Indian Army Air Defence Corps : Updates & Discussions

[Gautam]

Self-Propelled Air Defence Gun Missile System: Independent monitors to decide the fate of SPAD-GMS deal

By: Huma Siddiqui | Published: March 24, 2020 5:09:16 PM

In fact, “during the recently concluded DefExpo 2020, an announcement was expected to be made about the winner of the contract,” said the officer who wished to remain anonymous.

However, Hanwha Defence officials in an exclusive interaction with Financial Express Online have denied such reports. (Image: https://www.hanwha-defense.co.kr/)

The Ministry of Defence (MoD) has decided to refer the Propelled Air Defence Gun Missile System (SPAD-GMS) deal to the independent monitors who are expected to prepare a report and share soon. A senior officer has confirmed to the Financial Express Online that “Russia had raised objections to the short listing of the South Korean company Hanwha Defense’s offer for the Self Propelled Air Defence Gun Missile System (SPAD-GMS) project.

Companies from Russia and South Korea had responded to the request for proposal for this platform. However, no decision has been taken yet as Russia has raised its concerns with the Indian side.”

In fact, “during the recently concluded DefExpo 2020, an announcement was expected to be made about the winner of the contract,” said the officer who wished to remain anonymous

To ensure that all the steps have been followed and concerns raised by those who could not be shortlisted, the MoD has decided to have independent monitors to come out with a comprehensive report and to outline the concerns if any.

Story so far

It all started with five bidders. However, only Russia and South Korea made it to the trials stage. Russia failed the trials. This left South Korean company in the fray, creating a single vendor situation.

The deal is for around $ 3 billion. However, those who could not clear the trials have been reaching out to the MoD and expressed concerns against the South Korean company. Issues related to the non-compliance to the specifications in the RFP has been pointed out in several representations made by the Russian side in various meetings.

Russians have indicated that the system offered is one generation older and will have to go for an upgrade immediately.

What Does Hanwha Defence Say ?

However, Hanwha Defence officials in an exclusive interaction with Financial Express Online have denied such reports.

“The system is in compliance to the specifications mentioned in the RFP — Hybrid Biho, which is an improved version of the original Biho mobile air-defence system. It features upgraded firing capability, newer sensors, and other improved devices,” they say.

“Also, it has an electro-optical sights fire control system too, and the system can detect low-flying aerial targets, including drones or UAS, as tests and evaluations were successfully taken for the sale of the systems to some other countries,” officials added.

What Concerns Were Raised ?

According to sources some companies claimed that the major issue which was raised stated that the K-30 Biho (Flying Tiger) twin 30mm short-range mobile self-propelled anti-aircraft system has no fire control radar.

Also that it has offered 2D Doppler radar – not in line with the RFP. And it is old and outdated.

Though the independent monitors will be preparing their own observations in a report, the Indian Army is also looking at which is in the process of being developed. The Indian Army is planning to replace its 1360 obsolete Bofors L 70 40mm single barrel and Soviet-era ZU-23-2 towed 23 mm twin-barrel weapon systems.

In response to a global tender in 2013, upgraded Tunguska system was fielded by Almaz Antey and Pantsir by KBP Tula systems from Russia went in for trials and failed. South Korea’s Hanwha Defence — Hybrid Biho system was found to be not fully compliant, which the company denies.

What Does The Indian Army Say ?

As has been reported earlier, sources in the Indian Army observe that there are short comings in both the systems offered by the Russian as well as what has been offered by the South Korean side.

Self-Propelled Air Defence Gun Missile System: Independent monitors to decide the fate of SPAD-GMS deal

 

[Soldierstephen]

Self-Propelled Air Defence Gun Missile System: Independent monitors to decide the fate of SPAD-GMS deal

By: Huma Siddiqui | Published: March 24, 2020 5:09:16 PM

In fact, “during the recently concluded DefExpo 2020, an announcement was expected to be made about the winner of the contract,” said the officer who wished to remain anonymous.
View attachment 15044
However, Hanwha Defence officials in an exclusive interaction with Financial Express Online have denied such reports. (Image: https://www.hanwha-defense.co.kr/)

The Ministry of Defence (MoD) has decided to refer the Propelled Air Defence Gun Missile System (SPAD-GMS) deal to the independent monitors who are expected to prepare a report and share soon. A senior officer has confirmed to the Financial Express Online that “Russia had raised objections to the short listing of the South Korean company Hanwha Defense’s offer for the Self Propelled Air Defence Gun Missile System (SPAD-GMS) project.

Companies from Russia and South Korea had responded to the request for proposal for this platform. However, no decision has been taken yet as Russia has raised its concerns with the Indian side.”

