Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 03 Oct 2015 00:04

"IAF's Su-30 fighter plane pilots are focusing on beyond visual range combat and night flying capabilities even as they gear up for the installation of the 'game changer' BrahMos missiles, with a strike range of nearly 300 kms, in the aircraft.

They are also looking forward to the plane's next generation 'Super 30' version which will have advanced avionics."

...

The significance of this is the first IAF confirmation of what Super 30 will include.

"The Super 30 Project will make the aircraft a 4.5 generation one. While there won't be modification to the air frame, the planes will be equipped with next generation radar system, software, integrated touch display and a helmet- mounted display," IAF officials said.

...

Note Brahmos carriage requires modification to the Su-30.

Also Brahmos deal is signed.
Super-30 hasn't been

Vipul · Post by **Vipul** » 03 Oct 2015 00:14

Andhra Pradesh set to allot 2,720 acres to DRDO for missile testing project.

The Andhra Pradesh cabinet, which met here under the chairmanship of Chief Minister Chandrababu Naidu, decided to allot 2,720 acres of land near Orvakallu in Kurnool district for DRDO's missile testing project.

The cabinet also decided to allot 1,965 acres of land to build a naval base at Rayavaram village in Visakhapatnam district, AP Minister for Information and Public Relations Palle Raghunatha Reddy told reporters.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 03 Oct 2015 00:23

I think, 200kg is enough for a thermo 150-200kt. but will we enable brahmos and super 30s for such role is a big question.

Aditya G · Post by **Aditya G** » 03 Oct 2015 01:46

Thanks Karan. I still believe that Super-30 == Su-30 with brahmos

This is per article from 2010 (Clicky)

The order is expected to be for the 'Super' variant of the Su-30MKI, which would be capable of carrying the BrahMos cruise missile. The Super variants are also expected to carry the under-development, nuclear-capable, Nirbhay cruise missile with a range of 1,000 km. The 'Super' variants are expected to field new radars, onboard computers, electronic warfare systems as well as the supersonic BrahMos and the high sub-sonic, strategic Nirbhay missile. The first two prototypes of the 'Super-30' upgrade are expected to be delivered to the Indian Air Force in 2012, after which the same upgrades will be performed on the last batch consisting of 40 production aircraft.

This is per article when first brahmos integrated Su-30 was delivered in 2015 clicky:

The Indian Air Force (IAF) has received the first BrahMos missile integrated Su-30 MKI multi-role combat aircraft from Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL). "We are hopeful of rolling out the second aircraft in a record time. According to HAL sources, the conservative timeline for integrating the second Su-30 MKI would require nearly 13 months.

What I have understood, and hope to be correct, that the first Super-30 has already arrived with part of the upgrades. The latest articles says that further enhancements under the Super package will not require airframe changes - as they have already been done as part of Brahmos integration.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 03 Oct 2015 02:15

Aditya, I hope you are right but if we see the latest NIIP and Russian interview. There is no agreement yet on Super 30 specifics beyond the high level details. What it includes, what will come with it. NIIP is still awaiting a firm decision on whether their radar proposal for the IAF's Super 30 will be accepted. Just check the latest news from 11 September 2015. India expresses interest.

http://sputniknews.com/business/2015091 ... 64701.html

The biggest point of contention is the radar. NIIP only offers an Irbis style Bars upgrade. IAF wants an AESA. There is no ready AESA in Russian service. N036 is in tests on PAKFA. ZhuK AESA is merely a testbed. IAF will have to finance the entire system and their experience with Phazatron has not exactly been overwhelmingly positive.

Plus where is DARE's integrated display and touch screen system? No PR, no report in DRDO reports either of it being ready or flying on any testbed. Its still on a test rig at DARE. A Russian Su-30 testbed at Irkut has been seen with a Su-35 style display. Again, no evidence of it having gone into production yet.

The Brahmos upgrade is an entirely different beast. It adds significant weight to the airframe structure to cart around the Brahmos. That is why the AF has only agreed to 42 upgrades. These aircraft's baseline performance will be lower than the standard Su-30 MKI, albeit by not a huge amount but still.

