Tuesday 24 September 2013

Anti-tank Nag missile 'Helina's' trial conducted successfully

The second land-to-land preliminarily trial of 'fire and forget' third generation anti-tank Nag missile's upgraded land version — 'Helina' — was carried out on Sunday at the Pokhran field firing range. The target was fired in the presence of Defence Research and Development Organization (DRDO) and army officials. The missile hit the target successfully.

"For hitting the target, a launching pad was made in Pokhran field firing range. Helina's target was set 7km from the launching pad. The target was fired from launching pad and was hit successfully." 

Before this, air-to-ground preliminarily trials of anti-tank Nag missile's air version of 'Helina' were conducted on October 21, 2011, which were unsuccessful. 

"The range of the land version will be extended by development of a mast-mounted missile launcher that is hydraulically raised to a height of 5 metres to enable the missile to acquire its targets up to a distance of 7-8km. An air-launched, 10-km range variant will be launched from tactical interdiction aircraft like the upgraded Jaguar IS. It has a nose-mounted mill metric-wave active radar seeker,". 

"The Defence Research and Development Laboratory (DRDL) will also start working on the 'man portable' Nag soon. It would weigh less than 14kg. It is being developed as per user requirements and will see upgraded propulsion to enable 'Helina' to strike enemy armour at a distance of 7-8km." 

Nag is a third generation 'fire-and-forget' anti-tank missile developed in India. It is one of the five missile systems developed by DRDO under the Integrated Guided Missile Development Programme (IGMDP). Nag has been developed at a cost of Rs 300 crore. Its land version is presently undergoing trials in Chandan field firing range in Pokhran. 

Nag is also configured to be used on the Advanced Light Helicopter (ALH) and the HAL Light Combat Helicopter (LCH). This version is known as Helina (HELIcopter launched NAg). Eight missiles are carried in two quadruple launchers. Launchers mounted on either side are linked to a nose-mounted stabilized thermal sight and a laser range-finder package. 

'Helina' with a range of 7-8km, will be launched from twin-tube stub wing-mounted launchers on board the armed HAL Dhruv and HAL Light Combat Helicopter produced by state-owned Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL). The first ground launches of the missiles were conducted in October 2011 during which the missile was launched onto the target. While the missile was in flight, a second target was chosen for the missile to hit, which was successfully destroyed. This demonstrated the capability of the missile to lock onto and hit another target while in flight. A two-way RF command-video data link has been released which is intended to be fired from HAL ALH. 

"Nag missile has a top attack capability. The 'Helina' version will use a 'lock-on after launch' system extending its range to 7km. In this scenario, the missile is launched in the general direction of the target. As it approaches the target, images of the area ahead are sent back to the operator who will be able to identify enemy tanks. The command to lock onto a tank is then passed onto the seeker through an uplink mid-flight. After that, the missile homes in onto the target and destroys it

Monday 23 September 2013

Saab receives orders on self-protection system for the Indian Advanced Light Helicopter (ALH Dhruv)

Saab has received two orders from Hindustan Aeronautic Limited (HAL), India, for serial production of an integrated electronic warfare self-protection system for installation on the Indian Army’s and Air force’s Advanced Light Helicopter. The orders have a total value of approximately SEK 216 million (USD 33 million).

Saab’s Integrated Defensive Aids Suite (IDAS) protects crew and aircraft and enhances the survivability in sophisticated, diverse and dense threat environments. The system provides a timely warning against different types of threats including radar, laser and missile approach warning; and automatically deploys the appropriate countermeasures.

“Saab has an unbeaten capability in the field of electronic warfare and self-protection. The IDAS system is one of our flagship products sold to customers around the world,” says Micael Johansson, Senior Vice President and Head of Saab’s business area Electronic Defence Systems.

These orders follow initial serial production orders received in 2008 and further established Saab as a local partner to the Indian Industry and provider of high tech products and systems to the Indian Armed Forces. 

“With these orders we continue to build on our very successful partnership with HAL. The fact that HAL and the Armed Forces have continued to show faith in the IDAS system is a testimony of the effectiveness and reliability of the solution,” says Lars-Olof Lindgren, Head of Market Area Saab India.

Deliveries are scheduled to commence in 2014. Development and production of the IDAS system will take place at Saab in Centurion, South Africa (Saab Grintek Defence).

The system has a long and successful history with proven capability on many airborne platforms such as the Saab 2000, Agusta-Westland A109, Super Lynx 300, Boeing CH-47 Chinook, Denel Rooivalk and Oryx, Eurocopter Cougar, Puma & Super Puma, NH Industries NH90, C-130 and L100 Hercules, Sukhoi Su-30MKM. Deliveries are ongoing for the Hindustan Aeronautics Limited Advanced Light Helicopter.

Monday 16 September 2013

Working on giving India access to Defence technology: US

The United States is working on giving India the same status as some of its ‘very closest allies’ in the area of techonology and export controls by getting the bureaucratic hurdles out of the way, says a top Pentagon official.

As part of its efforts to take the India-US Defence relationship to the next level and help New Delhi raise the indignation of its of its Defence systems, the Pentagon has initiated several India-specific steps, details of which have not been revealed so far.

Deputy Secretary of Defence Ashton B Carter will be in India with a number of co-production and co-development projects to New Delhi to see whether India would be interested in them and could further be discussed when Prime Minister Manmohan Singh meets President Barack Obama on September 27.

“So what we’re doing is in the technology and export controls area, working so that India has the same status as our very closest allies and that our system is operating on a time scale that’s consistent with the needs for the Indian side to make decisions,” Deputy Secretary of Defence Ashton B Carter told news reporters.

Carter, who leads the US side for the Defence Technology Initiative, will have discussions with officials in India on the DTI. National Security Advisor Shivshankar Menon leads the Indian side.

Asserting that the US and India are destined to be partners in the world stage even though their interests do not coincide always, Carter said the Obama Administration is keen to take the India-US defence relationship to the next level and help New Delhi increase indignation of its defence system.

US Deputy Secretary of Defense, Ashton Carter, who arrives in India on a two-day visit on Monday, has masterminded a proposal that could dramatically boost US-India defence relations. The US department of defense (Pentagon) has written to India’s Ministry of Defence (MoD), proposing the two countries collaborate in jointly developing a next-generation version of the Javelin anti-tank missile.

India has been offered a specific share of the development programme and requested to respond by a specific date. If India chooses not to participate, the Pentagon would go ahead with the programme on its own.

Last year, Carter had proposed US companies join hands with Indian partners in setting up manufacturing facilities for five major systems in India. These include the MH-60 Romeo multi-role helicopter, built by Sikorsky and Lockheed Martin; a delivery system for scatterable mines; and the M-45 127-mm rapid-fire naval gun. Later, the US proposed co-producing the Javelin missile, built by Raytheon and Lockheed Martin.

New Delhi has not yet responded to the proposal. Now, Carter has raised the ante with his proposal for co-developing the next-generation Javelin.

India has a successful co-development project with Russia for the BrahMos cruise missile, and with Israel for the long-range surface-to-air missile (LR-SAM) and medium-range surface-to-air missile (MR-SAM). But with the US, India has only bought equipment over the counter. American equipment has not even been manufactured in India with technology transfer, far less co-developed.