In fact, “during the recently concluded DefExpo 2020, an announcement was expected to be made about the winner of the contract,” said the officer who wished to remain anonymous

To ensure that all the steps have been followed and concerns raised by those who could not be shortlisted, the MoD has decided to have independent monitors to come out with a comprehensive report and to outline the concerns if any.

Story so far

It all started with five bidders. However, only Russia and South Korea made it to the trials stage. Russia failed the trials. This left South Korean company in the fray, creating a single vendor situation.

The deal is for around $ 3 billion. However, those who could not clear the trials have been reaching out to the MoD and expressed concerns against the South Korean company. Issues related to the non-compliance to the specifications in the RFP has been pointed out in several representations made by the Russian side in various meetings.

Russians have indicated that the system offered is one generation older and will have to go for an upgrade immediately.

What Does Hanwha Defence Say ?

However, Hanwha Defence officials in an exclusive interaction with Financial Express Online have denied such reports.

“The system is in compliance to the specifications mentioned in the RFP — Hybrid Biho, which is an improved version of the original Biho mobile air-defence system. It features upgraded firing capability, newer sensors, and other improved devices,” they say.

“Also, it has an electro-optical sights fire control system too, and the system can detect low-flying aerial targets, including drones or UAS, as tests and evaluations were successfully taken for the sale of the systems to some other countries,” officials added.

What Concerns Were Raised ?

According to sources some companies claimed that the major issue which was raised stated that the K-30 Biho (Flying Tiger) twin 30mm short-range mobile self-propelled anti-aircraft system has no fire control radar.

Also that it has offered 2D Doppler radar – not in line with the RFP. And it is old and outdated.

Though the independent monitors will be preparing their own observations in a report, the Indian Army is also looking at which is in the process of being developed. The Indian Army is planning to replace its 1360 obsolete Bofors L 70 40mm single barrel and Soviet-era ZU-23-2 towed 23 mm twin-barrel weapon systems.

In response to a global tender in 2013, upgraded Tunguska system was fielded by Almaz Antey and Pantsir by KBP Tula systems from Russia went in for trials and failed. South Korea’s Hanwha Defence — Hybrid Biho system was found to be not fully compliant, which the company denies.

What Does The Indian Army Say ?

As has been reported earlier, sources in the Indian Army observe that there are short comings in both the systems offered by the Russian as well as what has been offered by the South Korean side.

Self-Propelled Air Defence Gun Missile System: Independent monitors to decide the fate of SPAD-GMS deal

None of the system has qualified 100% as per the slated RFP for both Self-Propelled Air Defence Gun Missile System and VSHORD. But looking at the Army's stand i believe that Indian Army Generals are very much confused. How come we can spend around 2 billion dollars on a old generation product where seller themselves moving towards a new generation 9K333 Verba.
In regards to Biho system, how come without a fire control radar and instead using a 2D Doppler radar we can say that we are getting latest generation weapons.
Spending so much of money to acquire older generation weapons will never give us the edge on our adversaries.
IA Generals need to take a firm stand when it comes to acquiring only latest weapons to replace older one. Even if we spend 1 billion more on these two AD weapons, it will be ok for any Force to maintain at least a deterrence. If the users will start compromising with the quality in this way. We won't succeed in modernizing our forces.
My take would have been to acquire below and ask DRDO to start working on a Project like Biho 2 and new generation VSHORD.
9K333 Verba or RB70 NG
Pantsir (Has seen quite a good amount of action in Syria)

 

[Gautam]

None of the system has qualified 100% as per the slated RFP for both Self-Propelled Air Defence Gun Missile System and VSHORD.

That is more common than people generally think. A lot of acquisitions go through without fulfilling 100% of the RFP . It tells you something about the technological competence of the people who draft RFPs doesn't it ?

But looking at the Army's stand i believe that Indian Army Generals are very much confused.

To me it seems like a combination of 1. Lack of awareness about the tech available across the world 2. Always going for the cheapest bid 3. Going by the rule book word by word in every acquisition, never thinking out of the box. TBH can you blame them ? Our system awards rule complying folks rather than pioneers that bring about force modernization and thus we are where we are.

In regards to Biho system, how come without a fire control radar and instead using a 2D Doppler radar we can say that we are getting latest generation weapons.

That radar part is a little iffy. Its a Russian claim, let's see what the Koreans and our Generals have to say for themselves.

My take would have been to acquire below and ask DRDO to start working on a Project like Biho 2

Ideal option but given DRDO's speed of execution with land systems it is the lengthiest option. Still a good bet for the future.

new generation VSHORD.

This is more doable. There were some rumors about DRDO trying their hand in the VSHORAD sector. Apparently they would do a joint development with VEM Technologies. I can't seem to remember where I read that though.

