INS Tarangini gets a sister sailship: the INS Sudarshini

The INS Sudarshini, the navy's second training sailship for cadets, awakens memories... of the time I spent on the INS Tarangini in 2004 during its trip around the globe. Posted are 3 photos of that trip on the Tarangini (above). Three photos of the Sudarshini are pasted below those

The Indian Navy's press release on the commissioning of INS Sudarshini is pasted below:

INS SUDARSHINI JOINS SOUTHERN NAVAL COMMAND

INS Sudarshini a three masted barque (sail ship) and the second sail training ship of the Indian Navy was commissioned by Vice Admiral KN Sushil, Flag Officer Commanding in Chief Southern Naval Command at Naval Base today. INS Sudarshini is a follow on class of INS Tarangini which joined Southern Naval Command in 1997. The ship commanded by Commander P K Boyiri Varma is built by Goa Shipyard Limited and is designed by the British Naval Architect Mr Colin Mudie. INS Sudarshini with an overall length of 54 m, has 20 sails, 7.5 kms of rope and 1.5 kms of steel wire rope. She can sail for up to 20 days with its complement of 05 officers, 31 sailors with 30 cadets embarked for training. INS Sudarshini will join the First Training Squadron based at Southern Naval Command at Kochi. Interestingly, the ship was launched by Smt Letha Sushil, the spouse of Vice Admiral Sushil at Goa Shipyard on 25th January 2011.

Sail Training Ships are crucibles for future Naval Officers for training in seamanship, navigation, ship handling, and braving the elements. The inclusion of a second sail training ship will ensure the availability of either of the ships for training of cadets on a continuous basis. INS Sudarshini is expected to undertake a historic ASEAN voyage in September this year. The voyage, which would cement the historic ties of India with the countries of ASEAN region, will touch 18 ports in 8 countries and will conclude in April 2013. Southern Naval Command eschewed the traditional grandeur befitting a commissioning ceremony today, in view of the passing away of the Governor of Kerala. The ship will proceed on its first mission later today.

US Air Force strongly backs the F-35

(Photo courtesy global-military.com)

With the F-35 under fire over time and cost overruns, the USAF has come out strongly behind the fighter, praising it as "multi-role capable, able to fight air-to-air and air-to-ground."

Detractors of the F-35, posting on Broadsword, have consistently --- and erroneously --- termed it solely a ground strike aircraft, with limited capability in air-to-air combat. Broadsword, of course, has consistently backed the F-35 as the best choice for India, rather than the over-priced, over-hyped Rafale and Typhoon. The latest PR trick by Eurofighter (I go into splits of laughter whenever I think of this) is to fly patrols over the Economic Summit at Davos. I kid you not... I've received an official release from Eurofighter to this effect.

The American Forces Press Service release is pasted below.

Air Force Leaders Say Strategy Calls for F-22, F-35 Capabilities

By Jim Garamone
American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, Jan. 24, 2012 – Fifth-generation fighter aircraft are key to America maintaining domain dominance in the years ahead, Air Force officials said here today.

Lt. Gen. Christopher D. Miller, deputy chief of staff for strategic plans and programs, and Maj. Gen. Noel T. “Tom” Jones, the service’s director for operation capability requirements, said the technology – exemplified in the F-22 and F-35 – assumes greater importance in combating growing anti-access, area-denial capabilities.

The generals spoke during a media roundtable in the Pentagon.

Fifth-generation aircraft are particularly valuable as part of the new defense strategy guidance that President Barack Obama unveiled here earlier this month, they said. That strategy explicitly affirms that the United States military must be able to defeat ant-access, area-denial threats.

“This is not a new thing,” Miller said. “Militaries have operated in ant-access environments probably since the beginning of time. But what is different, and why fifth-generation aircraft is relevant to that, is that operating in anti-access environments continues to become more complex and challenging.”

There is a continuing competition between nations developing anti-access capabilities and others devising ways to defeat that, the general said. “Fifth-generation aircraft are a key ability that the Air Force is bringing to the nation’s ability to operate in those environments,” he added.