Speaking anonymously, US officials confirmed the co-development proposal would be on Carter’s discussion agenda during his meetings in New Delhi on Tuesday. Carter would meet a host of Indian officials, including National Security Advisor Shivshankar Menon.

Senior MoD sources told Business Standard the US co-development proposal for the next-generation Javelin had been received and was being evaluated.

A senior DRDO source confirmed the US offer. “DRDO welcomes co-development of advanced weapon systems, provided there is real technological collaboration involved. India needs to fill its technology gaps and co-development should ensure both partners build upon their mutual strengths,” he said.

Carter’s proposal is part of a 15-month-old American push to intensify its defence relationship with India. Earlier, in response to New Delhi’s interest in the Javelin, the US state department had said fulfilling India’s requirement would “alter the regional military balance”. Worse, Washington refused to transfer key technologies New Delhi insisted upon as a part of the deal.

That approach changed dramatically since June 2012, when then US Defense Secretary Leon Panetta nominated Carter to break down the bureaucratic barriers in Washington that impeded the US-India defence relationship, which Washington had determined was pivotal to America’s future in Asia. A formal mechanism called the DTI — tellingly, the US called it the defence trade initiative, while India referred to it as defence technology initiative — was set up. Carter co-chairs the initiative, along with Shivshankar Menon.

A close watcher of the Pentagon says Carter has pushed the US bureaucracy hard to change its approach towards India. Earlier, US officials regarded India as just another non-NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) country, one with which America did not even have a formal alliance and which was unwilling to sign cooperative agreements with the US. “Before Carter got to work, releasing technology to India required a comprehensive justification to be made out. By April 2013, Pentagon officials needed to justify why a particular technology could not be released to India,” said the Pentagon watcher.

Now, the Javelin is a focus area for Carter. At one stage, MoD was close to buying a rival missile, the Israeli Spike, for its $1-1.5-billion tender for 8,400 missiles and 321 launcher units for the army’s 350-plus infantry units. But the MoD, wary of a single-vendor buy, ordered a “technology scan” to ascertain whether there was no missile in the market other than the Spike.

The FGM-148 Javelin, jointly built by US companies Raytheon and Lockheed Martin, is the world’s premier man-portable, anti-tank missile. It gives infantrymen, highly vulnerable to enemy tanks on the battlefield, a weapon with which to destroy heavy armoured vehicles from a distance of 2.5 km.

But the Israeli Spike, while not nearly as capable, is likely to be a good deal cheaper. If the MoD chooses price over capability, the Spike is likely to emerge the winner. “But if the MoD agrees to Washington’s co-development proposal, the Javelin would become the clear frontrunner for the $1-1.5-billion Indian contract. That is now a realistic prospect,” says a member of the US defence industry.

US Deputy Secretary of Defense, Ashton Carter, who arrives in India on a two-day visit on Monday, has masterminded a proposal that could dramatically boost US-India defence relations. The US department of defense (Pentagon) has written to India’s Ministry of Defence (MoD), proposing the two countries collaborate in jointly developing a next-generation version of the Javelin anti-tank missile.

India has been offered a specific share of the development programme and requested to respond by a specific date. If India chooses not to participate, the Pentagon would go ahead with the programme on its own.

Last year, Carter had proposed US companies join hands with Indian partners in setting up manufacturing facilities for five major systems in India. These include the MH-60 Romeo multi-role helicopter, built by Sikorsky and Lockheed Martin; a delivery system for scatterable mines; and the M-45 127-mm rapid-fire naval gun. Later, the US proposed co-producing the Javelin missile, built by Raytheon and Lockheed Martin.

New Delhi has not yet responded to the proposal. Now, Carter has raised the ante with his proposal for co-developing the next-generation Javelin.

India has a successful co-development project with Russia for the BrahMos cruise missile, and with Israel for the long-range surface-to-air missile (LR-SAM) and medium-range surface-to-air missile (MR-SAM). But with the US, India has only bought equipment over the counter. American equipment has not even been manufactured in India with technology transfer, far less co-developed.

Speaking anonymously, US officials confirmed the co-development proposal would be on Carter’s discussion agenda during his meetings in New Delhi on Tuesday. Carter would meet a host of Indian officials, including National Security Advisor Shivshankar Menon.

Senior MoD sources told Business Standard the US co-development proposal for the next-generation Javelin had been received and was being evaluated.

A senior DRDO source confirmed the US offer. “DRDO welcomes co-development of advanced weapon systems, provided there is real technological collaboration involved. India needs to fill its technology gaps and co-development should ensure both partners build upon their mutual strengths,” he said.

Carter’s proposal is part of a 15-month-old American push to intensify its defence relationship with India. Earlier, in response to New Delhi’s interest in the Javelin, the US state department had said fulfilling India’s requirement would “alter the regional military balance”. Worse, Washington refused to transfer key technologies New Delhi insisted upon as a part of the deal.

That approach changed dramatically since June 2012, when then US Defense Secretary Leon Panetta nominated Carter to break down the bureaucratic barriers in Washington that impeded the US-India defence relationship, which Washington had determined was pivotal to America’s future in Asia. A formal mechanism called the DTI — tellingly, the US called it the defence trade initiative, while India referred to it as defence technology initiative — was set up. Carter co-chairs the initiative, along with Shivshankar Menon.

A close watcher of the Pentagon says Carter has pushed the US bureaucracy hard to change its approach towards India. Earlier, US officials regarded India as just another non-NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) country, one with which America did not even have a formal alliance and which was unwilling to sign cooperative agreements with the US. “Before Carter got to work, releasing technology to India required a comprehensive justification to be made out. By April 2013, Pentagon officials needed to justify why a particular technology could not be released to India,” said the Pentagon watcher.

Now, the Javelin is a focus area for Carter. At one stage, MoD was close to buying a rival missile, the Israeli Spike, for its $1-1.5-billion tender for 8,400 missiles and 321 launcher units for the army’s 350-plus infantry units. But the MoD, wary of a single-vendor buy, ordered a “technology scan” to ascertain whether there was no missile in the market other than the Spike.

The FGM-148 Javelin, jointly built by US companies Raytheon and Lockheed Martin, is the world’s premier man-portable, anti-tank missile. It gives infantrymen, highly vulnerable to enemy tanks on the battlefield, a weapon with which to destroy heavy armoured vehicles from a distance of 2.5 km.


But the Israeli Spike, while not nearly as capable, is likely to be a good deal cheaper. If the MoD chooses price over capability, the Spike is likely to emerge the winner. “But if the MoD agrees to Washington’s co-development proposal, the Javelin would become the clear frontrunner for the $1-1.5-billion Indian contract. That is now a realistic prospect,” says a member of the US defence industry.

Sunday 15 September 2013

India-Russia naval ties prosper

The Indian defence secretary R K Mathur wrapped up a three-day visit to Russia. The visit that was originally scheduled to take place in June took place from 2-4 September and had a wide range of military hardware acquisition agenda. Besides discussions on the sinking of an Indian submarine, Admiral Gorshkov aircraft carrier rechristened as INS Vikramaditya, the fifth generation fighter aircraft and leasing of more nuclear submarines were discussed.

