Tracking Errors in Defence reporting

The Military Issues & History Forum is a venue to discuss issues relating to the military aspects of the Indian Armed Forces, whether the past, present or future. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
pragnya
BRFite
Posts: 728
Joined: 20 Feb 2011 18:41

Re: Tracking Errors in Defence reporting

Postby pragnya » 23 Oct 2013 16:22

Karan,

in 2009 he wrote an article - India’s ‘Born Again’ T-90M MBT - with a picture of T-72 and passed it of as T-90M with flourish in his old blog. Vasily Fofanov himself corrected him to which he did not even bother to reply (unlike how he takes pains to explain every query of the people who post there) but i noted this in one of similar debates of T-90/Arjun that happens here when i was in another forum.

luckily that link, pic and comment is still there. do take a look.

http://trishulgroup.blogspot.in/2009/01 ... m-mbt.html

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_44d3OT-xI3U/S ... 0M+MBT.jpg

Vasiliy Fofanov said...
The tank in the first picture is a T-72B upgrade kit "Rogatka" (aka T-72BM or T-72B2), presented for the first time in 2006. Immediately obvious recognition points that this is not a T-90, never mind a T-90M, are TKN-3 commander's station and a manually operated AAMG; a good indication that this is an upgrade of an old tank is the cast turret armor (UVZ didn't do those for over a decade already).

The "leathery" stuff is the Nakidka camo shroud.

THURSDAY, AUGUST 13, 2009 1:02:00 PM


it is the last comment on the page.

but i did not know he has plagiarised so much till you and RV exposed him repeatedly in the recent past. :mrgreen:

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 15546
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Tracking Errors in Defence reporting

Postby Karan M » 23 Oct 2013 16:46

Man... we need a subforum for this guy...that entire article is full of gems..

By the year’s end, if all goes as per plan, the Indian Army will begin receiving its first T-90M main battle tank (MBT) in completely knocked-down condition from Russia’s Nizhny Tagil-based Uralvagonzavod JSC. It may be recalled that in February 2001, India bought its first batch of 310 T-90S MBTs worth US$795 million, of which 120 were delivered off-the-shelf, 90 in semi-knocked down kits (for licenced-assembly by the Ministry of Defence-owned Heavy Vehicles Factory, or HVF, in Avadi), and 100 in completely-knocked down kits. This was followed by a follow-on contract, worth $800 million, being inked on October 26, 2006, for another 330 T-90M MBTs that were to be built with locally-sourced raw materials. The third contract, worth $1.23 billion, was inked in December 2007 for 347 upgraded T-90Ms, the bulk of which will be licence-assembled by HVF


Wow, so even before India could even receive enough basic T-90s, it managed to import some super duper T-90Ms (note the new designation (c)Shri Prasun K. Sengupta) and contracts were signed in 2007 itself. And they come with Kaktus ERA, super duper guns and all sorts of fancy gizmos!

Minor detail - six years thence, not even one in service. Must be stuck in transit. :rotfl:

In future, the HVF is expected to retrofit all 987 T-90 MBTs with active protection systems (APS) for which Army HQ on April 24 last year issued requests for proposals to six companies (Israel Military Industries, RAFAEL, BAE Systems, Raytheon, Rosoboronexport, Saab, and Germany’s IBD Deisenroth Engineering) for procuring 1,657 active protection systems (APS) worth $270 million. Those taking part in the Indian bid were Russia’s Kolomna-based KBM Engineering Design Bureau with its Arena-E APS on offer, IMI of Israel with its Iron Fist suite on offer, RAFAEL’s Trophy APS, Raytheon’s Quick Kill APS, Saab’s LEDS-150 and Deisenroth Engineering’s AMAP-ADS. Eventually, the LEDS-150 was selected and its procurement contract was inked on January 27, 2009.