The Air Force has flown against anti-access environments since it was founded. American fighters countered this capability in the skies over Korea and Vietnam. Airmen faced off against surface-to-air missiles ringing Hanoi. In the Persian Gulf War, airmen defeated the ground-to-air threat over Iraq, and most recently, they knocked out the anti-access capabilities around Tripoli.

But missile technology has become more complex and more difficult to counter. Command-and-control capabilities have grown. This will require a new set of capabilities flying against them, Jones told reporters. “The fifth-generation capabilities that the F-22 and F-35 possess will allow us to deal with that environment,” he said.

F-22s and F-35s bring maneuverability, survivability, advanced avionics and stealth technology to the fight. Both planes are multi-role capable, able to fight air-to-air and air-to-ground.

“These capabilities give our leaders the ability to hold any target at risk, anywhere in the globe, at any time,” Jones said. “I think it is important for any adversary to understand we possess those capabilities and intend to continue the development.”

Another aspect of the strategy includes the ability to operate against adversaries across the spectrum of conflict. F-22s and F-35s are particularly relevant at the top of the spectrum, “where we can’t always set the conditions for our operations as easily as we have in the last couple of decades of military conflict,” Miller said.

This is an extremely valuable capability that must be nurtured, the generals said.

Americans have become used to having domain dominance, Miller said, expecting U.S. service members to be able to operate on land, at sea, in the air with a fair degree of autonomy as they pursue national objectives.

“This is not a birthright,” Miller said. “That is something we have had to work very hard in the past to gain, … and we can’t take for granted that we are going to be able to support the joint team in future environments unless we maintain a high-end capability to target an adversary’s air forces, their surface-to-air forces and basically be able to seize control of parts of the air space and other domains the joint commander needs.

“It’s an Air Force capability,” he added, “but it’s a key Air Force contribution to the joint warfighting capability of the nation.”

Performance, not age

In selecting senior Indian commanders, age is everything. Gen Hasnain, the highly effective commander of 15 Corps (pictured talking to locals in Kashmir) is blocked by his age from becoming army commander

by Ajai Shukla

Business Standard, 24th Jan 12

The public battle over the army chief's age bears a larger lesson for the government: the undesirability of letting a date of birth determine which generals are appointed to senior military command and, especially, to the crucial appointments of army, navy and air force chiefs. As India now knows, the army chief (like those of the navy and air force) is appointed based not on merit but on when he was born. When a serving chief retires, his senior-most army commander is elevated to the top job. Only once has the government deviated from this: in appointing Lt Gen A S Vaidya instead of Lt Gen S K Sinha in 1983. Rather than exercise judgement in selecting a suitable chief from its 85-odd lieutenant generals, the government acts as if all of them are equally good, or bad.

Rather less known is the fact that the army chief’s key subordinates — i.e., army commanders and, under them, corps commanders — are also appointed based on when they were born. Of the officers promoted to lieutenant general, only those with at least three years of residual service (i.e., those below 57 years) get to command corps, while the rest of them warm desks. This even though a corps commander’s tenure is just a year. After commanding a corps, a lieutenant general is elevated to army commander only if he has two years of residual service.

These are not mere guidelines that are waived for exceptional officers, but ironclad rules that waste exceptional military talent for insufficient reason. An example of this is currently playing out. Lieutenant General Syed Ata Hasnain was brought in as Srinagar corps commander in autumn 2010 to staunch three years of bloodletting on the Kashmiri street. He successfully calmed tempers and dramatically boosted the army’s image, achieving in Kashmir what Stanley McChrystal and David Petraeus could not in Afghanistan. Based purely on performance, Hasnain is an outstanding field commander. But, since he has less than two years of service left, he will not even make army commander, leave alone army chief. Instead, he will push papers in Delhi.

This ill-conceived “date of birth” approach to top-rank promotions sits atop a bitterly resented quota system in the ranks just below. The army’s “Mandalised” system of promotion quotas (described in this newspaper’s Weekend supplement on January 14) grants promotions at the key ranks of colonel and brigadier not to accomplished officers with the best career records; but distributes them between various arms on a pro-rata basis. That guarantees each arm — the infantry, the artillery, the armoured corps, etc., — proportionate representation in those crucial ranks, regardless of merit. Every promotion board rejects some outstanding officers because of “lack of vacancies” in that arm; while officers with notably inferior records get promoted because their arm’s vacancies must be filled.