Costing over $3 billion and with tonnage of over 45,000 tons, the aircraft carrier will be handed over to the Indian Navy in mid-November this year and would reach the Indian waters in the second week of January next year.

The aircraft carrier has completed sea trials in the Barents Sea this July and is destined to undertaking aviation trials, including take-offs and landings, in the next a few months. Progress was also reviewed on the joint design and production of the fifth generation fighter aircraft, which is set to hit the skies by 2020. India has announced to purchase some 300 of these aircraft. The Russian acquiescence was also achieved for up-gradation of the INS Sindhushastra, a sister submarine of the Kilo class submarine family. Another important aspect of the visit was discussions on the lease of another nuclear submarine. Before the visit, the two sides had had preliminary discussions on possibilities of provision of the second nuclear submarine to India but the price tag was not agreed to.

India has indicated that it is ready to put in $1 billion for 10 years lease but the Russians are vying to get a much higher price for the lease. No agreement on the price, however, could be reached. The lease issue will again come up for discussions when Indian defence minister A K Antony visits Russia in October for which the defence secretary also discussed the agenda.
The sinking of INS Sindhurakhshak has already been discussed by the Indian prime minister during one-on-one meeting with Russian President Putin on the sidelines of G-20 Summit that took place at St Petersburg on September 5-6.
The matter will be pursued further with the Russian authorities when the Indo-Russian Inter Governmental Military and Technical Cooperation Commission meets in mid October wherein the two respective defence ministers will discuss the issue and streamline the finer points of the deal on lease of another nuclear submarine before the thread is picked up by Indian prime minister when he meets the Russian president later in Moscow in October for 14th annual summit between Russia and India.

Eighteen sailors, including four officers of the crew of an Indian submarine INS Sindhurakshak berthed alongside Mumbai harbour, were killed when two large explosions ripped apart the forward section of the submarine hull. The tragic accident took place on the heels of two naval landmark events declaring that nuclear reactor installed on board its first nuclear submarine INS Arihant had reached criticality as the submarine prepared for harbour and sea trials and launching of the INS Vikrant, both indigenously built.

The Indians and Russians restrained themselves in blaming each other over the incident. The Indians could not afford to blame the Russians on the probable technical causes that led to the sinking of the submarine for its major military hardware is of the Russian origin and as such decided not to irk the Russians.

The Russians, on their part, pre-empted the Indians on any blame game by saying that the changes in the technical side of the refurbished Indian submarine were made at the insistence of Indian Navy and opined that two concurrent and very sensitive evolutions were being undertaken on board the ill-fated submarine at the same time.

Also, the Russians offered India their cooperation in investigating the circumstances that led to the destruction of the Indian submarine. They have even offered to replace the lost submarine with a new one if India so desired. There have been no surprises as both the Indians and Russians acted responsibly on sinking of the INS Sindhurakhshak and refrained from blaming each other on the event. The incident, therefore, has had no effect on their bilateral relationship. The continuity of high-level meetings at the defence and the political levels speak about strength of their bilateral relationship and Indian needs as it remains dependent on the Russians to keep afloat its military incorporation. Nevertheless, at home, the INS Sindhrakhshak’s sinking is no more a topic of discussion either in the print or electronic media or on any other official circles. The strange silence on a strategic capability loss indicates how Indian media plays side by side with its government on matters of national security.
However, the sinking of the INS Sindhurakhshak alongside its berth in Mumbai harbour highlights the grey areas in the Indian Navy’s submarine practices. This particular incident of ineptitude has created a stir in nuclear experts that have become wary of India’s competence to run a nuclear submarine platform safely. Russians have also escalated their asking price for leasing out another nuclear submarine to India.

Though India is investing heavily into its navy to be counted as a blue water navy but the haste has led the navy to bypass and overlook safeties to hide shortcomings in training and lack of technical knowhow on their naval platforms.

As per an analysis published by the Langley Intelligence Group Network (LIGNET) USA, India’s unveiling of its first domestically made aircraft carrier INS Vikrant and first nuclear submarine INS Arihant “launches” were premature. The analysis highlights that Vikrant will be operational by 2018 and Arihant will begin sea trials in the coming year. It has also concluded that the Indian Navy remains little more than a coastal defence force and it remains to be seen if India can overcome the technological hurdles, cost overruns, bureaucratic incompetence and corruption that have plagued its naval programme.

Agni V test fired Successfully



Successfully conducted the second test-flight of Agni 5 – country’s most potent nuclear capable inter-continental ballistic missile -- from Wheeler’s Island, off Odisha coast.

The missile, which is capable of reaching deep into China and as far as Europe, was test-fired from a mobile launcher at 8.48 am and started rising exactly the way it was designed to, said an official of the Integrated Test Range of the Defence Research Development Organisation (DRDO).

The maiden flight test of the indigenously built 5000-km-range missile on April 19 last year had catapulted India to an exclusive club of countries like the US, Russia, China, France and Britain that possess the technology to develop inter-continental ballistic missiles (ICBM).

India conducted second test flight of its indigenously developed nuclear-capable 'Agni-V' long-range ballistic missile from the Wheeler Island in Odisha

The 17-metre-high and two-metre-wide missile, which can carry a payload of 1.5 tonne, has most of the countries in the world in its striking distance.

The surface-to-surface missile witnessed an 'auto launch' and detail results of the trial will be known after thorough analyses of all data retrieved from different radars and network systems, defence sources said.

"The sleek missile, within a few seconds of its blast-off from the Island launch pad, roared majestically into a clear sunny sky, leaving behind a trail of thin orange and white column of smoke and within seconds it pierced into sky," said an eyewitness to the launch.

Unlike other missiles of indigenously built Agni series, the latest one 'AGNI-V' is the most advanced version having some new technologies incorporated with it in terms of navigation and guidance, warhead and engine.

Many new technologies developed indigenously were successfully tested in the first Agni-V trial.

The redundant navigation systems, very high accuracy Ring Laser Gyro-based Inertial Navigation System (RINS) and the most modern and accurate Micro-Navigation System (MINS) had ensured the missile reach the target point within few metres of accuracy.

The high-speed onboard computer and fault tolerant software along with robust and reliable bus guided the missile flawlessly, said a defence official.

After some more trials, Agni-V will be inducted into the services, the sources said.

Must-knows about Agni V

1. Agni-V is India's first long-range missile capable of reaching deep into China and as far as Europe. 

2. Developed by the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO), the Agni V weighs 50-tonnes and is 17-metres (56 feet) high.

3. The surface-to-surface, three stage solid propellant missile is designed to deliver nuclear warheads of 1000 kg at a range of 5000 km.

4. The launch of the Indian-made Agni V, if successful, would be the crowning achievement of a missile program developed primarily to counter any threat from China.

5. Only the UN Security Council permanent members -- China, France, Russia, the United States and Britain -- have such long-range weapons.

6. It was first tested in April 2012.

7. The DRDO is expected to conduct at least three more tests before declaring the ballistic missile operational and ready for being inducted into the military. That may take two to three years.

8. Agni-V is part of the Agni series of missiles developed by DRDO which includes Agni-I with a 700 km range, Agni-II with 2,000 km, Agni-III with a 3,000 km range and Agni-IV with 4,000 km range.