So what has the IAF done in the meantime.. They dropped the EL/L-8222 SPJ from the Su-30 (it had integration issues) and replaced it with the SAP-518. The RWR had issues with blanking and coverage, and they are replacing it with a new 6 channel R118 derivative with an additional component called the Eagle Eye to take the input from the additional 2RWR channels and combine it. A Digital R118 derivative is in advanced development as of 2014.

As of 2014, NIIP also revealed they had finally met IAF ASR requirements for the NIIP N011M radar and all production variants would be the new type and prior sets would be upgraded as well. Indications it was a hardware and software change.

Russian Su-30SMs in the meanwhile are flying around with upgraded Bars-R radars which are stated to be more capable than the standard Bars. Whether the IAF upgrade is similar remains to be known in specific. Their avionics and cockpit displays are very similar to the MKI, MKA, MKM. They are not Su-35 level either.

Irbis-E has but recently gone into production for the Su-35 in limited series production. Its testing just concluded last year.

The only way these can be Super-30s is if these are a one-off and the IAF is negotiating a bulk Super-30 upgrade separately which would leave it with multiple different kinds of Su-30s. Just find that pretty unlikely.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 03 Oct 2015 02:41

anyone can tell me why India would sell its missile to MTCR members? when china opposes to sell it to other regimes? chinese ain't seen anything yet of surya. time to begin taming china.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/indi ... 190056.cms

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 03 Oct 2015 06:29

got this from twitter pics of SU30SM on CAP over syria

Green lemon ‏@green_lemonnn 13h13 hours ago
#PT Erratum : RuAF has no R-77 in its inventory, missiles are R-27s. (H/T @oryxspioenkop )

srai · Post by **srai** » 03 Oct 2015 06:38

^^^

Says a lot about R-77

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 03 Oct 2015 07:46

"only the shepherd really knows his flock"

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 03 Oct 2015 10:12

The Russians have deployed EP/EA variant of R-27 with both Active and Passive seeker which far out ranges the R-77 , so they dont have to rely on just the latter to do the job. Janes in 2005 have carried the report

member_22539 · Post by **member_22539** » 03 Oct 2015 11:26

^If R27 gets the job done better, what is our logic for going for the R77?

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 03 Oct 2015 11:28

Arun Menon wrote:^If R27 gets the job done better, what is our logic for going for the R77?

We use both , MKI are seen with R-27 and R-77 and They havent exported the EP/EA variant atleast not till 2005 when Janes wrote the report although Janes mentioned EP was deployes since many years and wansnt disclosed till the time they did it

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 03 Oct 2015 11:34

Austin, any details about the R27 active variant ?

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 03 Oct 2015 11:45

Rahul M wrote:Austin, any details about the R27 active variant ?

Rahul , check PM

Good Check list of all R-27 Variants

http://su-27flanker.com/weapon/r-27-vym ... -10-alamo/#

kmkraoind · Post by **kmkraoind** » 03 Oct 2015 12:16

SaiK wrote:anyone can tell me why India would sell its missile to MTCR members? when china opposes to sell it to other regimes? chinese ain't seen anything yet of surya. time to begin taming china.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/indi ... 190056.cms

- It paves for India to import/buy missiles that have greater than 300 KM range. Who knows when we lease next nuclear sub from Russia, we may get Bulava along with it.
- Now we can buy or missile tech or parts of missile systems more freely than ever since we are MTCR signatory.
- There will no restrictions or objections if we get HALE drones or drone tech or engines for such.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 03 Oct 2015 15:51

Haven't seen any firm evidence till date the R-27 active variant ever entered production.

The Russians and us are both without an active BVR missile till R77SD becomes more widespread. At least we are getting Mica's and Derby's. And which is why Astra is so crucial for the IAF.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 03 Oct 2015 16:01

Karan M wrote:Haven't seen any firm evidence till date the R-27 active variant ever entered production.

The Russians and us are both without an active BVR missile till R77SD becomes more widespread. At least we are getting Mica's and Derby's. And which is why Astra is so crucial for the IAF.

It difficult to figure out what variant it is unless some one flips the dielectric radome to see the seeker , one of the link shared with Rahul from Janes mentioned the EP passive seeker variant entered service in late 80's but export began only 2005 , externally they look the same.