 

[randomradio]

That is more common than people generally think. A lot of acquisitions go through without fulfilling 100% of the RFP . It tells you something about the technological competence of the people who draft RFPs doesn't it ?

Not really. RFPs can be over-specced sometimes. This will ensure vendors are coming up with the best they have, and it also gets easier to evaluate. At lower specs, if everybody gets full points due to lower specs of the RFP, it will become a problem.

To me it seems like a combination of 1. Lack of awareness about the tech available across the world 2. Always going for the cheapest bid 3. Going by the rule book word by word in every acquisition, never thinking out of the box. TBH can you blame them ? Our system awards rule complying folks rather than pioneers that bring about force modernization and thus we are where we are.

We are still a third world army that has to base its doctrine on what's available in the market. It's slowly changing though.

In regards to Biho system, how come without a fire control radar and instead using a 2D Doppler radar we can say that we are getting latest generation weapons.

That radar part is a little iffy. Its a Russian claim, let's see what the Koreans and our Generals have to say for themselves.

The Pantsir has 2 radars, whereas Biho combines the function of those 2 radars, surveillance and fire control, into just 1. The drawback is Biho can do only one of those functions at a time. But if Biho was selected over Pantsir, then the Pantsir surely has bigger flaws. IIRC Pantsir did not even get shortlisted, which is a huge problem, like the lack of a tracked version in operation.

This is more doable. There were some rumors about DRDO trying their hand in the VSHORAD sector. Apparently they would do a joint development with VEM Technologies. I can't seem to remember where I read that though.

Better to make it a private sector project with the help of foreign OEMs instead of bringing DRDO into it. DRDO should slowly move towards high end stuff, like DARPA.

 

[Gautam]

Not really. RFPs can be over-specced sometimes. This will ensure vendors are coming up with the best they have, and it also gets easier to evaluate. At lower specs, if everybody gets full points due to lower specs of the RFP, it will become a problem.

How many times has the Army sent out RFPs for assault rifles and snipers only to withdraw because the RFPs were asking for unrealistic stuff ? The IAF OTOH lets everybody participate and downselects accordingly. IN more often than not already knows what its wants, largely because they make their own stuff.
The Army is truly the worst of both worlds. Neither are they aware of the most latest tech, nor will they make their own stuff. Case in point we are buying Iglas when there are Verbas.

We are still a third world army that has to base its doctrine on what's available in the market. It's slowly changing though.

Is it ? Some examples of the same ?

Better to make it a private sector project with the help of foreign OEMs instead of bringing DRDO into it. DRDO should slowly move towards high end stuff, like DARPA.

They have a great degree of expertise in all things missiles. Which is why I was saying that.

 

[randomradio]

How many times has the Army sent out RFPs for assault rifles and snipers only to withdraw because the RFPs were asking for unrealistic stuff ? The IAF OTOH lets everybody participate and downselects accordingly. IN more often than not already knows what its wants, largely because they make their own stuff.

IAF and IN are simply working with older technology, so it's easier for them to create requirements which foreign vendors can meet. Ask them to create requirements for AMCA instead of MMRCA, no foreign vendor will be able to participate, not even US and Russia, since a jet of this type doesn't exist. The army faced such a conundrum with their multi-caliber rifle.

The Army is truly the worst of both worlds. Neither are they aware of the most latest tech, nor will they make their own stuff. Case in point we are buying Iglas when there are Verbas.

This is the govt's fault, not the army's. A more flexible tender process is needed. Vendors should be allowed to add in new technologies during tech evaluations. Of course, not after it.

Is it ? Some examples of the same ?

The very example you gave of the assault rifle tender. This is a very good example of the army asking for something after creating the doctrine. Another very good example is that of FRCV, where the army is demanding amphibious tanks, since crossing water bodies is specific to our needs.

Everything the army is asking for is top notch. Look at their artillery requirement as well, ATAGS is better than foreign competition. The same with QRSAM, the requirement was to field a superior product compared to foreign options. If the QRSAM requirement was a tender, then it would have gone the same way as the assault rifle.

It's the IAF and IN that need to up their game now. If the IAF asks for a PCA-equivalent instead of AMCA, or IN asked for a destroyer superior to the Zumwalt, then they are equivalent to the army's futuristic requirements.

For the higher end stuff, the army is asking for stuff that doesn't exist, but it's also the industry that has to be capable enough to meet the challenge. So the army and industry are going to have to find a middle ground somewhere. This is how the US and USSR operated. They create a doctrine and then build weapons for it. The US is doing the same, which is why they have the SR-72, PCA and LRS-B. The Americans and USSR have a lot of failed attempts, just like the army's assault rifle. Remember the disastrous Comanche program?

