Bharat Rakshak

the small Konkurs ATGM fired out of our BMPs using manual reloads is both slow to reload, short range and does not look capable to taking on modern MBTs. imo they might be of some use on other IFVs but thats about it.

apparently we ordered : 15,000 Konkurs-M, ordered in 2008 for Rs 1,380-crore per wiki.

imo in the mould of western IFV, 4 Nags strapped to the side of BMP turret would have been a better hit.
http://www.army-technology.com/projects ... dardo1.jpg

or even convert some of the BMPs to namicas and spread around liberally.

I don't think IA will accept such a scenario saab.
These launchers could also mean vehicle based launchers. Or some other type of mounted launchers perhaps. 1:25 is too bad to be true.
If we look at other exports of Javelin, the ratio or around 1:6. I believe this would have the reserves included.


The total order book of Javelin till date is around 25-30K missiles AFAIK saab.
Being expensive, I don't think they will be ordered as one to one replacements for Milan 2T. Also, htere was a gigantic Milan2T order just 3-4 years ago so their replacement might not be on the horizon this decade atleast.
I think Javelins will be limited to the offensive elements and Milan will be employed among defensive elements.

I felt javelin would be man portable fire and forget missile .Which would would help the launching crew to take cover after firing the missile.It would become a infantry support weapon.The wonderful merit i found is it's weight and the fire and forget facility.

24 March 2011: The Indian ATGM requirement was leaked to the press by "Indian Ministry of Defence officials", in favour of the Israel Spike missile at the time, with the order being for 321 launchers and 8,356 missiles.


We know the Javelin was eventually selected.

So the number of 300 launchers and 8000 missiles isn't entirely at odds with the Indian requirement.

thanks to twinblade from mil photus.net

very nice and simple experiment there...

http://www.defencenow.com/news/143/indi ... om-us.html

The Spike was ordered for the BMP-2 upgrade. Javelin will be ordered for the infantry. I think with full-tot since now no more CISMOA, we will certainly end up with an order of around 40000 missiles with 8000 missiles bought off the shelf for immediate use with SF/ Ghatak units and another 32000+ to be licence built in India over a period of a decade. Full-filling this large order would take quite some by that time the existing Milans will be phased out.

A realistically speaking, we should certainly see the number of infantry battalions increasing, I wouldn't be surprised if with in the next couple of decades we add another 50 battalions. This makes sense since we are nation with still a rapid increase in population, the laws for economics and defence directly call for a larger force. By 2025, we should have around 400 battalions. With an order of 40000, we can have a 100 missiles per battalion, with 4000 launchers, we can have 10 launchers per battalion, 10 missiles per launcher. This should be an ideal number.

Thank you.

It cannot be that we asked only for 300 launchers of man-portable platform if the corresponding number for Spike was for the BMP. Ramana ji might as well be right.

Any evidence of ToT?

Can you point a reference to TOT for Javelins ?

Well, this order for 300 launchers and 8,000 missiles IMO is the initial order to fill in the gap. Please remember that the order for 4K Milan-2T ATGM with tandem warhead was a stop-gap measure - this when the missile had not met the range requirement. IA has clearly defined road map as far as man portable ATGM is considered - it wants 3rd Gen F&F Missile. The induction of Javelin (outright purchase and local manufacture) will match with phasing out of Milan-2T. And Singha is right on the increase in Infantry Battalions - IA has asked for 7-11 new Mountain Divisions to fill gaps from north to north-east including Mountain Strike Corps. That is increment of 63-99 infantry battalions over next 10-12 years.

Interesting that you mentioned about 4K Milan as a stop-gap order even when it had a range problem! No such concession for the Nag, which is a 3rd gen missile, which can take out pretty much any tank out there. Recall that the IA wanted a 2nd trial in 2011 because the 2010 trial tested a minimum range of 800m, while IA wanted a min range of 500m. Then came the Namica episode. All this for a paltry order of 443 Nags

Prem Kumar, you didnt get the nuance of rejecting the Nag for not meeting the minimum range requirement.
See the IA wants the 500m or 0.5km minimum range as a last ditch weapon. Instead DRDO gives them a range of 800m or 0.8km which is not so last ditch weapon. More like canal then a ditch.
Hence the rejection.

