Indian Military Aviation

Bala Vignesh · Post by **Bala Vignesh** » 24 Jul 2011 00:18

Victor wrote: Even transport planes can have AA missiles.

Seriously sir..

.. What a point.. i mean i am completely with you but man the way you said it... awesome..

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 24 Jul 2011 00:59

koti wrote:I would like to know the capability of Hawks as fighter aircraft.
I would expect them to be atleast as good as early MIG-21's used for point defense.

IIRC they can be armed with Sidewinders. Can anyone list out the other supporting weapons from the platform, the relevant Avionics and general ability of the platform..?

Kartik had mentioned this some time back. There was one Hawk that was designed for the dual purpose.

However, it is my impression that it was not meant to take on the role of a mature fighter. My recollection is that it was meant to be a ground attack AC. Also, my recollection is that the front seat had to be removed to accommodate a rudimentary radar.

I do not think the Indian Hawks are capable of performing any designed role in a battle.

shukla · Post by **shukla** » 24 Jul 2011 02:37

New IAF vice-chief
The Calcutta Telegraph

New Delhi, July 23: The chief of the Shillong-headquartered Eastern Air Command, Air Marshal K.K. Nowhar, is set to take over as the vice-chief of the Indian Air Force in senior-level appointments with the imminent retirement of Air Chief Marshal P.V. Naik.

The government last month announced that the current vice-chief, Air Marshal N.A.K. Browne, will take over as the chief. Naik retires on July 31. Air Marshal Nowhar will be replaced by Air Marshal S. Varthaman in Shillong. Varthaman is currently senior air staff officer (SASO) of the Central Air Command headquartered in Allahabad. He will be joined by Air Marshal M. Matheswaran who will take over as SASO in the Eastern Air Command.

Matheswaran is now assistant chief of air staff in Air Headquarters. The SASO in the Eastern Air Command, Air Marshal S.P. Singh, will take over as the chief of the Southern Air Command headquartered in Thiruvananthapuram. Air Marshal P.S. Gill, now the air officer commanding Jammu and Kashmir, will take over as SASO in Allahabad.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 24 Jul 2011 06:56

the history is that finland used the hawk to bypass treaty obligations on X num of fighters only and uses it with R-60 missiles. the brits were trying some mixed units...per wiki
The Hawk T1A is a modified Hawk T1, which was intended to replace the Hawker Hunter in the RAF's Tactical Weapons Units. A total of 89 aircraft were converted to carry two underwing AIM-9L Sidewinder air-to-air missiles and a centreline gun pod. During the 1980s, the RAF began using TWU Hawks in the Mixed Fighter Force (MFF) concept; the intention was to attach three of four Hawks to a Phantom or Tornado interceptor, which would guide them using its powerful radar onto enemy targets.

the Hawk132 we have is a pure trainer which do armaments training too.

the Hawk200 is the light fighter version (sort of)
Hawk 200

The Hawk 200 is a single seat, lightweight multirole combat fighter with emphasis on air defence, air superiority, anti-shipping, air-denial, long-range interdiction, short-range close air support and ground attack. The aircraft is fitted with the AN/APG-66H, an advanced version of the F-16A APG-66 radar with multimode systems. The aircraft is able to be equipped with the AIM-9 Sidewinder and AGM-65 Maverick. The Malaysian aircraft has the most extensive modification to the aircraft with illumination "slime" lights, wingtip AAMs and inflight refuelling. Its aircraft have been involved in major long-range deployments to areas such as Sabah and the Spratly Islands. Indonesia, Malaysia and Oman have ordered 62 aircraft. Brunei have been interested in acquiring this model (and the Hawk 100), but any prospective order has been continually delayed since the mid 1980s.[33]

Hawk 203 – Export version for the Royal Air Force of Oman.
Hawk 205 – Proposed export version for the Royal Saudi Air Force.
Hawk 208 – Export version for the Royal Malaysian Air Force. (18)
Hawk 209 – Export version for the Indonesian Air Force. (32)

this would be the Malaysian model looking at the AAR probe
http://images.rcuniverse.com/forum/upfi ... j22626.jpg

Aditya G · Post by **Aditya G** » 24 Jul 2011 15:06

ARC IL-76s are operate by IAF but under command of ARC. Just like IAF Mi-25/35 fleet is commanded by Army though air force is responsible for operation.