Of all three forces, only the army is creating futuristic requirements. The Cold Start doctrine is also very futuristic and will need equipment that's highly demanding, which foreign OEMs may not necessarily be able to provide. For example, 6G communication systems.

They have a great degree of expertise in all things missiles. Which is why I was saying that.

They can easily develop something like that. QRSAM is a good example. But this is something that can be completely earmarked for the private sector. Foreign OEMs have done a lot of good work here, and our private sector can easily benefit from it. This will also allow the army to operate something top notch instead of something adequate like the Biho, while not wasting time by committing to R&D from scratch by DRDO. But it could go the FICV way, with a lot of delays. Perhaps it's an option for the future, when the Schilkas and Tunguskas have to be replaced.

 

[Gautam]

IAF and IN are simply working with older technology, so it's easier for them to create requirements which foreign vendors can meet. Ask them to create requirements for AMCA instead of MMRCA, no foreign vendor will be able to participate, not even US and Russia, since a jet of this type doesn't exist. The army faced such a conundrum with their multi-caliber rifle.

Really ? There are a lot of vendors in the US which sell AR styled rifles with interchangable barrels allowing switching of callibers and of course barrel length. And unlike the F-22 they were willing to sell this to us. Why not buy it from them.

This is the govt's fault, not the army's. A more flexible tender process is needed. Vendors should be allowed to add in new technologies during tech evaluations. Of course, not after it.

True

Everything the army is asking for is top notch. Look at their artillery requirement as well, ATAGS is better than foreign competition. The same with QRSAM, the requirement was to field a superior product compared to foreign options. If the QRSAM requirement was a tender, then it would have gone the same way as the assault rifle.

Yet none of them are inducted. But 400+ T-90 get orders without hesitation.

It's the IAF and IN that need to up their game now. If the IAF asks for a PCA-equivalent instead of AMCA, or IN asked for a destroyer superior to the Zumwalt, then they are equivalent to the army's futuristic requirements.

This argument is a bit of a straw man. The requirements of the IN and IAF are vastly complex systems, the requirement of the IN are comparatively simpler. You are comparing the complexity of an artillery gun with that of a stealth fighter, no wonder the IA's requirements look futuristic.

Of all three forces, only the army is creating futuristic requirements. The Cold Start doctrine is also very futuristic and will need equipment that's highly demanding, which foreign OEMs may not necessarily be able to provide. For example, 6G communication systems.

And yet most of the networking contracts are given out by the Navy while the Army cancelled contracts for a battlefield comms system(What was the name again ?). The most futuristic project by the Army was the FINSAS when it came out, what happened to it ?

 

[randomradio]

Really ? There are a lot of vendors in the US which sell AR styled rifles with interchangable barrels allowing switching of callibers and of course barrel length. And unlike the F-22 they were willing to sell this to us. Why not buy it from them.

They need to participate in the tender first.

Yet none of them are inducted. But 400+ T-90 get orders without hesitation.

Don't see the point.

This argument is a bit of a straw man. The requirements of the IN and IAF are vastly complex systems, the requirement of the IN are comparatively simpler. You are comparing the complexity of an artillery gun with that of a stealth fighter, no wonder the IA's requirements look futuristic.

Complex or not, the situation is the same. Army is now absorbing weapons based on the doctrine, whereas IAF and IN are absorbing the weapons first and then creating a doctrine around it.

And yet most of the networking contracts are given out by the Navy while the Army cancelled contracts for a battlefield comms system(What was the name again ?). The most futuristic project by the Army was the FINSAS when it came out, what happened to it ?

The army has only delayed BMS, TCS is set to happen. FINSAS wasn't futuristic enough, plus expensive, so it was cancelled.

Here's a contract they recently signed for an IT network.
Larsen & Toubro wins 'large' contract from Indian Army for advanced IT-enabled network

Here's one with HFCL.
HFCL bags Rs 2,467 crore order for building Defence telecom network

 

[janme]

I wish @Sancho was here

Yes, I wish he would post here too, I still see him from time to time in Twitter, Reading his posts has a very sobering effect. Can't you invite him here again?
@Sancho

 

[Gautam]

They need to participate in the tender first.

The non-participation was largely caused by the Army's whack-a-mole approach to firearm RFI/RFP.

Don't see the point.

Any advantages in the military is relative. With time as the adversary acquires better weapons the advantage afforded by our weapons erode away and is often reversed. The ATAGS is superior no doubt but it seems by the time the Army comes around to acquiring it quite a bit of that advantage will be eroded away.
On the other hand the Army has no reservation ordering 400+ tanks which for most of their life will do nothing. We use artillery more than tanks, so why not buy artillery first than go for tanks ? Why not do more infantry modernisation rather than buying 400+ tanks in one go ?