R-27 though has a draggier airframe and overload factor is 8g compared to 12g for R-77 , it some one compensates with larger warhead

srin · Post by **srin** » 03 Oct 2015 16:03

Isn't R-27 made in Ukraine ?

Aditya G · Post by **Aditya G** » 03 Oct 2015 16:05

Thanks Karan for the elaborate info.

Karan M wrote:....So what has the IAF done in the meantime.. They dropped the EL/L-8222 SPJ from the Su-30 (it had integration issues) and replaced it with the SAP-518. ...

I assumed the former was now a given considering we were deploying the pod in multi national exercises as well..

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 03 Oct 2015 16:13

srin wrote:Isn't R-27 made in Ukraine ?

The seeker was built in Ukranian

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 03 Oct 2015 16:14

Austin wrote:It difficult to figure out what variant it is unless some one flips the dielectric radome to see the seeker , one of the link shared with Rahul from Janes mentioned the EP passive seeker variant entered service in late 80's but export began only 2005 , externally they look the same.

What's the Pk of a EP seeker based ARM - challenge is if your opponent turns away sharply, how does the missile still track him? I haven't heard any clear explanation of how effective this system is. For a ground based static radar, you can take its location as a given or lock it into your GPS and use your seeker for terminal guidance. But a fast moving mobile target which turns away quickly? This missile would be good against SARH equipped fighters which stay and "guide" their missiles in. But against aircraft with ARHs, the time available shortens rapidly..

When we purchased extra R-27s we took them from Ukraine and not Russia, Artem.
I was hoping these would be active variants, but the only ones Artem makes are SARH, Thermal and passive ones.
http://www.artem.ua/en/

R-27 though has a draggier airframe and overload factor is 8g compared to 12g for R-77 , it some one compensates with larger warhead

The problem is R-27 is basically obsolete in a key manner. As its a SARH missile, you can't launch and leave. You will have to maintain closure with your target, getting closer and closer to his launched munition. The only advantage is that it has a notional larger range propulsion wise but folks remark the seeker limitations reduce that to R77 level or less (even the ER variant).

Its really frustrating to see how badly Russia mucked up the R-77 design and engineering and despite investing so much into it, we seem to have got nothing.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 03 Oct 2015 16:17

kmkraoind wrote:
- It paves for India to import/buy missiles that have greater than 300 KM range. Who knows when we lease next nuclear sub from Russia, we may get Bulava along with it.
- Now we can buy or missile tech or parts of missile systems more freely than ever since we are MTCR signatory.
- There will no restrictions or objections if we get HALE drones or drone tech or engines for such.

kmkraoind - I think you have got it the other way round. No one gets into the club just because he wants missiles over 300 km. You get in only after you have the tech to produce such missiles.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 03 Oct 2015 16:28

Karan M wrote:What's the Pk of a EP seeker based ARM - challenge is if your opponent turns away sharply, how does the missile still track him? I haven't heard any clear explanation of how effective this system is. For a ground based static radar, you can take its location as a given or lock it into your GPS and use your seeker for terminal guidance. But a fast moving mobile target which turns away quickly? This missile would be good against SARH equipped fighters which stay and "guide" their missiles in. But against aircraft with ARHs, the time available shortens rapidly

Here is the 2004 Janes Report

Vympel offers R-27EP anti-radar air-to-air missile
Piotr Butowski

Vympel is offering the R-27EP anti-radar version of its R-27 (AA-10 'Alamo') series of air-to-air missiles on the export market, writes Piotr Butowski. It showed a model of the weapon at the recent FIDAE defence exhibition in Santiago, Chile.

The missile is not a totally new concept. The first test launchings of the original R-27P passive-radar homing missile were made from a MiG-29 testbed in 1984. In 1987, the R-27P missile was adopted for service with what was then the Soviet air force, and in 1991 the Artem factory in Kiev, Ukraine, made a short production run of missiles. These are currently in service with the Russian Air Force.

Until recently, the existence of the R-27P could not be confirmed. Reports described it as being a weapon for use against fighter aircraft, AEW aircraft or standoff jammers. The first direct evidence for the weapon came when the Ukraine company Artem offered it for export.