Note the date. Prasun da-man Sengupta was standing right inside MOD to note exact date this APS contract was signed. Very very impressive, right? Only problem, its been 4 years since 2009, and not a single tank has any APS on it. :mrgreen: :(( :rotfl:

Lies upon lies, an entire edifice of shaky rubbish.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 15546
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Tracking Errors in Defence reporting

Postby Karan M » 23 Oct 2013 16:57

Here is another example of how he combines brochures with all fancy talk and makes a mountain out of a molehill.

http://trishulgroup.blogspot.in/2009/09 ... -pesa.html

So lookie lookie - takes a NIIP article that appeared in a mag, takes PDF screenshots, uploads those....but its not enough.

While Russian radar developers and manufacturers have failed to keep up with their Western counterparts in terms of introducing new-generation multi-mode AESA radars for both manned combat aircraft and airborne early warning & control platforms, there is still room for optimism if immediate steps are taken to redress the existing shortcomings. One interesting innovation the V Tikhmirov Scientific-Research Institute of Instrument Design has come up with concerns the ‘smart skin’ concept under which an AESA array’s L-band and S-band transmit/receive modules can be placed anywhere on board an AEW & C platform to generate the relevant radiation field required for achieving 360-degree hemispheric coverage of airspace. For countries like India such a technological breakthrough holds enormous promise, as this will now enable one to do away with conventional AESA antenna designs (like the one selected for the DRDO's to-be-developed AEW & C platform) that impose avoidable aerodynamics and structural penalties. To this end, it will be worthwhile to examine the prospect of modifying new-generation platforms like the IL-214 multi-role transport aircraft (MRTA)--being co-developed by India and Russia and to be co-produced in both countries as well--into an AEW & C plaform that would incorporate the 'smart skin' concept by acommodating conformally-mounted dual-band AESA T/R modules.--Prasun K. Sengupta


ROTFL - "smart skin concept" - till date, NIIP has demonstrated conventional Tx/Rx L Band modules integrated into the leading edges of a wing, and these are still in tests in 2013. In 2009, Sengupta pompously declared that smart skins with integrated L Band and S Band modules had been developed already and these would address current "shortcomings".

In 2013, PAK-FA is flying with conventional Tx/Rx AESA radars ..whither the magical smart skin?

Note the standard process in Prasun-world.
1. Misunderstood copy paste of other peoples articles/work
2. Jazzy acronym filled descriptions
3. Fibs about shortcomings etc which need to be solved by 2.

Rinse, lather, repeat. Sengupta article ready.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 15546
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Tracking Errors in Defence reporting

Postby Karan M » 24 Oct 2013 08:56

Next up, fibmaster G10 aka Sengupta vs the LCA.. will post when I get some time..

After the R118 radar warner fiasco - where this idiot was bragging that the MiG-29 UPG does not have it (without even realizing a RWJ by design has a radar warner included).. we will see his analysis skills (or lack thereof) when it comes to the LCA.

Dude went around the entire internet apparently and copied every brochure he could see, and decided to include them all on the LCA.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 15546
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Tracking Errors in Defence reporting

Postby Karan M » 25 Oct 2013 02:26

The gift that keeps on giving.. as I had surmised, the twit Sengupta had based his entire thesis of R118 failure on the basis of HAL selecting SAAB for an integrated EW suite for the Rudra.

Fulminating against all the meanies/psychos etc who dare to puncture holes in fantasies, poor Sengupta writes:

The RWR-118 is a gold-standard RWR being developed by the DRDO (when in reality the Rudra helicopter-gunship now sports the SaabTech-built RWR as clearly shown in the photo above)


Note - the twit still cant counter the fact that the RWJ as on the MiG-27, LCA and MiG-29 by design includes a Radar Warner.. so to cover up, he has to claim the R-118 does not work, ergo its not on the MiG-29.

And that apart, it has little to do with whats on the Rudra!

It didn't even enter his brain that HAL is not DRDO and hence can choose any off the shelf solution, especially if it comes ready in an integrated package (saves time on testing & qualification)..