Complex or not, the situation is the same. Army is now absorbing weapons based on the doctrine, whereas IAF and IN are absorbing the weapons first and then creating a doctrine around it.

That gives the impressing that Army has the highest degree of indegenistation while the IN and IAF are far behind. This is far from reality though. As things stand IN has the highest degree of indegenistaion followed by the IA and the IAF. In tech complexity of weapons used it is the IAF that leads, followed by the IN and the IA. In terms of the long term planning IN has managed to make plans and stick to the script for the most part. There has been exception to that and their plans have faltered many times. But still the IN will lead in terms of long term planning and management over the other two anyday.

The army has only delayed BMS, TCS is set to happen. FINSAS wasn't futuristic enough, plus expensive, so it was cancelled.

The point is as far a data linking among assets goes the IAF and IN has alway lead not the IA.

 

[Soldierstephen]

Not really. RFPs can be over-specced sometimes. This will ensure vendors are coming up with the best they have, and it also gets easier to evaluate. At lower specs, if everybody gets full points due to lower specs of the RFP, it will become a problem.
Our procurement procedure must be revised and updated as per the current requirements. But in regards to Igla-S, as per the different sources it seems evdient that it was not working properly during Pokhran trials.


We are still a third world army that has to base its doctrine on what's available in the market. It's slowly changing though.

Yes, and it is because of corruption evolved in MoD and uniform services. loss of Parikar has put this war against corruption on hold.


The Pantsir has 2 radars, whereas Biho combines the function of those 2 radars, surveillance and fire control, into just 1. The drawback is Biho can do only one of those functions at a time. But if Biho was selected over Pantsir, then the Pantsir surely has bigger flaws. IIRC Pantsir did not even get shortlisted, which is a huge problem, like the lack of a tracked version in operation.

It completly depends on SMEs that they need to see shortcomings of Pantsir and see what can be modified or upgrade. As per the updates available for this system in the open world since it is deployed in Syria. I vouched for Pantsir due to is extensive usage in Syria. Only once we saw it gets roasted by IAF. Biho can be good but I have not read much about this system as it is deployed in a constant stand-off situation.
These Big arms exporting countries use war zone to analyze, modify and display the capabilities of their systems to their prospective customers.

Better to make it a private sector project with the help of foreign OEMs instead of bringing DRDO into it. DRDO should slowly move towards high end stuff, like DARPA.

DRDO must follow DARPA model of operations.

 

[Soldierstephen]

That is more common than people generally think. A lot of acquisitions go through without fulfilling 100% of the RFP . It tells you something about the technological competence of the people who draft RFPs doesn't it ?
Agreed, this is the reason we need best men to draft it in MoD. Also, people in uniform must be accountable of what they are asking and how long that standards will give the edge over to adversaries.

To me it seems like a combination of 1. Lack of awareness about the tech available across the world 2. Always going for the cheapest bid 3. Going by the rule book word by word in every acquisition, never thinking out of the box. TBH can you blame them ? Our system awards rule complying folks rather than pioneers that bring about force modernization and thus we are where we are.
Here we need PMO to come into action to tweak such deals.

That radar part is a little iffy. Its a Russian claim, let's see what the Koreans and our Generals have to say for themselves.

Ideal option but given DRDO's speed of execution with land systems it is the lengthiest option. Still a good bet for the future.

This is more doable. There were some rumors about DRDO trying their hand in the VSHORAD sector. Apparently they would do a joint development with VEM Technologies. I can't seem to remember where I read that though.

I strongly believe that before developing any platform or any technology. Users must be an stakeholder into that development. So it should be Like DRDO->User-> MoD-> PSU or PVT (or both). Due to absence of this model ATAGS is a becomes a failure now. Now Army mentioned that this model does not fire control system and GPS and some other stuffs are missing and top of that it's weight exceeds global standards by 4 tonnes. So they ordered only 150 pieces and foreging mall ATHOS got the big bite again.

 

[randomradio]

The non-participation was largely caused by the Army's whack-a-mole approach to firearm RFI/RFP.

More like many companies do not like Indian govt tenders. They are more willing to deal in FMS type deals.

Any advantages in the military is relative. With time as the adversary acquires better weapons the advantage afforded by our weapons erode away and is often reversed. The ATAGS is superior no doubt but it seems by the time the Army comes around to acquiring it quite a bit of that advantage will be eroded away.
On the other hand the Army has no reservation ordering 400+ tanks which for most of their life will do nothing. We use artillery more than tanks, so why not buy artillery first than go for tanks ? Why not do more infantry modernisation rather than buying 400+ tanks in one go ?