No other country that I know of fetters its senior military command so. The United States government, like most others, selects its top soldier from a broad panel of generals, often picking up a relatively junior officer with an exceptional service record and the potential for bridging the sometimes opposing interests of the military and the political class.

Such systems of “deep selection” create incentives amongst the generals for bold decision-making and eye-catching performance. But Indian generals who are in the running to be chief (by virtue of their correctly aligned dates of birth!) need only to ensure that they don’t shoot themselves in the foot. This encourages conservative decision-making, the absolute avoidance of risk, and the “servicing” of personal relationships to ensure that nothing derails their candidacy.

The argument against “deep selection” sounds superficially convincing: that a compromised polity and an inherently anti-army bureaucracy can hardly be trusted to select the military chiefs. This argument suggests that dhotiwalas and babus (the military’s mocking reference to politicians and bureaucrats) would unleash patrimonialism and politicisation within an organisation that has remained relatively honest and functional only because of its complete segregation.

This argument is flawed, not least in regarding the selection of senior officers free of such influence — something that has been disproved in the debate over the army chief’s birth date. By promoting a chasm between the military and the political and bureaucratic elites, the military damages its own interests. With no political and bureaucratic investment in a military chief (we didn’t select him, he just happened to be born on a certain date and came up the chain) the civil-military relationship remains fundamentally adversarial. Any reform measure — the creation of a Chief of Defence Staff (CDS); an integrated defence staff (IDS) headquarters, or the cross-posting of officers between the MoD and the IDS — founders on the rocks of inter-agency hostility.

A system of “deep selection” would galvanise the military’s leadership; lead to longer tenures for service chiefs, during which they could drive home key initiatives; promote a meritocracy from the top down; and, most importantly, create an incentive for elected representatives and government bureaucrats to pay closer attention to the military and the management of defence. For entrenched interests within the military, greater civilian involvement in promotions and appointments is threatening. But this must be the lesson that emerges from the current unsavoury face-off.

Samtel poised to take off with air force fighter fleet

The old Su-30MKI front cockpit (left) with Thales MFDs. At right is the same cockpit with Samtel MFDs

by Ajai Shukla

Business Standard, 23rd Jan 12

After bagging a Euro 1.47 billion (Rs 9,600 crore) contract for upgrading the Indian Air Force’s fleet of 51 Mirage-2000 fighters, French defence electronics giant, Thales, is now an 800-pound gorilla on the Indian defence scene. And its Indian partner, Samtel Display Systems (SDS), is emerging as a company to watch as it swoops alongside Thales onto India’s burgeoning aerospace market.

Thales’ offset liability from the Mirage upgrade contract amounts to Rs 441 million Euro (Rs 3000 crore). That induces Thales to source from SDS a significant share of the avionics (aviation-electronics) for upgrading the Mirage-2000. SDS, with whom Thales has a joint venture company, Samtel Thales Avionics, is poised to meet that requirement. SDS already supplies Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL), India’s sole aircraft manufacturer, with cockpit displays (multi-function displays, or MFDs) for the Sukhoi-30MKI fighters that are built at HAL’s Nashik plant. The Ghaziabad-based company is also competing to build avionics for the IAF’s forthcoming Sukhoi-30 MKI upgrade.

And if the Rafale fighter --- built by Dassault with a large avionics component from Thales --- is chosen by the MoD as the IAF’s new medium multi-role combat aircraft (MMRCA), SDS could benefit enormously from another wave of offset-driven orders for display systems and other avionics in the 126 MMRCA.

“We are looking at a turnover growth from Rs 60 crore in 2011-12, to about Rs 500 crore in 2015-16,” Puneet Kaura, Executive Director of SDS, told Business Standard.

Samtel Thales Avionics (Thales 26%; Samtel 74%), which was incorporated in 2008, is Thales’ only joint venture in India. The French company is currently setting up another JV with Bharat Electronics Ltd (BEL) for manufacturing radar components.