Thursday 12 September 2013

A Salutation To Arms: Asia’s Military Buildup, Its Reasons And Its Implications – Analysis

This year, Asian defense spending will surpass that of Europe for the first time in over half a millennium. A steep drop in European military expenditures after the Cold War, a concurrent and steady rise in Chinese expenditures, and a recent sharp increase in defense spending across the rest of Asia rapidly closed the gap between the two continents. Reasons vary for Asia’s military buildup and many, whether right or wrong, have begun to darkly speculate about its implications for the region. But one thing seems certain: Asia’s military buildup is no flash in the pan; it is likely to endure.

For the most part, China played down its increased military expenditures throughout the 1990s. But its defense spending was never as low as it claimed, nor probably as wisely spent. At the start of the decade, much of China’s military budget was devoted to preparations for national mobilization and maintaining large standing conventional forces. But within a few years, China began to reallocate that budget, shifting resources from ground forces and pouring them into its navy and air force. Chinese ground forces were subjected to a series of deep cuts that demobilized over a million troops; the army shrank from over 120 division equivalents to fewer than 60 more heavily mechanized division equivalents by the end of the decade.[1] Just as significantly, the process also freed up resources that fueled the research, development, and acquisition of new weapon systems.

Chinese shipyards produced small batches of progressively more capable warships at first, and then far more rapidly a decade later. Although the navy did purchase destroyers and submarines from Russia, their numbers, in retrospect, were small, especially after China began serial production of its own modern surface combatant and submarine classes and ultimately refurbished and re-commissioned a former Soviet aircraft carrier, the Liaoning, in 2012. It may yet build a further two of its own in the coming years.[2] The Chinese navy even constructed a major new naval base at the southern tip of Hainan Island that includes an underground tunnel for nuclear attack and ballistic missile submarines. Over that same period, China’s air force began to transform itself, steadily replacing its older fighters with more modern Russian Su-27SK and Su-30MKK fighters and indigenously-built J-10 and J-11 fighters. To create its new fleet, China heavily invested in not only reverse engineering Russian designs, but also laying the groundwork for a domestic aerospace industry that could develop its own next-generation fighters. Meanwhile, the air force also acquired the kinds of aircraft that it would need on an “informationized” battlefield, such as A-50 and Y-8W airborne early warning and control (AEW&C) aircraft and H-6U aerial refueling tankers. China excelled in missile and rocket technology too. Its conventional forces received new air-to-air missiles and their first undersea-launched anti-ship cruise missiles; its strategic forces rolled out not only newer ballistic missiles, but also those potentially accurate enough to target a ship at sea (if paired with an oceanic surveillance system with sufficient fidelity). And fearing American dominance of space, China put into orbit its own military satellites as well as designed and tested anti-satellite missiles, first in 2007 and then possibly again in early 2013

However, as formidable as China’s defense industry has become, it does have its shortcomings. Even as Chinese shipyards launch new warship classes, many of them are powered with Ukrainian gas turbine engines and protected by Russian air search radars. And though China’s Chengdu Aircraft Design Institute and Shenyang Aircraft Corporation surprised many observers with the unveiling of stealthy next-generation fighters, the J-20 and J-31, most of the country’s upgraded fighter fleet is still propelled by Russian and Ukrainian-designed and manufactured turbofan engines. Indeed, with all the advances its defense industry has made, some observers were surprised to learn that China was in negotiations with Russia to buy as many as 48 of its new Su-35 fighters.[4]

Certainly China has not been alone in modernizing its armed forces. Many other Asian countries also did so, beginning in the early 1990s. But almost all soon fell afoul of some economic woes. As Japan’s economy struggled through the first of its two “lost decades,” the Japanese self-defense forces managed to maintain its force structure—benefiting only from the largess Tokyo bestowed on its aerospace and shipbuilding firms, which turned out a small but steady stream of F-2 fighters and new warships. India’s military fared far worse. For much of the 1990s, it saw its strength sapped conducting counterinsurgency operations in Kashmir and its budget shrivel from high inflation and a weak currency that ate away at its foreign purchasing power (a situation repeating today). As a result, Indian troops would fight the Kargil War in 2002 with largely outdated equipment. Finally, when the Asian Financial Crisis struck South Korea and much of Southeast Asia in 1997–1998, it severely dented their military modernization ambitions. Thailand, for example, had aspired to become an Asian naval power. Early in the 1990s, Bangkok even funded the new construction of East Asia’s first aircraft carrier, the Chakri Naruebet, commissioned in 1996. But soon after the crisis, the ship idled at port, sailing for only one day a month as funds to maintain it and its complement of Harrier jets declined (as did the number of operational jets). A similar fate befell Malaysia’s modern F/A-18 and MiG-29 fighters. With high maintenance costs, they rarely flew and their combat readiness suffered.

When the economic clouds over Asia finally lifted in the first decade of the new century, many countries in the region were slow to resume their military upgrade programs. The first to do so was India. But its biggest challenge turned out to be its own bureaucracy; even though funds were allocated to modernize its military’s equipment and organization, a significant portion was never spent, while other monies were wasted. While many point to India’s fifty-year old Arjun tank program as the paragon of such inefficiency, more practically worrying was the 27-year wait the army had to endure to receive any new artillery. Still, India has had success in upgrading its bases along the disputed border with China and in the Bay of Bengal and, after several cost overruns, putting into service a refurbished Soviet aircraft carrier, the Vikramaditya, as well as a new Akula-class nuclear attack submarine. Also recovering from its debt crisis by mid-decade, South Korea revitalized its military modernization plans. Since then, it has procured new tanks, armored fighting vehicles, Aegis-equipped destroyers, and six Type 214 submarines.

Asia Military 2

By and large, most other Asian countries accelerated their military modernization programs only within the last few years. Vietnam turned to its former Russian patrons to acquire new sophisticated air defense systems, Su-30MK2 fighters, and, most impressively, an order for six Kilo-class submarines. It also requested Russian assistance to restore its (and former American) naval base at Da Nang. Indonesia also began large-scale modernization in 2012 with multiple orders of combat vehicles, three South Korean-built Type 209 submarines, a small number of Su-30MK2 fighters, and a much bigger number of transport and training aircraft. But possibly the most dramatic turnabout occurred in the Philippines, which had allowed the parts of its armed forces designed for external defense to decline to near non-existence. That changed in 2011, when Manila procured two retired American high-endurance cutters and began discussions with Japan for ten small patrol boats. Since then, the Philippine government has scoured the world for military hardware, recently negotiating for a dozen South Korean fighters and even considering two Italian guided-missile frigates.

Among the latest countries to accelerate its military buildup is Japan. While Japan has continued its measured shipbuilding program that averages one new attack submarine and one new surface combatant each year, that pace may increase in the coming years. Already, it is replacing its older combat ships with far more powerful ones. Its two 1970s-era Shirane-class destroyers, carrying three helicopters apiece, will be replaced by two new 22DDH-class “helicopter destroyers”—each of which will nominally embark about a dozen helicopters—even though their size and displacement more closely resemble those of American Wasp-class amphibious assault ships, which are capable of operating V/STOL combat aircraft and up to 40 helicopters. The first 22DDH-class destroyer, the Izumo, was launched in August 2013. And given the victory of Japanese Prime Minister Shinz? Abe’s coalition in Japan’s upper house elections one month earlier, it is possible that he will push through new measures to speed the procurement of warships and coast guard vessels, although the recent depreciation of the Japanese yen may force him to extend the purchase of American combat aircraft.