ATAGS procurement process is still ongoing. The gun is yet to undergo the final round of user trials after modifications, which is this year. So orders will be placed after that. Anyway, it will continue to see further development in order to keep it from becoming obsolete or outdated. ATAGS will see a further upgrade which will allow it to fire up to 55-60Km, with the same barrel. If the barrel is changed to 58 cal or higher, then the range will see further improvement. So the ATAGS becoming obsolete is not an issue. Even the first version will be viable for the next 20-25 years. You will eventually see a family of ATAGS.

300-500 tanks is how one orders tanks in order to keep production viable. The tank doesn't take away money from modernistion when in fact it is part of the modernisation process. If you recall, a large number of orders have already been placed for the first phase of infantry modernisation, rifles, BPJs and helmets. In the next phase comes communication systems. The third phase will see the induction of high end stuff, like health monitoring systems and exoskeletons.

Right now our tank force is not yet fully up to date in terms of numbers. We still need another order of 300-500 tanks before the FRCV comes in, which is why we have a license to produce more T-90s until 2028. Anyway artillery guns will be inducted simultaneously. IA ordered 359 new guns through M777, Dhanush and Vajra, while also ordering the upgunning of 300 M-46 before placing orders for the T-90s, so it's pretty disingenous to say the army is not prioritising artillery guns. I'd rather say the tank force is getting shortchanged with the army prioritising other areas, which is why even FICV and FRCV are stuck. Right now, our armoured forces are inadequate for the role they are expected to perform.

That gives the impressing that Army has the highest degree of indegenistation while the IN and IAF are far behind. This is far from reality though. As things stand IN has the highest degree of indegenistaion followed by the IA and the IAF. In tech complexity of weapons used it is the IAF that leads, followed by the IN and the IA. In terms of the long term planning IN has managed to make plans and stick to the script for the most part. There has been exception to that and their plans have faltered many times. But still the IN will lead in terms of long term planning and management over the other two anyday.

I don't think you have understood the point I made. I am not talking about indigenisation at all, nor complexity. I don't care where the weapons come, I am referring to why they are procuring weapons they have chosen to procure.

For example, both MMRCA and the MCWS rifle tenders were imported. So there's nothing about indigenous weapons here. But why did the IAF have so many competitors while the IA did not have even one? This has nothing to do with the requirement of the MCWS being unrealistic. The requirement was as real as it could be. The difference was the technological base for the MMRCA, no matter how complex an aircraft is, existed, whereas the technological base for the MCWS did not exist.

So do you get what I'm saying now? The army is thinking like a superpower, whereas the IAF is not. That's the difference.

But the problem for both forces is the Indian MIC, and in some cases even foreign MIC, is unable to meet the army's requirements, whereas with the IAF, it's a problem of both the MIC being unable to meet requirements as well as affordability of thinking like a superpower. Only superpowers have the ability to consistently create RMAs. An amphibious tank is an example of RMA.

The point is as far a data linking among assets goes the IAF and IN has alway lead not the IA.

Sure. The technological requirement of putting an advanced communication system in a hand-held form is very difficult. Which is why the navy gets high end electronics tech first, followed by the air force, since ships have a lot of leeway when it comes to size, weight and power. Ships > trucks > fighter jets > palm.

 

[Gautam]

More like many companies do not like Indian govt tenders. They are more willing to deal in FMS type deals.

Many complained about lack of transparency in our acquisition procedures. Many including non American makers like FN Herstal.

ATAGS procurement process is still ongoing. The gun is yet to undergo the final round of user trials after modifications, which is this year. So orders will be placed after that. Anyway, it will continue to see further development in order to keep it from becoming obsolete or outdated. ATAGS will see a further upgrade which will allow it to fire up to 55-60Km, with the same barrel. If the barrel is changed to 58 cal or higher, then the range will see further improvement. So the ATAGS becoming obsolete is not an issue. Even the first version will be viable for the next 20-25 years. You will eventually see a family of ATAGS.

Increasing cal will make it heavier. Weren't they complaining about it ? How many years do we need to test it ? What test is left to do ? Shooting down the moon during a lunar eclipse ?

300-500 tanks is how one orders tanks in order to keep production viable. The tank doesn't take away money from modernistion when in fact it is part of the modernisation process. If you recall, a large number of orders have already been placed for the first phase of infantry modernisation, rifles, BPJs and helmets. In the next phase comes communication systems. The third phase will see the induction of high end stuff, like health monitoring systems and exoskeletons.

There is no standardisation of anything. Even the gun slings aren't standard. Some use 3 point slings, some user 2 point. The point is instead of going for all the big purchase how about bringing standardisation of quality equipment for all forces operating in Kashmir ?