Production of R-27P ended after the disintegration of the Soviet Union. Although the Artem factory is still offering the R-27P, it is unlikely to be able to deliver these because the homing head - an essential component of the missile - is made only by the CKBA factory in Omsk, Russia.

The R-27P and -EP missile - P for passivnaya (passive) - are equipped with a PRGS-27 (or 9B-1032) seeker developed by CKBA. This operates at centimetric wavelengths, and guides the round to the radar of enemy fighter aircraft. The missile is intended for use against enemy fighters at long range, when the launch aircraft may still be beyond the maximum range of the target's radar. Since the weapon uses passive homing, it will give the target no warning that a launch has been made.

Vympel offers two versions of the missile: the standard R-27P with a maximum range of 72km and the 'energetic' version R-27EP with a bigger rocket motor which gives a maximum range of 110km. This maintains the dual-standard policy set by the original active-radar and infrared-guided versions, which were fielded in medium (R-27R and -27T) and long-range (R-27ER and -27ET) variants respectively. The R-27P and -27EP retain the basic configuration of the earlier members of the AA-10 'Alamo' series, including the novel trapezoidal 'butterfly' control surfaces.

The homing head is capable of detecting a target from a range of more than 200km, but the R-27EP cannot carry out an interception at such distances. The flight time would exceed the operating duration of the missile's onboard power supply. Vympel is working on ways of increasing the operating time of the power supply in order to allow R-27EP engagements at up to 200km.

Series manufacturing of R-27P/EP missiles would be carried out at Vympel's facilities in Moscow. The company does not envisage large production orders for such a specialised weapon, so it would be able to meet the likely demand using its own workshops. At present Vympel is manufacturing small batches of R-77 (RVV-AE) and Kh-29 missiles for export. Annual production of these amounts to only 200-300 examples.

Vympel R-27P/EP anti-radar air-to-air missile specification R-27P R-27EP
Launch weight 248kg 346kg
Warhead weight 39kg 39kg
Length 4,000mm 4,700mm
Diameter 230mm 260mm
Wing span 772mm 800mm
Fin span 972mm 972mm
Maximum altitude of the target 20 km 20 km
Maximum g-load of the target 5.5 5.5
Maximum range 72km 110km
Minimum firing distance 2-3km 2-3km

When we purchased extra R-27s we took them from Ukraine and not Russia, Artem.
I was hoping these would be active variants, but the only ones Artem makes are SARH, Thermal and passive ones.
http://www.artem.ua/en/

The Seeker for all Russian A2A missile is localised now ,well thankfully they had the foresight to do so else

The problem is R-27 is basically obsolete in a key manner. As its a SARH missile, you can't launch and leave. You will have to maintain closure with your target, getting closer and closer to his launched munition. The only advantage is that it has a notional larger range propulsion wise but folks remark the seeker limitations reduce that to R77 level or less (even the ER variant).

Thats issue with any SARH missile and we have been using the shorter range SARH varient of Super 530D for M2K , Infact the M2K would only be getting the active variant with the planned upgrade

Its really frustrating to see how badly Russia mucked up the R-77 design and engineering and despite investing so much into it, we seem to have got nothing.

Dont see any design issue , may be the potato mash stuff may be dragier

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 03 Oct 2015 16:33

Aditya G wrote:Thanks Karan for the elaborate info.

Karan M wrote:....So what has the IAF done in the meantime.. They dropped the EL/L-8222 SPJ from the Su-30 (it had integration issues) and replaced it with the SAP-518. ...
I assumed the former was now a given considering we were deploying the pod in multi national exercises as well..