Asia Military 3

Singapore has steadily devoted resources to upgrading all three branches of its armed forces since the 1990s. As a result, the island nation has been able to transform its once provincial defensive forces into a modern military with substantial power projection capabilities, including not only attack submarines, but ones with advanced air-independent propulsion and not only F-15SG and F-16C/D fighters, but ones backed by several networked AEW&C and aerial refueling aircraft. Today, Singapore is already preparing itself to receive delivery of the second of its follow-on Archer-class submarines and will likely be the second Asian country, after Japan, to acquire the American F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.

REASONS FOR ASIA’S MILITARY BUILDUP

Naturally, the reasons behind Asia’s military buildup are varied and often intertwined. A number have less to do with strategic considerations than domestic ones. One reason concerns domestic political calculations. In countries where militaries have intervened in politics, civilian politicians sometimes use larger defense budgets to buy military quiescence. Past studies of Asian civil-military relations have revealed that this may have been the case in countries like Indonesia and Thailand. Another reason deals with military expenditures that are directed to support favored domestic companies or industries or provide local employment. Of course, that is likely to be true to some degree in any country with a sizable defense industry, like India, Japan, and Singapore. Japan’s regular orders for warships and submarines may have reflected its hope to maintain the country’s shipbuilding base as much as its desire to improve the country’s security, especially after commercial ship orders largely migrated to lower-cost China and South Korea. A third (and somewhat counterintuitive) reason is a growing appreciation among national leaders of how military power can contribute to humanitarian relief efforts. When the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami devastated the province of Aceh in Indonesia, the Indonesian military could do little to help but watch as American and Australian troops came ashore from offshore ships to deliver aid and search for victims. Humbled by the event, Indonesia has since set aside more of its military budget for transport ships and aircraft.[9]

Even so, strategic considerations related to changes in the geopolitical environment have played the biggest role in Asia’s military buildup in the years after the Cold War and particularly over the last decade. As early as 1991, many Chinese leaders—after witnessing the undeniable success of American arms and organization during the Persian Gulf Conflict—realized that they needed to modernize their armed forces. But institutional interests made progress slow; it was not until after Beijing’s failure to deter American intervention in its attempt to intimidate Taiwan with ballistic missile tests in 1995 and 1996 did China’s military transformation resume in earnest. China’s leadership was finally convinced that its traditionally mainland-bound forces were inadequate to counter American naval and air strength in the western Pacific Ocean and that only a comprehensive military modernization could hope to keep American forces at arms’ length as well as prevent other countries from either impinging on its “core interests”—including its territorial claims in the East and South China Seas and on the Himalayan frontier—or geopolitically encircling China.[10]

Unfortunately, China’s accelerated military modernization created a security dilemma for its Asian neighbors. As China became more militarily powerful, other Asian countries saw their relative security decline. Unsurprisingly, India was quick to act, given its historic suspicion of China—its enemy during the 1962 Sino-Indian border conflict and an ally of its long-time adversary, Pakistan. And over the course of the 2000s, New Delhi also grew concerned over China’s rapid development of dual-use civil-military infrastructure—airports, railways, and roads—in Tibet and its growing commercial interests in the Indian Ocean. No stranger to encirclement schemes, Indian security experts saw China developing a “string of pearls” across the Indian Ocean that could one day encircle India. And so, even as China often benchmarks itself against the United States, India came to benchmark its military capabilities against those of China and has found itself wanting. Indeed, Indian fears of China’s growing ability to rush massive reinforcements to their disputed border in Arunachal Pradesh has led India to station six mountain division (including two newly-raised ones) there to face only three Chinese mountain brigades on the other side. In 2013, India even decided “in principal” to fund a new “strike” corps, to give its frontline units a better offensive capacity.[11]

In recent years, many other Asian countries have begun to similarly react to China’s military buildup, though they had earlier welcomed China’s rise, because it had brought them economic benefits. Between the late 1990s and the first half decade of the new century, Beijing’s diplomatic “charm offensive” raised the hopes of many Southeast Asians, who were pleased with China’s seeming willingness to accept their preference to prioritize economic development over political conflict and consider the region’s multilateral norms. But as China’s confidence grew with its economic influence and military strength, Beijing began to assert the primacy of its interests in its disputes with Southeast Asia. Rather than embrace multilateral dialogue, China seemed to increasingly sideline Southeast Asian concerns and pursue its aims either alone or through only bilateral negotiations. That has been true of China’s recent approaches to conflicts over both its use of the Mekong River and (more famously) its maritime borders in the South China Sea.[12]

In late 2007, Beijing raised the status of the administrative authority governing the Paracel and Spratly Islands to that of a “county-level city” in Hainan province. Then, it listed its South China Sea claims among its “core interests”—those over which it is willing to fight. Sensing the start of a slippery slope, several Southeast Asian countries publicly confronted China about its assertiveness at the 17th ASEAN Regional Forum in 2010. China was incensed by the rebuff. Thereafter Chinese patrol vessels have occasionally harassed oil exploration ships from the Philippines and Vietnam—the militarily weakest disputants in the South China Sea—by cutting the cables towing their ships’ seismic equipment. In 2012, China further fired tensions when it built structures on Philippine-claimed Amy Douglas Reef and triggered a months-long maritime standoff. As a result, despite the willingness of many Southeast Asian countries to give China the benefit of the doubt that its military buildup was part of a “peaceful rise” or narrowly directed against its wayward province of Taiwan, they now view China with far more circumspection and their own military buildups with greater urgency.

As similar series of events occurred over the Japanese-controlled Senkaku (Diaoyu) Islands in the East China Sea. Starting in 2010, Chinese and Japanese patrol boats have confronted one another in the waters surrounding the islands. Then, after a risky move that Tokyo thought would calm tensions badly misfired, Beijing stepped up its maritime patrols in the area and allowed its citizens to vent their anger against Japanese commercial interests in China. On the other hand, more Japanese have conceded the need to boost their defense preparations, despite their generally pacifist sentiments. As a result, Tokyo has deployed an additional squadron of F-15J fighters to Okinawa and maintained around-the-clock coast guard patrols near the disputed islands. But such sustained demands placed on Japan’s self-defense forces and coast guard have begun to strain their equipment, prompting the need for newer and more capable aircraft and ships.[13]

Some have now suggested that Asia’s military buildup might point to the existence of one or more arms races—situations where conflicting interests or mutual fears cause competitive increases in arms between two states or coalition of states. So far that is not the case, at least not in the literal sense, if for no other reason no Asian state or coalition of states can afford to directly compete with China’s pace and scale of military modernization, barring a downturn in the Chinese economy. Rather than an arms race, much of Asia’s military buildup can be characterized as an arms catch-up. As Asian countries abandoned their purely bandwagon policies toward China, they have scrambled to strengthen their relative military power—partly through their own military modernizations and partly through closer ties with external powers—to hedge against China’s rise. No doubt that is also why Asian countries, like India, Japan, the Philippines, and Vietnam, whose interests seemed so disparate in the past have become so keen on economic and security cooperation today.