They are technically no different from other IL-76s in the fleet. Of the two, 1 is always on standby for emergencies including those where NSG is required.

Anuj A wrote:If the IL-76 are used for "other" work by RAW ARC are entirely different to IAF IL-76 then how can they be used to transport NSG as stated above? And is there payload subsequently less as a result of "other" equipment?

Can anyone actually explain the RAW ARC and what they do? There seems to be a lot of ambiguity around them. Are the IL-76 operated by ARC on part time deputation or have they been operated by ARC since inducted into IAF and are permanently on detachment to ARC? are they flown by IAF personell whilst in ARC service? What is their actual role in ARC service? Do they carry out survelience/electronic/SIGNET warfare (I thought Boeings and Israeli bjs were used for this)? Are they only operated in Delhi or are they used by ARC elsewhere in India? Are structural changes made to be utilised in ARC's roles, are they significantly customised- added anteni, etc?

Kersi D · Post by **Kersi D** » 24 Jul 2011 16:14

shiv wrote:
chackojoseph wrote: We will have to see what they mean by "basic."
Wings and engine will be there.

There will be some wheels and a cockpit.

BUT there is no (ejection) seat. You will have to bring your own chair or stool.

Kersi D · Post by **Kersi D** » 24 Jul 2011 16:19

suryag wrote:ARC is meant to do all of what you asked for,of course they will never tell you what type of aircraft they fly, when/where they fly, what mods they carry. Come on Anuj your questions are not naive they are pointed, no one, not at the least ARC will part with the info you are looking for either you are a phisher or you dont know how intel agencies work

I understand that no ARC/IAF pilot will admit that he flys for ARC. When u memtion ARC you get a blank look.

K

Bala Vignesh · Post by **Bala Vignesh** » 24 Jul 2011 21:40

Gentlemards,
I was under the impression that the ARC aircrafts were operated by their own pilots, who are mostly Ex-IAF, and maintained by ARC's own men. This was to ensure that in case anyone is caught somewhere with their pants down, the govt and the IAF have complete deniability.

shukla · Post by **shukla** » 25 Jul 2011 02:09

India decides against reactivating Chushul airfield
IBnLive

"In China's version of the border and our version of the border, there is a clash on Chushul. The government did not want us make any move there. So, we are not working on such controversial projects,"

Shrinivasan · Post by **Shrinivasan** » 25 Jul 2011 02:49

shukla wrote:India decides against reactivating Chushul airfield IBnLive

Our bozos did not even wait for a grumbling from China before they ditched this plan.. they have shelved the plan "APPREHENDING" Chinese objections.

New Delhi, Jul 24 (PTI) India has shelved plans to reactivate the Chushul airfield in Ladakh close to the Line of Actual Control, apprehending Chinese objections.

If they can shelve an ALG, how can we hope for a Mountain Strike Corps. The Current MEA needs a revamp, starting from the "oldest minister in the cabinet"

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 25 Jul 2011 02:53

shukla wrote:India decides against reactivating Chushul airfield
IBnLive

"In China's version of the border and our version of the border, there is a clash on Chushul. The government did not want us make any move there. So, we are not working on such controversial projects,"

Hmmmmm.................. scratch-head-emoticom.

"Reactivating" HAS to mean that India had it "Active" at some point in time. And, the airfield is STILL in Indian hands?

Shrinivasan · Post by **Shrinivasan** » 25 Jul 2011 02:56

NRao wrote:And, the airfield is STILL in Indian hands?

Small mercies... please edit your comment lest someone from MEA (or Chicom friends) sees it tack it along to a set of CBMs saying, this is in a region where "no grass grows"

sourab_c · Post by **sourab_c** » 25 Jul 2011 03:05

Shrinivasan wrote: Our bozos did not even wait for a grumbling from China before they ditched this plan.. they have shelved the plan "APPREHENDING" Chinese objections.

If they can shelve an ALG, how can we hope for a Mountain Strike Corps. The Current MEA needs a revamp, starting from the "oldest minister in the cabinet"

Sir, this is a very smart move by the govt. Just creating ALGs is not going to solve our problems. ALG's once created have to be defended too as they can just as easily be used by the enemy for forward troop deployment if they fall out of your hands.