We did deploy the pod as our "standard", but it had severe issues interfacing with the Russian and Indian avionics on the Su-30, in particular the radar. The two are supposed to work in sync with the EL/L-8222. The RWR in turn is supposed to feed info and even cue the SPJ. We managed that apparently with the MiG-27 upg but the N011M and Tarang and EL/L-8222 combo was not working optimally. Tarang itself had issues - the drooping nose of the Sukhoi and canards mask several approach vectors. So we had to keep changing layouts, finally a few years back DARE revealed they had put two extra antenna (as versus Tarang standard 4) to get a 6 channel RWR. So four of those channels would go to a switching filter and system which would combine the signals and make sure there was optimal coverage. That is "Eagle Eye" which BEL says went into production. CEMILAC (2014): "Six antennae configur tions of R118 Radar Warning Receiver (RWR) system have been certified and cleared with Eagle Eye Interface Unit for installation and flight trials on SU-30".
Meanwhile DARE has also developed a digital receiver for their RWR programs and is working on a digital R118 (http://i.imgur.com/99R4ULc.jpg) - the importance of this is, that it should allow the detection of "exotic radars" like LPI ones.
In the meantime, DARE started displaying Su-30 models with SAP-518 lookalikes (SAP 518 means coverage from 5-18 bands) and HAL mentioned at Aero India, they were solving the issue with Russia. Now when the ground vibration trials for the Su-30 were done by HAL for the Brahmos, HAL revealed that the SAP-518 was on it. (http://www.oneindia.com/india/hal-condu ... 50389.html) See the reference to the ECM pod.
IMHO, given the issues with EL/L-8222, this is the de facto standard pod now for us.

All these integration hassles were in part the reason for the MMRCA. Add the serviceability hassles (Russian spares delay, engine issues) and IAF thought the Rafale would be an easy drop in.
On the plus side, most of these issues are now addressed or in the process of redress. Parrikar has set a target of 70% serviceability by the year end. The jamming pod is being addressed above. The RWR ditto. N011M radar went through its final trials and was fixed recently.
Final Bars actually cleared tests in 2012.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 03 Oct 2015 16:43

Austin wrote:Here is the 2004 Janes Report

Vympel offers R-27EP anti-radar air-to-air missile
Piotr Butowski

Thanks but it doesn't address any of the points I raised. This seems to be a missile designed for an era where two opponents both with SARH missiles dueled, then this would have been very useful. But with one side having ARH and the other SARH/EP, it becomes of limited use as the ARH guy will only guide for a limited period and then break away.

The Seeker for all Russian A2A missile is localised now ,well thankfully they had the foresight to do so else

But we didn't buy from Russia, we took them from Ukraine and Ukraine doesn't have any active seekers..at least Artem isn't mentioning any.

Thats issue with any SARH missile and we have been using the shorter range SARH varient of Super 530D for M2K , Infact the M2K would only be getting the active variant with the planned upgrade

So? The fact remains that we procured R-77s which don't work. Our latest Brahmos equipped Su trials only show R-27s. The Super530D came with the aircraft in the 1980s. The R77s came with the Su-30 in the 2000s, 20 years later and we were forced to go to Ukraine for follow on contracts. In the 1980s we were at an advantage vs non BVR PLAAF and PAF. Now they have an edge with BVR ARH weapons if this state of affairs is correct, thanks to the R77 mess.

Dont see any design issue , may be the potato mash stuff may be dragier

Its a production engineering and reliability issue, same as with the Kh-31s.
There were clearly huge messes with the R-77 given even the Russians didn't induct it.
The Chinese smartly moved on to their PL-10, we need Astra double quick. Astra was meant for the LCA and to complement the R77, now its pretty much the only game in town. Interfacing the Derby with N011M will take another bunch of years.
Wonder what's actually on the MiG-29 UPG.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 03 Oct 2015 17:46

Aditya, another interesting reference for Bars
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-un-v-RvjP1E/U ... nics-4.jpg
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-JSWjKMBDooQ/U ... nics-5.jpg

Note this is different from the Super-30 deep upgrade for Bars proposal (see article above - one and 2 phase). Note though it says latest hardware and software version for current Bars. If the Transmitter has been upgraded to a more powerful one, it would be very interesting and make the current Bars itself very powerful. Also allow the IAF breathing space for the Super-30.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 04 Oct 2015 18:52

Can anyone confirm, IAF Chief saying we have ordered another 16 of the Akash missile system

See around 8:25 onwards
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c7mta-K7FaA

That would make 24 squadrons of the Akash!

Also reference to indigenous radars throughout.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 04 Oct 2015 19:30

Here is an image of the Akash missile system with 2 batteries and support vehicles 25-30 km away from a 2007 brochure.