Anyway the IA has ensured it will field obsolete weapons due to its own special culture.

Can't blame babus for that.

The IA didn't reject the Nag. They rejected the NAMICA since they couldn't find anything wrong with the Nag.

PK, all you've done by writing the above is to show your opinionated mindset. So, you think IA used double standards with Milan-2T and Nag? And you suppose this was because Milan-2T is a foreign product? Well, my dear good sir, Milan-2T is made in India by one of the DPSU (BDL I think). So, IA inducted (actually was forced to by MOD) as much an Indian system as possible. As for Nag and the paltry order - the role of Nag and NAMICA in IA has been discussed on BRF before passing such comments as "paltry orders".

Rohit: I do have an opinionated mindset regarding the IA's step-motherly treatment towards several indigenous products like Nag, Arjun etc. There is enough evidence to substantiate such a mindset.

You may want to read this article: http://pragmatic.nationalinterest.in/2011/03/24/the-reason-we-buy-low-quality-missiles/

Yes - BDL makes the Milan-2T (cheaper than imported Milans for sure) and the MOD arm-twisted the IA into accepting an inferior missile in 2008. So, you are right on this and I stand corrected. But the IA has itself to blame for this mess. No GSQR formulation for a 3rd Gen ATGM for 3 years - this when a 3rd gen ATGM is already under development. Then the usual IA Artillery-gun-style infinite trial tamasha. And then complain that it is short by over 40K ATGMs.

443 missiles out of a possible need for 40K "is paltry", whichever way we look at it. With a production run of 443 missiles, the per-unit cost will remain ridiculously high. I had read somewhere that the IA has an eventual need for 7K Nags. I hope to see the day when such an order materializes - the Akash success gives me some reason to hope.

To recap why I think the IA has been step-motherly towards Nag (all this has been discussed on this forum before):

a) Namica trials as far back as 2008
b) Nag trials in 2009, which it passes with flying colors. Minimum range tested: 800m
c) IA wants another trial in 2010 with a minimum range of 500m! Nag passes that one too
d) Namica complaints surface in 2011
e) Namica trials in 2012

There is no reason why the IA couldnt have placed a firm order in 2009 for Tranche1 of Nag/Namica for 443/13, to be followed by additional orders, once the newer minimum range was established and a newer version of Namica was delivered. There is also no sensible reason why the IA complained about Namica in 2011 - a full 3 years after testing it.

By now, they could have had their initial 443 missiles inducted, provided feedback on operational kinks to be ironed out & BDL could be manufacturing Tranche 2 or Tranche 3

If we want to be charitable to the IA, we can claim that this reflects a lack of foresight & planning. The uncharitable explanations would involve obsession with foreign maal or worse.

[quote="Prem Kumar"]Rohit: I do have an opinionated mindset regarding the IA's step-motherly treatment towards several indigenous products like Nag, Arjun etc. There is enough evidence to substantiate such a mindset.

And that is where the problem is. If I take cue from you, I can extrapolate the example of BEML TATRA fiasco and pain the entire DPSU set-up as corrupt and incompetent. And god knows how many "indigenous products" are serving with the armed forces of which may eventually come to know about. But would that be the right thing to do on my part? All you do by posting such statements (as about Milan-2t and Nag) is lower the quality of debate and take the focus away from the crux of the discussion.

You may want to read this article: http://pragmatic.nationalinterest.in/2011/03/24/the-reason-we-buy-low-quality-missiles/
Well, I had read the CAG Report when it came out and there was a round of discussion on this very topic on BRF.My assertion was based on this very CAG Report.

Yes - BDL makes the Milan-2T (cheaper than imported Milans for sure) and the MOD arm-twisted the IA into accepting an inferior missile in 2008. So, you are right on this and I stand corrected. Thank you for being humble on this account.


But the IA has itself to blame for this mess. No GSQR formulation for a 3rd Gen ATGM for 3 years - this when a 3rd gen ATGM is already under development.