And not that HAL & DRDO have similar products which have been used on similar programs - eg HAL OSAMC on DARIN 3 for mission computing, whereas LCA MK2/Super 30 will use the new IMA computers from DARE..

In Sengupta world, that would mean that OSAMC is > IMA.. oh wait even IMA is on order.. so what will he do then? Remain confused, that's right, because he cannot delve into the basics of each system and realize why one has been chosen over the other for any program based on pros and cons (e.g OSAMC is for earlier federated systems, IMA changes the architecture itself).

Basically, copy paste from brochures is his forte.. detailed analysis, or even minimal effort? Naah.. too much hard work.

But it gets better..

The Nagan & Mihir sonars developed by NPOL are in service with the IN (when in reality the Nagan has been ditched in favour of the ultra low-frequency ACTAS & a competition is now underway for selecting a new-generation ultra low-frequency dunking sonar of foreign origin).


Sengupta has been claiming for a while now that Mihir etc are all stopped programs.. because well, he thinks so...otherwise how can he shill cool brochures he picks up from expos on his blog?? In his world, that the Indians will persist with programs and have the brains to improve their products and progress... not possible..

Unfortunately, for Sengupta, the bad bad Indian Navy decided to put out this report on October 12 (thanks pragnya). Which effectively amounts to another example of how Sengupta made stuff up and got caught out within days of making it up. Poor fellow did not google up the status of Mihir before making his comments, and there you go... :mrgreen:

http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp ... 227728.ece
"Induction of indigenous heliborne sonar on cards, says Rear Admiral"

Note: The low-frequency dunking sonar (LFDS) developed by DRDO’s Naval Physical and Oceanographic Laboratory (NPOL) at Thrikkakara has shown steadfast progress in trials and is on the threshold of induction into naval inventory, Rear Admiral D.M. Sudan, Assistant Chief of Naval Staff (Air), has said.
......
Naval Physical and Oceanographic Laboratory Director S. Anantha Narayanan said efforts were on to simultaneously fashion an enhanced version of the sonar for fitment on the Navy’s Multi-Role Helicopter (MRH), whose acquisition is under way.


Again, this is typical of how Sengupta makes a complete and total fool out of himself by speculating on topics he is clearly out of his depth on, and then adding up 2+2=7 wherein some import will magically save the day.

He could have merely pointed out the program was in progress and info was awaited.

No, he had to fib and make a claim that it was cancelled, wouldn't be used... and here comes this report puncturing yet another hole in his vapid claims.

Wonder how much he makes for all his free advertorials for these foreign vendors.

But he's not done yet:

FIB2 (yet again) - note Sengupta's ego will NOT allow him to admit that he made stuff up. In his world, he just can't do that.

2) The Rohini/Revathi S-band 3-D radars are DRDO-developed (when in reality the radar was originally known as TRS-17 & was developed in Poland & the DRDO eventually bought this radar’s IPRs & customised its design so that it morphed into Rohini & Revathi).


Seriously, is there really no limit to this guys penchant for making stuff up?

As far back as 2003, this was DRDOs contribution to the Rohini/3-DCAR
http://drdo.gov.in/drdo/pub/techfocus/j ... ne2003.pdf

Signal Processing for 3D CAR, Transmitter, high spectral purity radar source, multi-channel receivers.

Heck, spend some more time on the topic and it becomes clear that these are even codeveloped/manufactured with local pvt vendors. Furthermore, enough exists in follow on Tech Focus articles and other literature to see the antenna & other critical hardware were further upgraded by DRDO with companies like L&T working on stabilization.

All this would require some common sense, some ability to discern basic technical stuff and of course patience. Much much easier to copy paste brochures and pretend everything is "bought out" and can be customized. Such is the state of affairs.
Never mind that PIT itself notes the original radar was codeveloped with India (as versus sold to India...).
As quoted above.

And this is besides the fact that anyone who would have discussed the topic with these folks at any public event would know the JV aspect.
....