IMPLICATIONS OF ASIA’S MILITARY BUILDUP

The primary concern of many of those who follow Asia’s military buildup is that the increased level of armaments will likely lead to conflict, whether through miscalculation or design. In addition, they could argue that the possibility for miscalculation is made all the more likely because of the overlapping military catch-up efforts—China’s attempt to catch-up to the United States, India’s to China, Japan’s to China, and the rest of Asia’s to China—which creates a complex situation where the actual, functioning balance of power is difficult to ascertain.

Even so, sometimes overlooked are countervailing factors that could lessen the possibility of conflict. First, though Asian countries are rearming in response to China’s increased defense spending and more assertive behavior, they would prefer not to see China as an adversary and hope that it could continue to be a source of economic vitality for the region. Indeed, all Asian countries, even China, have underlined the benign nature of their intentions. Second, all the countries of Asia share common interests that bind them as states, such as promoting economic growth, deterring terrorism, and foiling transnational crime. And third, as history has demonstrated, military expansion can also result in agreements to limit arms, especially as they become more costly to accrue. It was just such a concern that led the world’s five leading naval powers to agree to a naval arms limitation treaty at the Washington Conference in 1921–1922.[14]

But if economic benefits and common interests are insufficient to allay qualms over the intentions of possible rivals—as often is the case—and Asia’s military buildup continues, then those countries playing catch up with China would be well advised to do so through the acquisition of new military technologies. Rather than try to match Chinese forces in terms of absolute numbers of aircraft and ships, they could attempt an asymmetric approach with new technologies against which China has fewer defenses. Much like China’s attempt to thwart American carrier battle groups with conventionally-armed ballistic missiles, Asian countries could emphasize some combination of new technology and tactics that can compensate for smaller quantities. Such systems could include supersonic land-based cruise missiles (and radar systems that support them), stealthy attack submarines, armed unmanned aerial vehicles, or even long-range standoff weapons launched from unconventional platforms, like the P-8A maritime patrol aircraft. Doing so would enable Asian countries to more quickly approach parity with China, regardless of the current gap in conventional military power, and bring greater security and stability to the region.

For the United States, Asia’s military buildup can be seen as a source of both concern and comfort. Naturally, China’s continued military expansion and benchmarking against American capabilities are troubling, though not yet alarming, unless the United States curtails its own military modernization efforts. But China’s growing power has created new tensions in the dynamics of America’s bilateral security arrangements across the region. On the one hand, if American security guarantees are too firm, then its security partners could embroil the United States in an unwanted conflict. On the other hand, if American security guarantees are too weak, then its security partners could decide that their interests might be better served by currying favor with China. So far, that is not the case. China’s new arms and recent maritime assertiveness have led many Asian countries to seriously invest in their own defenses for the first time since the Cold War. And to the extent that these countries are friendly to the United States, Washington can take some cheer from the fact that for now others are willing to share more of the balancing burden in Asia.

In any case, it is far from certain that Asia’s military buildup will inexorably lead to crisis or war. What matters in the end is not the region’s quantity of armaments, but rather the region’s perceptions of power and intentions. At the moment, those of China concern many Asian countries. Yet if they, along with the United States, collectively gather enough power to persuade China to temper its provocative behavior, then their military buildup will have contributed to the region’s security and stability. Conversely, if China’s military power continues to grow relative to that of its neighbors, then one can expect more confrontations to come—no matter the quantities of arms amassed.

http://idrw.org

Tuesday 10 September 2013

INDO - FRENCH JOINT ARMY EXERCISE : SHAKTI 2013

Indo-French Joint Army Exercise ‘SHAKTI 2013’ will be conducted between the Indian and French Army from 09 to 20 September 2013 in the French Alps at Grenoble. This is the second joint military exercise between the two countries which have a history of extensive cooperation in the defence arena, the first one was held in India in October 2011. 

The participating troops for this exercise have been drawn from 5th Battalion of the Kumaon Regiment while the Alpine troops of 27th Mountain Infantry Brigade will participate from the France Army. Approximately sixty troops from both the countries will participate in the exercise. The theme of the exercise is to conduct platoon level joint Counter Insurgency operations in high altitude mountainous terrain under the UN Charter, thus emphasizing the shared concerns of both countries about global terrorism. An added aim of the exercise is to qualitatively enhance knowledge of each others’ military procedures thus increasing the scope for interoperability and better responsiveness to a common threat. 

The Indian troops have undergone extensive training on rock craft, ice craft, advanced mountaineering techniques at High Altitude Warfare School at Sonamarg in Kashmir, in addition to tactical drills of close cordon and house intervention drills to fulfill the mandate of the joint exercise. 

The twelve day exercise with France Army is scheduled to be conducted in multiple modules in order to achieve complete integration between the two contingents at every stage. The vast experience and expertise gained by the Indian troops in high altitude areas like Siachen Glacier and in Counter Insurgency operations hold special importance to the France Army. Conduct of the joint exercise would therefore set the stage for greater defence cooperation between the two nations.

BSF plans to deploy UAVs to keep eye on Indo-Pak border

he Border Security Force (BSF) will soon deploy unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV) along the border with Pakistan to maintain heightened vigil, said a senior officer. A standard operating procedure is being drafted with the Indian Air Force (IAF) to finalise the modalities of using the UAVs.


The surveillance machines, which will be flying at an altitude of 10,000-12,000 feet, will capture images and relay real-time information on the movement of infiltrators, if any, anywhere near the border, said the officer.

“The plan to deploy UAVs is picking up pace... We are actively pursuing it and would like to use them not only on the western border but also on the eastern border with Bangladesh,” said BSF DG Subhash Joshi.


“They will be flying at a high altitude, and we will have to keep the airspace restrictions in mind. That is why the IAF has been roped in,” said Joshi.

While UAVs are currently being used in Naxal-hit areas, the thick forests there have hindered operations. An officer said the UAVs may prove to be more useful in the border area.

India is already using Long-Range Reconnaissance and Observation System (LORROS), Battlefield Surveillance Radar (BFSR) and night vision devices to enhance surveillance capabilities of the border troops. The BSF had suggested the use of UAVs to the Ministry of Home Affairs last year.

A recent media report claimed that Pakistan had started using UAVs along the Rajasthan border.

“There are always infiltration attempts. The electronic surveillance from the sky will not only help us keep an eye along the border but also provide proof if the other side denies such movement,” said a senior officer.

Can DRDO’s FMBT Project survive Russia’s Next Gen Tank Project ?

While Arjun MK-II Has been going through fresh Army trials for last few months as per improvements and upgrades required by Indian army, there is also a possibility that they will be no fresh orders for Arjun MK-II, Army has been asking DRDO to focus on Futuristic Main Battle Tank (FMBT) project.

But Army is still undecided on the specifications for its next generation battle tank. According to sources close to Indian army was not much interested in DRDO’s FMBT Project in the first place and even pulled in Israelis tank consultants for advice on development of next gen Tanks. Israelis left India with a puzzled look, since Indian army was advised by them to invest in future variants based on Arjun tank and not to go for building a new tank from scratch like they want for FMBT.