Sorry, but the argument is non-starter - and this goes for CAG as well.

CAG main argument is that by not asking for 3G F&F Missile, Army bought it upon itself to be coerced into buying substandard missiles.While the very argument about 3G F&F Missile is nonsense IMO, the entire line of argument enemy having longer range ATGM is absurd. Let us see the chain of events -

GSQR 2003 for Tandem Warhead ATGM (most probably because the ERA started making appearance in the sub-continent) - noting happens between 2003 and 2007 - 2007 BDL reverts with missile, it fails to meet target - 2008 BDL again reverts with missile, it again fails to meet the target - GSQR amended to allow induction of inferior missile.

Now, coming to charge about "GSQR for 3G F&F Missile" from CAG - can you, or CAG shed light on what was happening between 2003 and 2007? In the absence of any comment on this period in time in terms of IA's assessment of requirement, how can anyone say that IA SHOULD have come out with GSQR? What if the GSQR never progressed to purchasing stage because of shenanigans of MOD and DPSU? Can anyone authoritatively comment on this aspect? Choosing to blame the army is the easy way out. The difficult way is to some time researching on the topic and look for answers. Anyone can point fingers!!!

As for the in-house 3rd Gen ATGM - which missile are you talking about? NAG? How does the same meet the requirement of Man portable ATGM? Or are you also from the school which claims that by simply "reducing" certain components in weight and size, we'll have a man portable ATGM? As you've yourself written below, NAG came of age in 2009 - are you suggesting that IA should have placed the bets on a system which itself was yet to be proven? While I'm all for indigenous products, simple hand-waving arguments do not suffice to answer some hard questions.

There were reports about DRDO working on man portable NAG version - has anyone heard about it?

Then the usual IA Artillery-gun-style infinite trial tamasha. And then complain that it is short by over 40K ATGMs.

Sorry, but the above is rant typical of those who read the headlines and pass judgments. The IA Artillery procurement saga is well know - if you place the blame of infinite trials at IA's doorstep, then it is you who is ignorant of the topic and need to read up on that.

As for shortage of ATGM missile - well, all I can do is ...you're simply picking an unrelated data point and in absence of any other explanation for the same, placing the blame at IA's doorstep. If the TATRA and ARV tamasha has shown anything, IA is seriously hamstrung as far as purchases are concerned. The ATGM shortfall that you blame army for, is procured by MOD - from international vendors or DPSU...unless, you can show me proof that IA simply forgot to place orders, the blame will rest on MOD's shoulder

443 missiles out of a possible need for 40K "is paltry", whichever way we look at it.

The problem here is - you don't know which the right way to look at.
There is no equivalent of NAG in IA inventory - there are only three types of ATGM in IA service: (1) the man portable one of which we have Milan and Milan-2T (2) ones used with BMP-1/2 (3) Cannon launched ATGM on T-90 and Arjun (in future). Any requirement for NAG will be over and above the 84K supposed holding for ATGM in IA.

NAG is a type of a system which will require innovative deployment philosophy and technique by the IA - my guess is that the R&S Battalions of RAPID and other mechanized formations are going to be prime candidates.

Apart from the NAMICA fiasco, other parts of your argument are not tenable. How is the tranche system applicable here? Can you upgrade the older tranche missiles to newer level like you can in Arjun? What happens to the older missile equipped regiments? Does the army continue to have different regiments equipped with different systems?

As I said earlier, finger pointing without background research is most easy thing to do.

There are also a huge number (10,000+) of 84mm Carl Gustav--one per infantry section--in service. These are pretty capable anti-tank weapons as well.

Is there is domestic version of the Stinger missile?

^^^ India has the Russian supplied Igla. No indigenous Indian equivalent.

Igla-M and not the Igla-S. Isn't a competitive trial supposed to be taking place soon?

The fact remains that there is a large discrepancy between what needs and wants are, and what the developer (r&d shops and labs) produces. We can blame two critical parties, the buyer/consumer/needy and the seller/producer/developer... and we find arguments either side valid, and at the same invalid as well. The premise of all these problems are inadequate processes in RE (requirement engineering), and better process model w.r.t indigenous product development. It is no one's black box when it comes to knowing our status in terms of capability and the process established to get there. This is where, we see supporting discussion points taking sides,, and that is exactly the place where the problem lies.. taking sides - the forces vs. the developers. this is the fundamental problem not just in BR, but including our street talks.