Creating an ALG at such a forward position is not feasible as in case of a surprise attack, forward posts can be lost early in the battle.

The govt. has lost nothing by this move and gained a moral upper ground by declaring it a CBM.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 25 Jul 2011 03:17

sourab_c wrote:
Shrinivasan wrote: Our bozos did not even wait for a grumbling from China before they ditched this plan.. they have shelved the plan "APPREHENDING" Chinese objections.

If they can shelve an ALG, how can we hope for a Mountain Strike Corps. The Current MEA needs a revamp, starting from the "oldest minister in the cabinet"

Sir, this is a very smart move by the govt. Just creating ALGs is not going to solve our problems. ALG's once created have to be defended too as they can just as easily be used by the enemy for forward troop deployment if they fall out of your hands.

Creating an ALG at such a forward position is not feasible as in case of a surprise attack, forward posts can be lost early in the battle.

The govt. has lost nothing by this move and gained a moral upper ground by declaring it a CBM.

Would not that be true of all forward bases?

The issue here seems to be that this is contested land, which is why GoI is trying what you call "moral upper ground".

I would suggest GoI upgrade it but at the same time rig it too. Which I would think is what they would do to the others too.

sourab_c · Post by **sourab_c** » 25 Jul 2011 03:32

Nrao,

In situations like this, a cost-benefit analysis would have been done by the GOI. One has to ask whether the strategic advantage provided by building that ALG (and rigging it) outweighs peaceful border relations between the two countries or not. There are many factors that go into the equation and the probability of an ALG being lost to the enemy in a surprise attack is only one of them. Apart from that, we can only speculate on what other factors led to this move.

VinodTK · Post by **VinodTK** » 25 Jul 2011 03:48

Land hitch hits air force base- Plan for IL-76 station at Nagpur dropped after 10-year wait

The air force has pulled its IL-76 transport aircraft base out of Nagpur, frustrated at the Maharashtra government’s failure to fix land problems in 10 years.

Normally, the land hitches should not have bothered the Indian Air Force (IAF). For it already had the land — its existing 400-hectare station here — to make the IL-76 base fully operational.

Shrinivasan · Post by **Shrinivasan** » 25 Jul 2011 03:53

sourab_c wrote:
Shrinivasan wrote: Our bozos did not even wait for a grumbling from China before they ditched this plan.. they have shelved the plan "APPREHENDING" Chinese objections.
If they can shelve an ALG, how can we hope for a Mountain Strike Corps. The Current MEA needs a revamp, starting from the "oldest minister in the cabinet"
Sir, this is a very smart move by the govt. Just creating ALGs is not going to solve our problems. ALG's once created have to be defended too as they can just as easily be used by the enemy for forward troop deployment if they fall out of your hands.
Creating an ALG at such a forward position is not feasible as in case of a surprise attack, forward posts can be lost early in the battle.
The govt. has lost nothing by this move and gained a moral upper ground by declaring it a CBM.

This explanation is typical WKK talk. If IAF / GOI had talked about "We have other locations to develop as a base so we are not re-activating Chusul ALG" then it is laudable. They specifically mentioned "Apprehending Chinese Objections". There is nothing Chankiyan in this!!! in case Chusul was not a feasible site, why the **** did IAF/GOI talk about this, didn't they do the analysis which we in BRF did?
Care to explain why this is a "very smart move by the govt"?
BTB, Chusul is already an ALG, they wanted to activate it and make it a more permanent location (I think it is called Forward Air Base - FAB). This moral upper ground and 10Rs will give you a cup of coffee.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 25 Jul 2011 03:54

sourab_c wrote:Nrao,

In situations like this, a cost-benefit analysis would have been done by the GOI. One has to ask whether the strategic advantage provided by building that ALG (and rigging it) outweighs peaceful border relations between the two countries or not. There are many factors that go into the equation and the probability of an ALG being lost to the enemy in a surprise attack is only one of them. Apart from that, we can only speculate on what other factors led to this move.

True.

However, your first post, implied, but did not explicitly state that you were referring to "Chushul". Which triggered the question if it applied to all ALGs. For, they ALL are within Chinese range. The diff is that "Chushul" is in a disputed area, the others are not, but all are equally vulnerable - due to the distance from the border.