Arjun MBT was tested by Israeli tank experts in India to validate DRDO’s claim that Tank is fighting fit and has overcome all the technical issues earlier reported by Indian army , it was termed “Desert Ferrari “ by Israeli’s for its brute fire power and impressive armour . According to sources Indian Army only considered working with DRDO when Russians confirmed cancellation of “T-95” Tank Project they were working on.

But according to recent media reports Russian Leadership were shown several prototypes of the Russia’s next generation Armata main battle tank which will go for testing this year , The Armata’s design incorporates aspects of other projects, including Object 195 and Black Eagle which were cancelled by Russia , Armata tank will reportedly feature a remotely controlled gun and fully automated loading, as well as a separate crew compartment made from composite materials and protected by multilayered armour.

Russian Army will start taking delivery of these new tanks by 2015 and it is likely that Russian army will be ordering more than 2000 tanks to replace older T-tanks in its arsenal and will also be available for exports. DRDO’s FMBT is yet to take off from Paper since Army is yet to work out on the specification of the tank, it will be interested to see if DRDO Project survives, Indian Armies love for Russian T-tanks, since they always will be pushed from Russians for possible sale of new Tank.

Russians recently tried to tempt India with new T-90 variant termed T-90MS, but Indian army was not much impressed by the tank, but it is highly likely that Russians will again try to tempt India with this new tank in future, and it will be interesting to see if Indian army ditches local effort for foreign imports?.Army wants a Lighter 50 tonne FMBT from DRDO, Interestingly Armata will be of same weight, so are our generals waiting for detail specification of Armata to be out before they put out FMBT Specification based on Armata? , will FMBT be another local effort with limited orders just like how Arjun MBT will turn out?

Armata tank will be equipped with new generation 125mm smoothbore gun with an automatic loader and 32 rounds ready to use. Armata shown has a secondary weapon that could be a 57mm grenade launcher mounted on the left of the turret, and a machine gun 12.7 mm mounted on the right side.

Russian Armata will be equipped with a multifuel Diesel engine developing 1,400 to 1,600 hp. There is information that the Armata would also have electric transmission to reduce weight of the vehicle and increase the use of add-on armour. Suspension consists on each side of seven dual rubber-tyre road wheels.

Upgrade for Shishumar Class submarine.

With the Sindhurakshak tragedy impairing the Navy's underwater capabilities, several projects to upgrade the existing fleet of submarines and expedite the procurement of new vessels have been fast-tracked.
The proposals being expedited include an upgrade for the Shishumar class (HDW Type 209) of submarines to equip them with anti-ship missiles, a fire control system upgrade for a Kilo submarine, simulators for training the crew on weapons firing and tenders for a new range of conventional submarines.

Sources said the upgrade for the Shishumar class of submarines is likely to be cleared at the earliest. It will be a major capability enhancement over the current weapon complement that consists of torpedoes and mines. The upgrade for two of the four submarines of the class with the Navy is likely to cost under Rs 1,000 crore, which will include the purchase of nearly 100 Harpoon missiles from the US. The original manufacturers of the submarine, German firm HDW, will be roped in for the upgrade and training of the crew. While INS Shalki and Shankul will be upgraded, a decision on the other two will be taken later.

To reduce crew training costs and conserve the life of the submarine, two torpedo simulators will also be purchased from Germany.

Since the number of operational submarines with the Navy after the Sindhurakshak incident has effectively come down to 11, efforts are on to get the two Kilo class submarines that are up for refit back into service at the earliest. The Navy is focusing on procuring a new set of fire control system for a Kilo class vessel — most likely the INS Sindhukirti — which will cost close to Rs 100 crore.

Fresh impetus has also been given to issuing tenders for a new range of conventional submarines (P 75I) that will be equipped with Air Independent Propulsion to ensure long underwater endurance. While the tenders have been pending since last year, the Navy obtained an extension of the Acceptance of Necessity from the Defence Ministry. Sources said a final round of consultation with the likely contenders for the contract — companies based in France, Germany, Spain and Russia — is currently on and the final requirements in the tender will be frozen shortly by the Navy. After delays that have lasted over a year, the request for proposal (RFP) for the new generation of submarines is likely to be issued before December.

Shopping list

* TWO torpedo simulators to reduce crew training costs

* A new set of fire control system for a Kilo class vessel which will cost close to Rs 100 crore

* A new range of conventional submarines (P 75I) that will be equipped with Air Independent Propulsion to ensure long underwater endurance

Friday 6 September 2013

The Great Escape: India's unsung war heroes


Three Indian Air Force fighter pilots held as Prisoners of War in a jail in Rawalipindi made a heroic escape. They reached as far as the Pak-Afghan border in Pakistan’s Wild West -- within sniffing distance of freedom -- only to realise that they had finally met their match. Or so it seemed.
The three escapees were never feted for their audacious attempt 41 years ago and truly deserve official recognition. Why not honour them at least now, says MP Anil Kumar in the second part of his brilliant account of that Great Escape.
D Parulkar receiving the Vayu Sena medal from Airr Chief Marshal Arjan Singh

Welcome to Khyber' -- an arch greeted at Jamrud, but, ironically, the subtext cautioned the visitors into looking over their shoulder! The barren terrain and the grim tribesmen armed to the teeth lent an air of hostility all around. The cold gaze of the locals rubbed the feeling of being an interloper in. What a welcome to Khyber!