The need of the hour is joint strategies, that includes CAG, Forces, and R&D labs.. and not just them, but including gov, and private parties who are regulators and producers. private parternship especially in ToTing from R&D and establishing production engineering setup is vital for growth.. and we are at ground zero here., and I don't see any arguments or discussions leading in that direction.

OT but.,
This is probably one area where India and china can work together and not let Bangladesh too chummy with the yanks.Neither India nor china will be comfortable with a US military base even if it is not overtly so., in their back yard.

When it is said certain missile for example 'Milan 1' is being phased out from army, what happens to these missiles? They are taken apart and sold in kabaad? Or used on the border for answering in time to time shelling by porkis?

Probably destroyed....

the thermal imagers could be removed, refurbished and issued to infantry units.

Most would be used in training the troops and for annual firing practice. The older ones where the shelf life has expired are destroyed. There are SOPs for recovering those elements which may have some value - like seekers, fuzes etc.

^^ Thanks !

SDRE-ness will never put anything to waste! is my belief

Training since most soldiers get arare chance to fire a live missile


Having said that many a expired missile fires like a Diwali rocket

at least the AAMs my friends have fired.

surya, didn't understood your pun. btw, training with real missiles is vital for preparedness., and this should happen for systems that are in service. some level of batch testing will always happen.

saik said



yes and they are expensive so not everyone gets to fire live ones .. not in India not in US.

you get expired ones but even that does nto go to every person (whether its a squadron, platoon etc)

and expired ones are expired because they are unreliable.

Friends have flown out over the Arabian sea and fired AAMs at dummy targets and seen them take a diwali rocket like trajectory into the sea

Army set to get air defence missiles

The Ministry of Defence is set to clear a Rs 12,000-crore proposal of the Indian Army to procure new generation air defence missiles to replace its ageing Russian systems. A boost for the transport wing of the Indian Air Force is also on the cards with the purchase of an additional 14 Dornier aircraft likely to be given the go-ahead on Thursday.

The Army is seeking to procure eight regiments of Quick Reaction Surface to Air Missiles (QRSAMs) to replace the Russian Kvadrat systems that have reached obsolescence. Sources said the proposal was set to be given a go-ahead by the Defence Acquisition Council (DAC) that is meeting on Thursday.

After a clearance by the DAC, the Army will float a global tender to purchase the systems. The Rs 12,000-crore tag makes it one of the largest-ever global contracts floated by the Army. Defence PSU Bharat Dynamics Limited (BDL) will be the designated partner agency for the maintenance transfer of technology that will be required in the contract.

The DAC is also likely to give the go-ahead for 14 additional Dornier transport aircraft for the IAF that will boost its fleet level up from the current 41. The aircraft — used in light transport or personnel carrier roles — will be procured from Hindustan Aeronautics Limited at a cost of over Rs 1,000 crore.

A go-ahead for the procurement of the QRSAMs will come as a major relief for the Army that is struggling with an obsolete air defence network. This is the second time in the last five years that the Army will try to obtain the systems after the indigenous Akash systems as well as an earlier round of procurement failed to meet its requirements.

Earlier this year, the Army had floated a ‘request for information’ for the systems that was responded to by most global missile manufacturers. It is looking for a quick reaction system that can engage targets at a range of 15 km at a minimum altitude of 6,000 metres in under six seconds.

A new scam in making?

Kvadrat = SA6 Gainful.

Wasn't the Akash supposed to replace that missile?

So whats going on?

15 km for QRSAM vs 25 Km for Akash
I guess the Army likes to take the enemy up close

Akash is MRSAM with 40 km(mk2 version) range and 15km altitude ceiling of which 2000 nos missiles in 2 regiments will be procured which will replace kvadrat.

QRSAM is entirely different requirement of SRSAM of 15km and 6km altitude requirement of spyder class.