Unfortunately, this is the sad state of affairs in Indian defence reportage with fellows like Prasun who plagiarize, cook up stuff and yet fool impressionable folks that just because they repeat a lie a hundred times, the lie is truth.
Last edited by Karan M on 25 Oct 2013 08:18, edited 2 times in total.

Mihir
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 863
Joined: 14 Nov 2004 21:26

Re: Tracking Errors in Defence reporting

Postby Mihir » 25 Oct 2013 03:02

Karan M wrote:India launched Nirbhay program and it came out in the media, as India's first CM program. For who knows what reason, Sengupta went bonkers and decided Nirbhay would not be a CM but some sort of UAV. His flip flops on this became increasingly crazy. Finally, he settled on Nirbhay being a "cruise vehicle", whatever that was supposed to mean. Ultimately, per him, Nirbhay would be a PTA sort of aircraft to be used (I kid you not) for Akash/LRSAM tests, because Lakshya was not good enough.

Funny thing is, his numerous fantasies all appear to be consistent with each other at least. The Nirbhay is a case in point. Why would India need a cruise missile when one already exists in the form of the Prithvi?

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 15546
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Tracking Errors in Defence reporting

Postby Karan M » 25 Oct 2013 08:12

Didnt get you.. did he refer to the Prithvi as a cruise missile as well? Knowing his fascination for cooked up acronyms - NLOS-BM for prahaar (would a 150km missile be LOS, lol?)..

Anyways Prithvi is on the way out.. per reports, its likely production will shift to Prahaar, they will probably remain in service till Prahaar stocks build up..the longer 250 km ranged variants may remain with the IAF for even longer till the IAF probably gets something like Nirbhay (is that what you meant?).

About Nirbhay vs Prithvi - there is the ballistic missile vs cruise missile issue (i.e. which of these two is considered more risky from the escalatory point of view) however, from the mission flexibility point of view, a missile with a 750-1000 km range opens up far more options than the current Prithvi, which is at 250km in the IAF version (as I recall, Dhanush with reduced warhead has a range of 350 km, with 500kg warhead, per published reports). Anyways, IAF is fully onboard with the Nirbhay with even Su-30MKI intended as a carrier.

(If not for all the expose here, Sengupta would have published another blog post about clearing the air about Indian NLOS-BM and Cruise Vehicle capabilities and cooked up some more crow, passing it off as mutton curry).

Mihir
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 863
Joined: 14 Nov 2004 21:26

Re: Tracking Errors in Defence reporting

Postby Mihir » 25 Oct 2013 18:56

Karan M wrote:Didnt get you.. did he refer to the Prithvi as a cruise missile as well?


Yes. His exact words:

... Also, take note that neither of these two missiles [Prithvi and BrahMos] are ballistic. They're CRUISE missiles...

... Ask anyone in the Indian Army and IAF and they will tell you that the SS-150 and SS-250 variants of the Prithvi are referred to as surface-to-surface missiles. From where did the term 'ballistic' crop up with regard to the Prithvi? ...

... If the Prithvi has flex nozzles and burning liquid propellant (just like the Dvina V750VK SAM) and its trajectory can be shaped/changed both in the boost-/post-booth phase, the cruise phase and the terminal phase (as per DRDO posters displayed during the past Aero India and DEFEXPO expos), how can the missile be classified as ballistic? ...

... Any missile which relies on programmable navigational waypoints for flight trajectory shaping/course adjustments cannot be classified as a ballistic missile. Only missiles that 'cruise' to their targets require such waypoints, this also being the case with BrahMos. Ballistic missiles, in contrast, do not rely on waypoints. Their flight trajectory is PRE-PROGRAMMED prior to launch. In addition, the ballistic missile is not powered all the way to its target. The thrusters aft of the ballistic missile warheads are used for manoeuvrability only after re-entering the atmosphere. The Prithvi's propulsion system, in contrast, is operational right up to the point when the missile's warhead impacts the target or explodes above the target if it is an FAE-type or is carrying cluster munitions). That is the reason why the Prithvi SS-150/SS-250 are, in essence, precision-guided SSMs, especially now that they have been equipped with hybrid ring laser gyro-based inertial navigation systems whose precision is further enhanced by PY-code GPS updates (as revealed during the DEFEXPO'08 expo).