Had better get out of this place pronto. A few steps into their stride, a passer-by warned sternly of waylayers. Minutes later, a small boy grinned, shaped his hand into a pistol and pulled the imaginary trigger. They indulged the kid, mimicked cowboy draws, played peek-a-boo. He asked who they were. “Pakistani.” “Pakistani nahin, Hindustani hain,” he dropped a bombshell, beamed and chugged away. The tremble it triggered registered on the Richter scale. Footing it to Landi Kotal was perilous.
The trio hopped on to a bus. The panoptic view of the harsh environment from the rooftop impelled them into appraisal. Their original plan was to hide daylong and find their way at night. They would not have made it; if the Pathan did not get them, his bloodhound would. The benevolent nudge of Providence?
As they debussed at Landi Kotal, Parulkar glanced at the watch: 0930 hrs. A tad over nine hours since they embarked on the venture. Torkham was mere five miles away. Since they did not know which of the two routes led to Landi Khana, they strolled to a tea stall, chatted up like tourists, sipped the piping hot beverage and tossed the query.
Bewilderment suffused the faces of bystanders; they shook their heads as if they were asked to spell and pronounce feuilleton! Strangely, Landi Khana was known to none, but relief and directions manifested eventually: Four miles, no bus, only taxi, fare 30 rupees. Thirty rupees for four miles? Nope. Shank’s mare.
The townsmen sported a particular type of skullcap. As this accessory might dilute their conspicuousness, Parulkar purchased two, for Grewal and himself (no-no for ‘Anglo’ Harold Jacob). Meanwhile a hailer offered taxi-fare of 25 rupees. Not a bad bargain. As they budged, a bespectacled, bearded, auburn-haired gent accosted them, rapid-fired who, what, where, why, when. Of course, they were two PAF airmen and a chum on tour… 
As a small crowd began congregating, the unimpressed man quizzed about Landi Khana; Grewal replied nonchalantly that the place was there on all maps. Why the fuss? Why? Why? Why indeed?
The British built Landi Khana (near Torkham) as the railhead of Khyber Pass Railway but they closed the station in December 1932! Which was why the townspeople were oblivious of the rail terminus. They fell into the man’s trap. The heroes had finally met their match.
The busybody had more ammunition: he accused them to be East Bengalis scooting to Afghanistan. “Have you seen Bengalis ever? Do we look like Bengalis?” the troika shot back, then guffawed aloud for effect in a desperate effort to reclaim fast-losing ground. The audience did not find it funny.
The man, the tehsildar’s clerk, was on Sunday-morning-constitutional. ‘Landi Khana’ raised an internal alarm, and he kept them in his sights since. Apparently, fleeing Bengalis bought the Peshawari topee here, not from Peshawar itself. The topee, to him, was the clincher. At first, he doubted them to be outlanders, but revised his suspicion afterwards to Bengalis.
Whatever, the topee sealed their fate. He marched them under armed escort to the tehsildar.
The clever clerk opened a chapter of misfortunes. The tehsildar quizzed them, remained impervious to the cock and bull story, and bade the gunmen to lock them up in jail. Their goose was seasoned and cooked. Parulkar’s nous envisioned a fate worse than the firing squad. Only a masterstroke could save their neck, and he pulled one out of the topee: he requested the tehsildar to make a phone call, which was conceded to grudgingly.
MS GrewalThe ADC to the Air Chief came on the line. He modulated English to perplex the Pashto-tongued lot, told Usman about being held captive by the tehsildar and entreated him to send his men. Usman told the tehsildar they were indeed Pakistani airmen, to throw them behind bars but not to harm physically.
[Left: MS Grewal was conferred a Vir Chakra but that was for his gallant action prior to the ill-starred sortie]
The guardroom telephone came alive at about 11 o’clock and rang the knell of the mounting suspense. Soon, [back in the Rawalpindi jail] V S Chati heard approaching footfalls, two air force policemen barged in, turned the furniture inside out, kicked the dummies, cast dirty look, stormed out and confabulated, within earshot, with their colleagues. 
Why not dump the roomie into the ‘escape hole’, shoot him to show they were vigilant? Chati perspired cold sweat. Since the air chief was already in the loop, a dead body would in no way extenuate the dereliction. Reason prevailed; Chati lived to tell the tale.
The jail was far-off. The cop scoured their personal effects and impounded it including the POW identity cards. As they contemplated the worst in the reeky coop, the tehsildar materialised flanked by a bunch of brawny flunkeys. He, nostrils flared, demanded details afresh. The cop had sneaked and passed on the identity cards; they had to reveal their real selves. That he was outwitted by ‘Hindu POWs’ boiled his blood; he, in a paroxysm of pique, let fly an invectives-laden outburst. Hogtied, he paraded his prize-catch through the town, past his office as well.
The lynch law ruled this lawless expanse. They fretted like an antelope about to be pounced on by a pride of lions. Would he consign them to a bloodthirsty mob?
He handed them over to Mr Burki, the political agent of Northwest Frontier Province (a vestige of British Raj). He and his posse of toughies were chagrined to disbelief when the suave political agent motioned to unfetter. Usman had dialled and urged him to intervene as a personal favour. What a lifeline the call to Usman turned out to be.
They were served a toothsome spread. As they began savouring the five-star hospitality, at about 4 o’clock, a squad of PAF police stomped in. Before the three were manacled, blindfolded and hustled to the PSF in Peshawar, Burki, to tease them, pointed at a close-by range and disclosed the other side as Afghanistan! Ah, freedom was within sniffing distance! Heartbreaking.
Grewal and Harish were detained in individual cells. For the want of an additional cell, an office was hastily furbished into a makeshift clink for Parulkar. His attention gravitated to the brazier’s chimney and vent; he rubbed his hands. If he could enlarge the void, if he could thrust his head out, well.
The irrepressible Parulkar could not resist the temptation to essay another escape. He hoisted a chair on the office-table, clambered it and pounded the loose cement about the vent with a shaft uprooted from the fireplace. Before long, a sergeant discovered the enterprise, swapped coop with Grewal and trussed up the culprit to the door.
Deprived of nightlong sleep, a red-hot Parulkar protested vehemently in the morning, cited chapter and verse from the Geneva Convention and reminded who the victor was. The PSF fell in line.
On his return, Wahid-ud-din let off steam on the seven [other IAF POWs in the Rawalpindi jail from where the trio had escaped], initiated steps to pack them off to the fortress-like jail in Lyallpur (now Faisalabad). There, the seven were corralled with the 500-odd army POWs.
Harish SinhjiThe three heroes were turned over to the Rawalpindi camp, where the camp commandant, after a summary trial, sentenced them to 30 days’ solitary confinement. Few days later, they too were transferred to Lyallpur, where the verdict was commuted.
[Left: Harish Sinhji retired as group captain in 1993]
End-November, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, then premier of Pakistan, addressed the POWs and declared their repatriation. The returnees were bestowed a hero’s welcome at the Wagah border on December 1, 1972. A grand reception awaited the ten IAF officers at the air force unit in Amritsar. They were flown down to Delhi in the evening where they were toasted and reunited with their kith and kin. Could any homecoming be sweeter?
Epilogue
* What a damn good fist they made of the bid to escape. A smidgen more of the rub of the green, the exploit could have had a storybook climax, and enshrined the feat. Could the escapees have done anything differently? On the Jamrud road, maybe (big maybe) they could have hired a cab away from the prying public, sweet-talked and inveigled the driver into taking offbeat tracks till Torkham, onwards to Kabul, and requested the Indian embassy to reward the driver for his pains.
The dozen POWs were fighter pilots who had to eject over Pakistan, and some sustained minor to major injuries. While only the three were involved in the escape, every officer, including the unnamed ones in this narration, put their shoulder to the wheel. For example: B A Coelho drew out the compass rose; J L Bhargava’s devoir was to cultivate the staff by spoiling them with Red Cross goodies. And all kept their lips sealed to keep the ‘mission’ under wraps.
Besides, when the nod of assent was given, everybody knew how fraught it was, and the repercussions. They abided unflinchingly. Sample this: As per the script, Chati was to take advantage of the predawn loo-break to slip into D S Jafa’s cell so as to face the blowback together. Second thoughts constrained Jafa to implore Chati to return to his cell in order to simulate normality and provide the three maximum time to make good the escape. Jafa was doubly conscious of jeopardising Chati thus, but Chati willingly embraced that risk. Nothing can beat this as the epitome of teamwork and camaraderie.
Last but not least: The perfunctory “Well done, champ!” abounded and resounded but the three escapees were never feted for their awesome attempt 41 years ago (Vir Chakra was conferred on Grewal but that was for his gallant action prior to the ill-starred sortie). The threesome truly deserves official recognition. Why not honour them at least now through retroactive decoration?
The threesome: Harish Sinhji retired as group captain in 1993, dwelled in Bangalore, tried his hand at carpentry and turned his hand to painting. He succumbed to multi-organ failure in October 1999 (RIP). MS Grewal called it quits as wing commander and plunged into farming in the Terai. DK Parulkar, my battalion commander when I was a cadet at the National Defence Academy, hung up the group captain-uniform in 1987, settled down in Pune, and has since been a man of many parts, juggling the diverse topees of builder, promoter, proprietor and planter.