Right now our tank force is not yet fully up to date in terms of numbers. We still need another order of 300-500 tanks before the FRCV comes in, which is why we have a license to produce more T-90s until 2028. Anyway artillery guns will be inducted simultaneously. IA ordered 359 new guns through M777, Dhanush and Vajra, while also ordering the upgunning of 300 M-46 before placing orders for the T-90s, so it's pretty disingenous to say the army is not prioritising artillery guns. I'd rather say the tank force is getting shortchanged with the army prioritising other areas, which is why even FICV and FRCV are stuck. Right now, our armoured forces are inadequate for the role they are expected to perform.

ATAGS exists now, FICV and FRCV is on paper. We buying existing technologies is cutting into tank purchase budgets. But you are telling me that we still have money for infantry. Contradictory isn't it ?

For example, both MMRCA and the MCWS rifle tenders were imported. So there's nothing about indigenous weapons here. But why did the IAF have so many competitors while the IA did not have even one? This has nothing to do with the requirement of the MCWS being unrealistic. The requirement was as real as it could be. The difference was the technological base for the MMRCA, no matter how complex an aircraft is, existed, whereas the technological base for the MCWS did not exist.

The MMRCA had many competitors and one winner, the MCWS was cancelled and eventually led to acquisition of 5.56N, 7.62N and 7.62R chambered assault rifles. This look like planning to you ? They have effectively turned the firearm scene into a veritable zoo.

So do you get what I'm saying now? The army is thinking like a superpower, whereas the IAF is not. That's the difference.

Supapowaaa.........
Give it a rest mate. The Army has outsourced it thinking to other militaries long ago. The Americans are getting a 5.56N, let us get that too. Ooh now the Russian are getting a 7.62R let's buy some of those too. Ooooh what's this the Americans are using 7.62N for DMR roles let's get that and use it as a carbine. Oooooh now the Americans are getting a new 6.8mm gun, let get us some of that too. This is Army's supapowaa thinking.

The only original thinking they have done is with the FARP. That led to the standardisation of 155mm shells for artillery across the board. This is what independent thinking does for you. It solves logistical problems rather than creating new ones.

But the problem for both forces is the Indian MIC, and in some cases even foreign MIC, is unable to meet the army's requirements, whereas with the IAF, it's a problem of both the MIC being unable to meet requirements as well as affordability of thinking like a superpower. Only superpowers have the ability to consistently create RMAs. An amphibious tank is an example of RMA.

Things got so desperate on the small arms front that the Army had to form a special task force to acquire guns. Now suddenly the MICs have no problem filling their needs. Our acquisition system is broken, Army's thinking is broken too.

Sure. The technological requirement of putting an advanced communication system in a hand-held form is very difficult. Which is why the navy gets high end electronics tech first, followed by the air force, since ships have a lot of leeway when it comes to size, weight and power. Ships > trucks > fighter jets > palm.

True. But the Navy has always taken the initiative and adopted domestic products. Maybe because of their small share of the budget, maybe because of all the training they do with the Americans. Either way they have always taken initiative.

 

[randomradio]

Many complained about lack of transparency in our acquisition procedures. Many including non American makers like FN Herstal.

Only excuses. If they don't actually participate, how will they know? If they think it's not transparent, then they are free to leave the tender.

Increasing cal will make it heavier. Weren't they complaining about it ? How many years do we need to test it ? What test is left to do ? Shooting down the moon during a lunar eclipse ?

All development programs see modifications. The last batch of user trials are this year.

They are not increasing the cal for this order, I'm referring to the future, when you think the gun will be obsolete. Increasing the cal is the simplest way to keep even an existing gun relevant after its expiry date.

There is no standardisation of anything. Even the gun slings aren't standard. Some use 3 point slings, some user 2 point. The point is instead of going for all the big purchase how about bringing standardisation of quality equipment for all forces operating in Kashmir ?

Too early for that. We can't afford full force standardisation at this time. Maybe when the next induction cycle begins, it's too late for now. Rather they want to bring in standardisation for the armoured forces, that's what eats up the most money, followed by aircraft.

ATAGS exists now, FICV and FRCV is on paper. We buying existing technologies is cutting into tank purchase budgets. But you are telling me that we still have money for infantry. Contradictory isn't it ?

The army's capital budget is inadequate. So they obviously have to balance it out. Pretty much everything is inadequate in the army, even personnel.

The MMRCA had many competitors and one winner, the MCWS was cancelled and eventually led to acquisition of 5.56N, 7.62N and 7.62R chambered assault rifles. This look like planning to you ? They have effectively turned the firearm scene into a veritable zoo.