I post this in the context of a discussion about why Akash cannot be ported to Siachen and used there instead of air defence guns. The manpower and support required to take such a system up into the mountains can be imagined with a few miliseconds of contemplation.

I can pdf the entire brochure if anyone wants.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 04 Oct 2015 19:34

Please PDF!

abhik · Post by **abhik** » 04 Oct 2015 21:17

shiv wrote:Here is an image of the Akash missile system with 2 batteries and support vehicles 25-30 km away from a 2007 brochure.

I post this in the context of a discussion about why Akash cannot be ported to Siachen and used there instead of air defence guns. The manpower and support required to take such a system up into the mountains can be imagined with a few miliseconds of contemplation.

I can pdf the entire brochure if anyone wants.

I think there is a market for a SAM system between conventional SR-SAMs and MANPADS with a man or at least mule portable missile weighing 25-30kgs, something similar to this - LFK NG. Launched from 10-12k feet altitude it should be able to reach 40k feet enough to defend against most air attacks.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 04 Oct 2015 21:22

Karan M wrote:Can anyone confirm, IAF Chief saying we have ordered another 16 of the Akash missile system

See around 8:25 onwards
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c7mta-K7FaA

That would make 24 squadrons of the Akash!

Also reference to indigenous radars throughout.

Yup; listened to it again. We have ordered another 16 to fill up the voids we have.

http://i.ytimg.com/vi/XDH8uzVcRds/0.jpg

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 04 Oct 2015 21:24

The original plan was 7 more Akash squadrons (http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/new ... 711262.cms) given the reference to Akash Mk2 by chief (they are working on it with DRDO and BEL), the 9 squadrons difference could be Mk2. OTOH this report noted at Aero India that IAF wanted upto 24.5 squadrons (http://www.oneindia.com/india/mi2watch- ... 55787.html). So the current additional order (16 squadrons) may be for Akash Mk1 itself and another 8 will be Mk2.

Interesting times.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 04 Oct 2015 21:46

abhik wrote: I think there is a market for a SAM system between conventional SR-SAMs and MANPADS with a man or at least mule portable missile weighing 25-30kgs,

Sure. But replacing an existing working system with a new or unknown one is not going to happen on a whim just because someone thinks that "everyone seems to be doing it".

It has to be proven to work. There is no way any nation on earth other than India has the need or geography to test the working of a system stored at -50 deg C at 5-6000 meters altitude. So many systems that India has tested have simply failed to perform under those conditions.

srai · Post by **srai** » 05 Oct 2015 05:23

Karan M wrote:
Karan M wrote:Can anyone confirm, IAF Chief saying we have ordered another 16 of the Akash missile system

See around 8:25 onwards
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c7mta-K7FaA

That would make 24 squadrons of the Akash!

Also reference to indigenous radars throughout.
Yup; listened to it again. We have ordered another 16 to fill up the voids we have.

http://i.ytimg.com/vi/XDH8uzVcRds/0.jpg

This is my summary of what I heard:

2 x Akash Squadrons -> already inducted (Mk.1)
6 x Akash Squadrons -> will be inducted by Dec 2015 (Mk.1)
16 x Akash Squadrons -> on order (Mk.1)
Akash Mk.2 -> working with DRDO to improve performance and induct in large numbers

IMO, Akash Mk.2 should be done in a way that allows Mk.1 to be upgraded to that standard. If, however, Mk.2 takes a completely different path then there would need to be a separate Mk.1+ upgrade package down the road. Best to avoid that if possible.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 05 Oct 2015 08:50

In short SA-3 has been completely replaced by Akash. Looks like MRSAM will be above and beyond Akash. What a journey. Wish Trishul had been continued too with upgrades. We would have had a cheap system to be used against low flying UAVs and perhaps even PGMs.

srai · Post by **srai** » 05 Oct 2015 09:22

Karan M wrote:In short SA-3 has been completely replaced by Akash. Looks like MRSAM will be above and beyond Akash. What a journey. Wish Trishul had been continued too with upgrades. We would have had a cheap system to be used against low flying UAVs and perhaps even PGMs.

A huge percentage of SA-3s are probably expired by now. By 2004, half of them were already out of service. Ten years later (2015), probably most would be out of service. Check the bolded part of the article below:

First Akash missile system to fill gap in air defence

Tuesday, 23 November 2010
...