Shrinivasan · Post by **Shrinivasan** » 25 Jul 2011 03:55

I never understand how WKKs want Desh to give Consessions to Pak as we are the dominant-powerfull partner and at the same bredth want India to be Subservient to PRC as we are weak, poor, SDRE, Dothi Shivering, defeated by PRC in 1962. Anyone cares to educate this "Mango Junta"

Shrinivasan · Post by **Shrinivasan** » 25 Jul 2011 04:00

NRao wrote:True.
However, your first post, implied, but did not explicitly state that you were referring to "Chushul". Which triggered the question if it applied to all ALGs. For, they ALL are within Chinese range. The diff is that "Chushul" is in a disputed area, the others are not, but all are equally vulnerable - due to the distance from the border.

What construction did PRC or Pak stop because it is in the Disputed area? was this info about dispute / threat known to GOI only yesterday. this is just plain posturing to gain some brownie points.. signs of weak-kneed musings which pass of as policies in GOI/MEA. Even Vietnam looks more assertive with PRC.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 25 Jul 2011 04:01

Shrinivasan wrote:
NRao wrote:True.
However, your first post, implied, but did not explicitly state that you were referring to "Chushul". Which triggered the question if it applied to all ALGs. For, they ALL are within Chinese range. The diff is that "Chushul" is in a disputed area, the others are not, but all are equally vulnerable - due to the distance from the border.
What construction did PRC or Pak stop because it is in the Disputed area? was this info about dispute / threat known to GOI only yesterday. this is just plain posturing to gain some brownie points.. signs of weak-kneed musings which pass of as policies in GOI/MEA. Even Vietnam looks more assertive with PRC.

Can speculate.

Do not have any open source stuff to post.

Shrinivasan · Post by **Shrinivasan** » 25 Jul 2011 04:15

NRao wrote:
Shrinivasan wrote:What construction did PRC or Pak stop because it is in the Disputed area? was this info about dispute / threat known to GOI only yesterday. this is just plain posturing to gain some brownie points.. signs of weak-kneed musings which pass of as policies in GOI/MEA. Even Vietnam looks more assertive with PRC.
Can speculate. Do not have any open source stuff to post.

Rao, I was not exactly looking for an answer from you who is in Khanland... Mine was a more rhetorical question. Hope you enjoyed the airshow!!!

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 25 Jul 2011 11:47

The fact remains that Chususl ALG would have helped to ease the logistics in the area. AFAIK, the route from Leh to Chusul leads over Chang La pass which is 17K feet plus pass. Not a very pleasant scenario.

Location:http://wikimapia.org/#lat=34.0474414&lo ... chang%20la
Check these snaps:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Chang ... _Point.jpg
http://cdn.wn.com/pd/5a/f7/3149aed38122 ... grande.jpg

Chusul airfled was used in prior to 1962 shooting match and could take AN-12 and Packets.

This is the location of Chusul:http://wikimapia.org/#lat=33.6008944&lo ... 10&l=0&m=h
Chusul airstrip: http://wikimapia.org/#lat=33.5436839&lo ... chang%20la

This map is centered on Chusul airstrip but shows the alignment (rough) of the LAC. Judge the proximity to LAC yourself.

As can be seen from the map above, it would be extremely difficult to prevent the ALG from damage in case of any conflict.

As for Chusul, through Spanggur Gap to just east of where Chusul airfield is - this is called the Spanggur Gap and it connects Chusul Plateau with the Tibetan Plateau.

This place is of vital importance to us.

Shrinivasan · Post by **Shrinivasan** » 26 Jul 2011 08:10

rohitvats wrote:The fact remains that Chususl ALG would have helped to ease the logistics in the area. AFAIK, the route from Leh to Chusul leads over Chang La pass which is 17K feet plus pass. Not a very pleasant scenario.

As can be seen from the map above, it would be extremely difficult to prevent the ALG from damage in case of any conflict.

This place is of vital importance to us.

All the more reason to fortify the place and protect it, not to shy away from this and leave it Nanga... If we start doing this, where do we stop?