Supapowaaa.........
Give it a rest mate. The Army has outsourced it thinking to other militaries long ago. The Americans are getting a 5.56N, let us get that too. Ooh now the Russian are getting a 7.62R let's buy some of those too. Ooooh what's this the Americans are using 7.62N for DMR roles let's get that and use it as a carbine. Oooooh now the Americans are getting a new 6.8mm gun, let get us some of that too. This is Army's supapowaa thinking.

The only original thinking they have done is with the FARP. That led to the standardisation of 155mm shells for artillery across the board. This is what independent thinking does for you. It solves logistical problems rather than creating new ones.

Things got so desperate on the small arms front that the Army had to form a special task force to acquire guns. Now suddenly the MICs have no problem filling their needs. Our acquisition system is broken, Army's thinking is broken too.

It doesn't seem like you have understood the point I made, so forget it.

 

[_Anonymous_]

Yes, I wish he would post here too, I still see him from time to time in Twitter, Reading his posts has a very sobering effect. Can't you invite him here again?
@Sancho

Well, we can try. But there's only one guy at present whose requests to come here, he'd heed. It's that of his bosom pal @randomradio

 

[Lolwa]

We just need to allocate only 1 billion dollars for standardisation in the infantry. It's ironic even though the army is such a infantry centric organization we fail to modernise the infantry. The results with better standardisation of equipment and new personal equipment for our soldiers would do wonders in Kashmir and other areas of operations. Instead of the piecemeal upgrades the infantry is in now we should follow the ratnik method and just copy their modernisation plan. Instead we are stuck in buying outdated tanks which the Chinese will easily destroy if we get into an armoured engagement. The pakistani armour is just a little inferior to us. Instead of wasting money in buying armour whap infantry should be prioritzed and major modernisation should be done . Sadly that is not happening.

 

[Gautam]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1311747520603725825

 

[BMD]

Israel and India test MRSAM air defense system

The system was developed in the wake of one of the largest defense deals in Israel’s history.

us.yahoo.com

Israel and India test MRSAM air defense system​

JERUSALEM — Israel Aerospace Industries and the Indian government’s Defence Research and Development Organisation conducted a successful test of the MRSAM, a medium-range surface-to-air missile system.
MRSAM was jointly developed by IAI and DRDO over the last several years, and they tested the system in India during the last week of December, the Israeli company said.
The system was developed in the wake of one of the largest defense deals in Israel’s history. In April 2017, IAI and India signed a $1.6 billion contract for the MRSAM system for India’s ground forces. The development involved several Indian companies such as Bharat Electronics Limited, Larsen & Toubro, and Bharat Dynamics Limited as well as Israel’s Rafael Advanced Defense Systems.
The effort is one of the joint ventures that underpins India’s economic policy “Make in India” for defense development, which has seen several decades of contracts with Israeli companies to modernize India’s military.

“MRSAM Air and Missile Defense System is a cutting edge innovative system, that once again has proven its advanced capabilities against a variety of threats,” said IAI President and CEO Boaz Levy, who was appointed to the top job in November and has been closely involved in the development of the Barak 8 air defense system. (MRSAM is part of the Barak family.)
“Every trial in an air defense system is a complex operational event and the COVID-19 limitations significantly increase the complexity. This trial is yet another testimonial to the strong partnership between IAI and India and the two nations,” Levy added.
IAI’s Barak family of air defense systems encapsulates several different levels of ranges, from 35 kilometers to 150 kilometers, and incudes the Barak MX, which the company is marketing globally as a single, integrated solution against multiple simultaneous aerial threats. The MRSAM fills a medium-range gap (70 kilometers) in India.
The current test “validated all components of the weapon system,” according to IAI.
“Israeli specialists and Indian scientists and officers participated in and witnessed the test,” the company added. “The flight test demonstrated different extreme reference scenarios, validating various system capabilities.”
The test involved a mobile launcher and multimode radar. IAI subsidiary Elta Systems makes multimode radar, the same type of radar used by Israel’s Iron Dome air defense system. Travel to and from the test site in India, and then back to Israel, was challenging due to the pandemic, requiring participants to quarantine and work in capsules.
MRSAM is used by India’s Air Force and Navy. The naval version, called LRSAM, is based on the Barak 8 and was sold as part of a $777 million contract with India’s state-owned Bharat Electronics Limited in 2018 for seven ships for the Navy. The Barak 8 had its first sea-based operational intercept in 2015 and was proven effective on land in 2016. It can be used against threats at sea such as the Russian Yakhont missile, and IAI says the land-based system can confront a variety of threats, including warplanes, missiles and UAVs.
The Israeli company would not say how many systems the multibillion-dollar deal from 2017 will involve. The size of India’s Army, the country’s landmass and recent clashes have led to accelerated weapons purchases. Israel’s Barak sales to India’s Navy began with one ship, followed by seven and then five more.

 

[RISING SUN]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1349686133454733313