“Thales wants to build on our maturing relationship to make us a major supply source for avionics. They are looking at India very seriously, given the size of the deals they have signed or are contemplating,” says Puneet Kaura.

Thales shares Kaura’s optimism. Eric Lenseigne, who heads Thales India, says that India is a key market, both in defence and in the civilian areas of transportation, signalling, communications and automatic fare collection systems. Thales fare collection systems are installed on the Delhi Metro.

“We are keen on growing our joint venture in India, Samtel Thales Avionics. Samtel has key capabilities, and the capability to grow. We do not rule out their becoming a part of our global supply chain… provided they develop the way that we would like them to develop,” says Lenseigne.

So far, SDS’s key technological breakthroughs, such as the Su-30MKI displays, have been achieved indigenously. But now, as it progresses to cutting edge avionics the company requires technology infusion. For this, Samtel Thales Avionics, is a key vehicle.

An example of the futuristic avionics that SDS hopes to supply is the Infra Red Search and Track (IRST) System, which is standard kit in the Rafale as well as the Eurofighter Typhoon. This passive sensor detects enemy aircraft at ranges of 60-70 kilometres through the heat (infrared) that they emit. Unlike a fighter’s airborne radar, which gives away one’s own position by emitting an electronic beam, an IRST is entirely stealthy since it emits nothing.

Thales plans to offer the IRST to the IAF on a “Buy and Make (Indian)” basis. This category of procurement (specified in the Defence Procurement Procedure of 2011, or DPP-2011) requires an Indian partner to absorb critical, high-end technologies and develop capabilities within India. Thales has told the IAF that Samtel Thales Avionics would do 50% of the design and development work in India.

Both Samtel and Thales tell Business Standard that they will enhance Thales’ share of the JV, if the foreign direct investment (FDI) limit is raised from the current 26%. “If the FDI cap is raised to 49%, we have agreed that Thales’ holding in the JV will go up to 49%, while we will come down to 51% This is not a written agreement, but we have an understanding,” says Kaura.

Coast Guard gets first Inshore Patrol Vessel built by Hindustan Shipyard Ltd

Hindustan Shipyard, which could become the MoD's central yard for manufacturing nuclear submarines, has delivered its first vessel to the Indian Coast Guard. Press release pasted below.

1ST INSHORE PATROL VESSEL COMMISSIONED INTO COAST GUARD

New Delhi: Pausa 30, 1933

January 20, 2012

The Indian Coast Guard Ship Rani Abbakka, the 1st of a series of five Inshore Patrol Vessel (IPV) built at M/s HSL, was commissioned at Visakhapatnam by Minister of State for Defence Dr. MM Pallam Raju today in the presence of Vice Admiral Anil Chopra, Flag Officer Commanding in Chief (East), Vice Admiral MP Muralidharan, Director General Indian Coast Guard and other senior dignitaries of the Central and State Govt. The ship is named after Abbakka Mahadevi, the legendary queen of Tulunadu, Karnataka who fought the Portuguese in the latter half of the 16th century. She was also one of the earliest Indians to fight the colonial powers and is sometimes regarded as the 'First Woman Freedom Fighter of India'.

The 50 M Inshore Patrol Vessel, ICGS Rani Abbakka, the first of its class has been designed and built indigenously by M/s Hindustan Shipyard Limited, Visakhapatnam. The ship, which is equipped with the most advanced and sophisticated navigational and communication sensors and equipment. The ship is propelled by three MTU 4000 series Diesel engines of 2720 KW capacity at 2100 rpm each coupled with three 71S II Rolls Royce Jets to a maximum speed of 31.5 Knots. At economical speed of 14 Knots, it has an endurance of 1500 nautical miles. The special features of the ship include an Integrated Bridge System (IBS), Machinery Control System (IMCS), and an indigenously built Gun Mount with Fire Control System. The ship is designed to carry one Rigid Inflatable Boat and two Geminis for Search and Rescue, Law Enforcement and Maritime Patrol.

ICGS “Rani Abbakka”, manned by 05 officers and 34 men under the Command of Commandant C Vivekananda, will be based at Chennai and will be under administrative and operational control of the Commander, Coast Guard Region (East).