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 26 Jul 2011 08:22

aye rather than saying DBG/Chushul et al will be unuseable once the war starts, make the arrangements to repair damage quickly and site the WLR/MLRS assets ready to POUND any artillery located targeting this facility, as well as cue IAF strike a/c and Prahaar salvo to deeper targets.

these should not be considered just for buildup, but as a launchpad for deeper adventures.

hnair · Post by **hnair** » 26 Jul 2011 09:00

rohitvats wrote: This is the location of Chusul:http://wikimapia.org/#lat=33.6008944&lo ... 10&l=0&m=h
Chusul airstrip: http://wikimapia.org/#lat=33.5436839&lo ... chang%20la

This map is centered on Chusul airstrip but shows the alignment (rough) of the LAC. Judge the proximity to LAC yourself.

As can be seen from the map above, it would be extremely difficult to prevent the ALG from damage in case of any conflict.

Dont know the gradients around the area, but looking at the map above, there is a risk during peace time too. Chushul can get washed away after much work due to that natural dam at Spangur Gap. Spangur Gap seems like a funnel with the ALG forming its spout for a dam burst. Rather inconvenient. Even if we take the shallow part of reservior near to the dam, that is a lot of water up there. Plausible deniability by Panda.

maybe some other jingo with better sense of gradients can chip in?

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 26 Jul 2011 09:41

hnair wrote: Dont know the gradients around the area, but looking at the map above, there is a risk during peace time too. Chushul can get washed away after much work due to that natural dam at Spangur Gap. Spangur Gap seems like a funnel with the ALG forming its spout for a dam burst. Rather inconvenient. Even if we take the shallow part of reservior near to the dam, that is a lot of water up there. Plausible deniability by Panda.

maybe some other jingo with better sense of gradients can chip in?

All you need to do is use the terrain feature on the wikimapia and it will give you an idea of the gradient.

Check the same map here: http://wikimapia.org/#lat=33.5568457&lo ... chang%20la

For PLA to flood the area will mean that they themselves will not be able to then do much about it. Ideally, they would want to hold this area for themselves. This area is a vital lynchpin for outer defense of Ladakh.

I will post a detailed analysis in the IA thread, but a short analysis is as under but before that, please keep this map for reference:
http://wikimapia.org/#lat=33.4841447&lo ... 10&l=0&m=h

If they take Chusul, they can move southwards and threaten Dungti. As you can see from the above map, Dungti sits on the main Leh-Dhemchok road (sothern Ladakh; scroll down on map) - the most vital communication axis in the entire sector. Nyoma ALG is stones throw distance from the place.

So, if I were a PLA commander, I'll put maximum pressure on Chusul with the aim of finally interdicting the Leh-Dhemchok road at Dungti. This way, I can meet two objectives - (a) Isolate Indian troops and formations in Southern Ladakh from rest of sector and put pressure on them. (b) Mount an offensive towards Leh along the Indus on Nyoma-Leh axis.

While, It may still be possible to sustain troops in Southern Ladakh from HP, still, it represents massive threat to both the sectors.

There is a third objective which PLA can achieve by taking Chusul - If you scroll up on the map along the Pangon Tso, you'll see Spangmik, Lukung, Phobrang and Chorkangma. This route passes through Marimik La (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsimik_La) and connects to the Chang-Chenmo Sector - the central Ladakh sector. My moving north from Chusul, PLA can effective block this axis and cut off any Indian presence east of Marsimik La - which is a very difficult terrain and difficult to sustain.

***PLease check this travelogue to get an idea about Spangmik-Phobrang-Marisim with some great shots:
[url]La.http://www.bcmtouring.com/forum/travelo ... t24293-29/[/url]

Shrinivasan · Post by **Shrinivasan** » 26 Jul 2011 10:57

Singha wrote:aye rather than saying DBG/Chushul et al will be unuseable once the war starts, make the arrangements to repair damage quickly and site the WLR/MLRS assets ready to POUND any artillery located targeting this facility, as well as cue IAF strike a/c and Prahaar salvo to deeper targets.

Well said Singha, nobody disagrees with the fact that there is a risk, here Risk avoidance is not the idea, but risk mitigation. BTB, just because we don't convert Chusul as a base, the Chinese threat in that sector does not go away. This becomes an easier route into Ladakh.

Shrinivasan · Post by **Shrinivasan** » 26 Jul 2011 11:02

^^^ Thanks Rohitvats for a detailed analysis (even though you claim this is a shot analysis, can't wait to read the detailed one). Your analysis shows how critical Chusul is in that region. All the more some Individual with higher level of intelligence than the current crop of leaders decided to have an ALG in Chusul (IAF might have wanted an FAB/AFS in the first place, some Dhimmi, commie loving, Bean counter would have vetoed it and an ALG would have been a compromise).