Our omniscient friend refuses to see that lift augmentation and gimballed nozzles alone do not a cruise missile make.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 15546
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Tracking Errors in Defence reporting

Postby Karan M » 28 Oct 2013 20:45

Thanks Mihir, loony tunes Sengupta world indeed. Shaped trajectory missiles are not cruise missiles.. but then again, its Sengupta.

But now one more Sen/Chorgupta update.

Sengupta caught fibbing yet again ..

Y'all see the IAF recently inducted its first Arudhra MPR, which is basically a derivative of the Israeli 2084 MPR.
DDM were confused between this program and a DRDO program named the same, for the same requirement. Understandable.
But Sengupta promptly had a fit - wherein he jumped to the conclusion that EVEN the DRDO MPRs currently in trials were basically the 2084. Why? Because the IAF MPR looked similar to the Israeli one, and both the DRDO/IAF MPR have the same name, "Arudhra".

The genius did not even think/consider the possibility, that the IAF, to keep things simple - may have just called its MPR category Arudhra and that the same name could be used for two programs.

But of course, he has been busy BSing to all the impressionable kids who frequent his blog that the DRDO MPR is purely Israeli, yada yada yada... after all in Sengupta world, Indian's cannot make anything on their own (talk of an inferiority complex - this guy has it in spades).

Unfortunately for this dude.. LRDE recently updated its website which has a very small image of the new Arudhra MPR. Unfortunately for Sengupta's vivid dreams - it does not look like the Israeli MPR in the slightest and is clearly a separate de novo design.

http://drdo.gov.in/drdo/labs/LRDE/Engli ... chieve.jsp

Image

Development of Medium Power Radar (MPR) Arudhra:

The objective of this project is to develop 4D Medium Power Radar (MPR) as a sophisticated multi function sensor using advanced active array technology


Compare and contrast to IAF/Israeli supplied Arudhra:
http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/0eX ... N/x610.jpg

See, here is the thing, he need not have lied, he could have waited/watched to see what the reality was. But he is so used to making things up, he cooks up stories all the time to appear as if he is in the know of things.

And incidentally, these always involve some local procurement/program being replaced by an import or how incompetent the IA/IAF/IN are versus his majesty.

A completely shameful individual

pragnya
BRFite
Posts: 728
Joined: 20 Feb 2011 18:41

Re: Tracking Errors in Defence reporting

Postby pragnya » 28 Oct 2013 21:47

Karan

we may need a dedicated thread to discuss only him. :roll:

however -

Karan M wrote:Unfortunately for this dude.. LRDE recently updated its website which has a very small image of the new Arudhra MPR. Unfortunately for Sengupta's vivid dreams - it does not look like the Israeli MPR in the slightest and is clearly a separate de novo design.

http://drdo.gov.in/drdo/labs/LRDE/Engli ... chieve.jsp

Image

Development of Medium Power Radar (MPR) Arudhra:

The objective of this project is to develop 4D Medium Power Radar (MPR) as a sophisticated multi function sensor using advanced active array technology


looks similar to this

Image

my post may need to be 'deleted fast' lest the genius may start saying Arudhra infact is wholesale thomson csf radar. :lol:

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7571
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Tracking Errors in Defence reporting

Postby rohitvats » 29 Oct 2013 10:35

At this rate, you guys are going to give heart-attack to this fellow....

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 15546
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Tracking Errors in Defence reporting

Postby Karan M » 29 Oct 2013 16:55

Oh he's gonna have a lot more "fun" coming his way.. every other article of his is dripping with fibs. This guy needs treatment because he is lying compulsively, even when there is no need to. Probably tied to his need for attention.