The ship on joining the Coast Guard Fleet will enhance Coast Guard’s capability in furthering its mandate of Maritime Safety, Maritime Security, Environmental Protection and Coastal Security on the Eastern Sea board.

Army chief’s crosshairs on Attorney General

Attorney General, Goolam Vahanvati, who has followed a long tradition of compliant AGs, by providing the MoD with a legal opinion that justifies turning down the army chief's petition for reconciling his birth date.

by Ajai Shukla
Business Standard, 20th Jan 12

Squarely in the crosshairs of the army chief, General VK Singh, is Attorney General Goolam Vahanvati. Already under fire in the 2G spectrum allocation scam, which the CBI is investigating, Vahanvati provided Defence Minister AK Antony the legal opinion that led to the MoD’s rejection of General Singh’s petition for his birth date to be recognised as 10th May 1951.

The army chief's writ petition, filed in the Supreme Court on Monday, directly challenges Vahanvati’s opinion. The attorney general’s opinion overruled the earlier decision of a senior law ministry official, who had opined last May that the army chief was correct. Vahanvati, however, ruled that the MoD was on solid legal ground in putting the army chief’s date of birth as 10th May 1950.

Gen VK Singh’s writ petition cites the favourable opinions of four former Supreme Court chief justices and a former Solicitor General to directly suggest that Vahanvati's legal opinion is flawed.

“The attorney general has given his legal opinion, but we obviously do not accept that,” says Puneet Bali, advocate for the army chief. “We will contest it in court. Since the matter is sub-judice, I will not say any more.”

The army chief’s close advisors point out that attorneys general historically, and Vahanvati in particular, have been far from unbiased.

After the Bofors gun scam hit the headlines in 1987, then Attorney General, K Parasaran, provided a notoriously convenient “opinion” for the government, ruling that Bofors could not be asked to reveal the names of those who had been paid money because of “customer confidentiality”. This, although Bofors had declared that they were willing to provide the names; and the government had repeatedly said in public that it wanted the names from Bofors. Thereafter, on several occasions, the government ruled out obtaining those names from Bofors, citing the attorney general's opinion on “customer confidentiality.”

Former NDA disinvestment and telecom minister, Arun Shourie, asks, “Can you recall an opinion provided by an attorney general, which did not suit the convenience of the government of the time?”

Says Shourie, “Attorneys General should function as ‘in-house judges’ from whom government departments can obtain honest evaluations of legal cases. Unfortunately, they have functioned as lawyers for whichever government is in office, providing a legal rubber-stamp to decisions already made.”

Attorney General Vahanvati will be particularly vulnerable to such charges, say sources close to General VK Singh. The former Telecom Minister, A Raja, who is imprisoned and facing corruption charges in the 2G scam, used Vahanvati’s “legal opinion” to rationalize most of his allegedly illegal decisions. And Raja, while replying to a worried letter from the prime minister about spectrum allocation, wrote that he had been greatly “enlightened” in taking those decisions by “the learned Solicitor General”, as Vahanvati was at that time.

The CBI has not yet launched any specific investigation of Vahanvati’s role, and the attorney general himself strongly denies wrongdoing. However anti-graft campaigner, Prashant Bhushan, is pursuing a case in the Supreme Court, charging Vahanvati with drafting some of the most crucial arguments that Raja is now using in his defence.

If the Supreme Court decides to hear the army chief’s writ petition, and upholds his birth date as 10th May 1951, General VK Singh would be eligible to serve till 31st March 2013, when he completes three years in office. In that case, the current northern army commander, Lt Gen KT Parnaik, is likely to be the next army chief. Currently, General VK Singh is due to retire on 31st May 2012, after completing 62 years. In that case, the eastern army commander, Lt Gen Bikram Singh is likely to be the next army chief. This issue has arisen because the army has erroneously maintained two dates of birth for General Singh since 1970.

Broadsword quiz: a comparative evaluation of these two photos

I have already figured out that these are tanks on a train. The best answers will have to go well beyond that! Let's have some identification, evaluation and analysis here...