Shrinivasan · Post by **Shrinivasan** » 26 Jul 2011 11:06

rohitvats wrote: ***PLease check this travelogue to get an idea about Spangmik-Phobrang-Marisim with some great shots:
[url]La.http://www.bcmtouring.com/forum/travelo ... t24293-29/[/url]

Rohit, did you notice something special in the picture titled "Almost at the top". (pict file named 369_Towards Marsimik La.jpg) there is a Radar unit almost at the top. Looks like an MPR!!!

Bala Vignesh · Post by **Bala Vignesh** » 26 Jul 2011 11:37

^^ Shrinivasanji, It seems to have 2 antennae array. If that is a MPR then there are 2 radars present in the same location, imo.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 26 Jul 2011 12:02

Bala Vignesh wrote:^^ Shrinivasanji, It seems to have 2 antennae array. If that is a MPR then there are 2 radars present in the same location, imo.

They look like simple stone slabs to me

Check the size of the temple close-by.....a then check the pic of MPR in the induction ceremony in Jamnagar.

Shrinivasan · Post by **Shrinivasan** » 26 Jul 2011 12:04

Bala Vignesh wrote:^^ Shrinivasanji, It seems to have 2 antennae array. If that is a MPR then there are 2 radars present in the same location, imo.

a word came into my mind... decoy... and redundancy... I am not even sure if it is a RADAR.. looked like one, the location is ideal to site a radar. also there are some structures to the right of it... I dunno...
BTB, go through the complete travelogue, many golden nuggets waiting to be mined...

Bala Vignesh · Post by **Bala Vignesh** » 26 Jul 2011 12:06

^^ Well Rohit Miyan, i thought the same thing at first.. But then when i checked out the image of the MPR it did seem to resemble it a bit, and hence my view above.

Shrinivasan · Post by **Shrinivasan** » 26 Jul 2011 12:36

rohitvats wrote:
Bala Vignesh wrote:^^ Shrinivasanji, It seems to have 2 antennae array. If that is a MPR then there are 2 radars present in the same location, imo.
They look like simple stone slabs to me Check the size of the temple close-by.....a then check the pic of MPR in the induction ceremony in Jamnagar.

Rohit, It might not be the same Radar as Arudra deployed in Naliya. We had deployed some MPRs in different places, Ex: Car Nicobar AFB. Can't locate a picture now... Just a thought, I could be wrong.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 26 Jul 2011 13:03

Bala Vignesh wrote:^^ Well Rohit Miyan, i thought the same thing at first.. But then when i checked out the image of the MPR it did seem to resemble it a bit, and hence my view above.

BV, if there was a MPR in that area, rest assured, no one would have been allowed anywhere near the site for many many kms - leave along take a picture. Even assuming that the control center is some place away and this is more like a remote radar only site, it will not be left unguarded. Plus, that 'object' is bang on the road which is used by IA convoys.

Plus, look at the size of temple...the height is shortern than a average adult. And then compare the size of the plates.

Here, have a look at the same MPR Radar mounted on a vehicle:http://www.deagel.com/library1/medium/m ... 000008.jpg. Does that 'object' look in anyway like a radar?

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 26 Jul 2011 13:04

Shrinivasan wrote: Rohit, It might not be the same Radar as Arudra deployed in Naliya. We had deployed some MPRs in different places, Ex: Car Nicobar AFB. Can't locate a picture now... Just a thought, I could be wrong.

Why speculate for the heck of it? Do you think anyone will allow you to step even with in couple of kms of a sensitive site like this, leave alone walk next to it and take photos?

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 26 Jul 2011 13:26

those are not radars for sure.

Bala Vignesh · Post by **Bala Vignesh** » 26 Jul 2011 13:30

Rohitmullah,
I defer to the sound judgment of thee.. Now that you posted the vehicle mounted version, it does seem to be less likely that its an MPR and well the security thing slipped my mind completely.

Shrinivasan · Post by **Shrinivasan** » 26 Jul 2011 13:54

Thanks Rohit... for explaining succinctly and forcefully. point noted.