Shameek
BRFite
Posts: 699
Joined: 02 Jan 2009 20:44
Location: Ionosphere

Re: Tracking Errors in Defence reporting

Postby Shameek » 10 Nov 2014 19:49

INS Cheetah

The image is definitely not INS Cheetah.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 15546
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Tracking Errors in Defence reporting

Postby Karan M » 29 Nov 2014 20:30

Just to show what the Indian media really is.

The reality.
http://zeenews.india.com/news/india/avi ... 06375.html

How India Today spins it.
http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/drdo ... 04263.html

So the GOI plays by the rules and yet needs a distinguished scientist to complete his tenure given the depth of requirements but the media wants to drive a wedge in public perception and raise a furore.

Pathetic state of affairs and which is why Modi was right to call them news traders.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 15546
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby Karan M » 10 May 2015 18:51

Surya wrote:The farticle looks silly in light of the recetn Agni 5 success

so missiles etc not available to us to buy - DRDO can build and the armed forces can accept

but anything available - DRDO cannot seem todo much :P

stupid article from a stupid booby magazine :mrgreen:


the recent caravan article on coupta makes some items clear on how India today started running these articles. apparently its coup-ta's influence (read between the lines) and his handpicked crew from express like that fellow pubby (whom a navy chief accused of running a campaign for vested interests).

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35041
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Tracking Errors in Defence reporting

Postby shiv » 13 Apr 2016 07:06

The LCA in various avatars has completed over 2000 flights. That means 4000 takeoffs and landings. The nosewheel was used every time

http://www.ndtv.com/india-news/with-two ... ly-1391301
One Shri Sudhi Ranjan Sen has invented the cheerful headline "With Two Planes, India to Raise its first Tejas Squadron.."

Mind you there is truth in that. But the headline is like announcing an appointment as follows "With high myopia and juvenile diabetes, Mr Sudhi Ranjan Sen appointed as next CEO of HAL"

The statement may be true but it highlights information that people are going to look at and ask "Now why is that information in a headline". Clearly the headline itself is gaandmasti, from NDTV, no less

There is plenty of information on "nose-wheel shimmy" on Google. But the first and ONLY reference to nosewheeel vibration comes from out friend Sudhi Ranjan Sen on NDTV in a news item that speaks of "two plane squadron", cockpit noise, nosewheel vibration etc.

Exactly what is going on? There must be someone paying to have these things published. Or someone who is viciously angry with the Tejas. Judging from viewership stats of NDTV I can see why any extra payment might be welcome. I really can't think of any better explanation for the type of chootiyapa that the news item displays.

member_27581
BRFite
Posts: 231
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Tracking Errors in Defence reporting

Postby member_27581 » 13 Apr 2016 12:52

Shiv Sir,

May i suggest you putting this comment in the (f)article's comments section. Those who agree can upvote your comment.

We have enough of such stupidity serving on the main course of ignorance of main street junta.. seems like we also need to have a BRF propaganda cells on the lines of commies/ruskies...

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35041
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Tracking Errors in Defence reporting

Postby shiv » 13 Apr 2016 15:52

^^Thx for the suggestion. I did but it may not get past the moderator despite using "angrez" words like specious and chicanery in place of more appropriate words I have used

member_27581
BRFite
Posts: 231
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Tracking Errors in Defence reporting

Postby member_27581 » 13 Apr 2016 16:37

^^what happened to FoS (purportedly Freedom of Speech) or is it Freedom Of Stupidity

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6211
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: Tracking Errors in Defence reporting

Postby nachiket » 02 Mar 2018 11:42

X-posted from Missiles thread.
shiv wrote:^^
Nag is being tested to fight anti-tank battles at sea
https://twitter.com/YusufDFI/status/968895139639836672


The NAG missile as per Indian Express:

Image


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: csaurabh, mridulmm, nits and 51 guests