The dangerous shortage of India’s air defence resources has been known to Business Standard for some time, but can only now be publicly revealed, with the induction of the Akash remedying the situation. The number of installations that need protection – each is termed a Vulnerable Area (VA) or a Vulnerable Point (VP), depending upon how large it is – has steadily increased. In a letter written on December 4, 2002, to the MoD, the IAF’s Air Marshal Raghu Rajan pointed out that a study by the military’s apex Chiefs of Staff Committee, ordered by the Cabinet Secretariat, had identified 101 Indian VAs/VPs in 1983. That went up to 122 in 1992; to 133 in 1997; and is now understood to be well above 150.

Without the anti-aircraft resources needed to protect these VAs/VPs, the outdated Pechora missiles, which began service in 1974 with a designated life of nine years, have been granted repeated extensions. The Russian manufacturers extended the life to 15 years; when they refused any further extensions, the DRDO extended it unilaterally to 21 years. By 2004, only 30 Pechora units of the 60 originally imported were still in service.

On January 15, 2003, the IAF boss, Air Chief Marshal S Krishnaswamy, wrote to the MoD saying that 60 per cent of India’s VAs/VPs could no longer be provided anti-aircraft protection. The IAF’s top officer wrote: “By 2004… terminal defence of VA/VPs would be only notional… We need to import minimal number of systems to meet our national defence needs.”
...

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 05 Oct 2015 09:51

Hopefully the same pragmatism will kick in for the LCA as well.

Looks like every IAF AFB will have an Akash squadron. Those colocated with major cities/population clusters/IACCS node may get a MRSAM as well. 9 squadrons on order. Rest will be Akash Mk2.

150 VA/VP. Using the MRSAM would expand the bubble. But a 50 km class Akash Mk-2 would also help. IMHO with DRDO's advances in AESA MPR/LLTR programs, and seeker production on the cusp of production, and two pulse motor developed, plus Akash's C3I etc proven - we can put together our own MRSAM derivatives as versus relying on mostly Israeli tech repackaged in the name of the MRSAM.

Avinash Chander mentioned both a QRSAM (in prototyping) and long range SAM (on the drawing board). Both programs need to be progressed ASAP.

Still a breather for the AF.

8 SpyDer, 24 Akash, 9 MRSAM. Not a bad deal. They get more space to devote their fighters for offensive ops.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 05 Oct 2015 09:53

>>>IMO, Akash Mk.2 should be done in a way that allows Mk.1 to be upgraded to that standard. If, however, Mk.2 takes a completely different path then there would need to be a separate Mk.1+ upgrade package down the road. Best to avoid that if possible.

If they are separate programs in entirety, that might complicate logistics but add more firepower. Its a trade-off. I'd err on the side of common logistics and high serviceability as you say.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 05 Oct 2015 12:29

srai wrote:This is my summary of what I heard:

2 x Akash Squadrons -> already inducted (Mk.1)

6 x Akash Squadrons -> will be inducted by Dec 2015 (Mk.1)

16 x Akash Squadrons -> on order (Mk.1)

Akash Mk.2 -> working with DRDO to improve performance and induct in large numbers

This is big news. I am not sure if Honeywell's TALIN navigator is already integrated into Mk. 1 or it will be available only in Mk. II. The US agreed to share this technology with India & TATA SED was designated to receive it.

The 6 squadrons are already known. Their induction started in August 2014 and they are intended for Tezpur, Bagdogra & Hasimara - India-China border.

member_20453 · Post by **member_20453** » 05 Oct 2015 13:11

Karan M wrote:Thanks brar.

In short IAF needs a ~40K PGM inventory for just TSP and PRC to feel comfortable..

I think IAF needs a stock of around 80K PGMs for TSP/PRC to have enough contingency.

Breakdown:

Cruise Missiles: Nirbhay 2000, Brahmos 1-1000, Brahmos Mini-1000, Brahmos-2-1000

LGB kits: 20K

GPS/Glidebombs: 20K

Home Made Cluster Munitions: 10K

CBU-105SFW: 2000

Dumb Bombs: 10K

Nag style medium range air to surface missiles: 10K