCA Tejas is a VERY IMPORTANT project. However Tejas project is being sabotaged from the inside, when anti-Tejas people are now calling shots in HAL.
 

Ray

The Chairman
New Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
43,132
Likes
23,841
@Ray, you are questioning the basic sanction of the development of Nag missile. Your statement is basically that GOI made a mistake as 4km Konkurs was already available. To prove your statement wrong would need a lot of unpublished information.

Let us assume that GOI had a valid reason to develop Nag like a. Import substitution, b. Better quality etc.

DRDO selected a seeker technology which it thought would be best alternative. Later on (it seems) that seeker did not perform well in all possible conditions. If I am a project manager, I would develop two versions with different seekers rather than using a single seeker. The version with IIR can go to deployments in colder area, while a wire guided missile can be used in Rajasthan.
The DRDO, for whom this is a prestigious project, stated that the Hyderabad-based laboratory, Research Centre Imarat (RCI), will soon develop a seeker that can work through the hottest desert temperatures. This will feature an improved Focal Plane Array (FPA), a detector on the missile tip that picks up the target's infrared signal.

Since the DRDO's own FPA programme is still at an early stage, the Nag's improved FPA will be supplied by French company, Sofradir. RCI will integrate Sofradir's FPA into an improved Nag seeker.

Wire guided anti tank missile is passe in the modern combat scenario. It is line-of-sight and the range limit imposed by the length of the wire.

I hope you have seen the terrain in the deserts.

The assumption that Indian aeronautics can develop on the crutches of France is inherently flawed. This is amply proven by Rafale episode where the entire tender exercise has been rendered irrelevant by mismatch of expectations of the parties.

The policy can be implemented ONLY if it is practical.

Only basic and applied R&D in Indian organizations will result in development of aviation industry. Otherwise India will remain a screw-driver nation. This is the reason why LCA Tejas is a VERY IMPORTANT project. However Tejas project is being sabotaged from the inside, when anti-Tejas people are now calling shots in HAL.
The writer of that article is an Air Marshall. I take it that he knows what he is talking about.

The Indian military aerospace industry has developed on the crutches of USSR.

The Indian government is understood to have made it clear that it is no longer a question of whether Dassault Aviation will underwrite the 108 Rafales that HAL proposes to license-build in Bengaluru (a top MoD official indicated to Livefist that the RFP was explicit about this), but a question of how it will do so. Yesterday's hour-long deliberations at the MoD involved discussions on possible options.

In very limited conversations with all sides, the following threads become apparent:

Dassault and HAL will need to hammer down licensee/licensor modalities that will pave the way for a possibly complex matrix of agreements on the central issue of liability. It's clear now. It is this set of agreements that will provide a solution to the guarantee issue. The question is how long it would take to do this.

Second, the extent of inspection and post-manufacture testing of equipment at HAL that would be the minimum required for Dassault to underwrite HAL-built jets.

Whether there are any financial implications to additional understandings between HAL and Dassault for the process of underwriting jets produced on the former's production line in Bengaluru. Also, financial implications of the transfer of liability as a result of any additional agreements between HAL and Dassault.

Both sides appear committed to finding a solution before Prime Minister Modi's visit to Paris in April, but is that a realistic time-frame? Sources suggest HAL and Dassault have already held extensive discussions on the liability issue and should be in a position to move quickly.
http://www.livefistdefence.com/2015/02/now-only-question-of-how-dassault.html
 
Last edited by a moderator:

sgarg

New Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2014
Messages
3,480
Likes
986
@Ray, technology changes as you rightly said, and it seems a solution is now available.

India has suffered effects of very low investment on R&D and several other endemic problems (like babudom affecting even the best S&T centers).

So we should take any S&T initiative like this positively. Ultimately successes will build upon successes and the local industry will become mature enough to deliver even the most complex weapon system.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Ray

The Chairman
New Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
43,132
Likes
23,841
@Ray, technology changes as you rightly said, and it seems a solution is now available.

India has suffered effects of very low investment on R&D and several other endemic problems (like babudom affecting even the best S&T centers).

So we should take any S&T initiative like this positively. Ultimately successes will build upon successes and the local industry will become mature enough to deliver even the most complex weapon system.
You may like to see this link to show the development of HF 24 and you will realise that there is no dearth of brilliant scientists and technicians in India.

Indian Aviation: HAL HF-24 Marut, the first Indian Jet Fighter - Team-BHP

It is just that the DRDO including HAL has become a maze of bureaucratic people, who take life 'cool'.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Articles

Top