Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

All threads that are locked or marked for deletion will be moved to this forum. The topics will be cleared from this archive on the 1st and 16th of each month.
Post Reply
abhijitm
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3679
Joined: 08 Jun 2006 15:02
Contact:

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Post by abhijitm »

It is Nirbhay month isn't it? now waiting...
mody
BRFite
Posts: 1362
Joined: 18 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Mumbai, India

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Post by mody »

The sanctioned strength of Man portable ATGM in the IA is 81,000 missiles. This is a government sanctioned figure, similar to the 42 squadrons of combat aircrafts in the IAF. Not to have developed a man portable ATGM upto now or the IA not mandated and sanctioned the development of a man potable ATGM is simply criminal.

The NAG has been in development for so many years. Yet no one had the sense to see that a BMP or a vehicle mounted ATGM had only a limited role in IA??

The development of a man portable version of NAG with a 2.5 Km range should have been sanctioned atleast in 2005, with a time window of 5 years to demonstrate a prototype version, comparable to the likes of Javelin and Spike. From comparable I only mean in terms of weight and ease of use. The performance would obviously be same or similar to the Nag, which is good enough. When the requirement is so huge, not to have developed something, which is well within our scope, shows the apathy of the services and particularly of IA, towards to indigenous products.

Only hope is that the spike contract somehow gets stuck in a corruption scandal and since US is playing hardball with javelin, we are forced to go the domestic route.
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12187
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Post by Pratyush »

^^^

Even then, the IA will not ask for the domestic product, it will buy some Russian product or will pick up the RF guided Milan 3. I got into a heated argument on this thread a long time ago WRT, MP NAG. I mean all the hard work has been done with the missile, all that is needed to be done is to integrate that knowledge into a smaller and lighter weapon.

Had a start been made in 2005, it would have been ready for an entry into service by now. But, it wasn't.

I feel that the IA, did not come up with the requirement, because the IA, it self was not clear on this requirement. They saw the US army use the Javelin in an ex in India for the first time in IIRC 2009, and it was an eye opener for them and they came up with this requirement of a 3rd gen MP ATGM.
mody
BRFite
Posts: 1362
Joined: 18 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Mumbai, India

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Post by mody »

Pratyush wrote:^^^

Even then, the IA will not ask for the domestic product, it will buy some Russian product or will pick up the RF guided Milan 3. I got into a heated argument on this thread a long time ago WRT, MP NAG. I mean all the hard work has been done with the missile, all that is needed to be done is to integrate that knowledge into a smaller and lighter weapon.

Had a start been made in 2005, it would have been ready for an entry into service by now. But, it wasn't.

I feel that the IA, did not come up with the requirement, because the IA, it self was not clear on this requirement. They saw the US army use the Javelin in an ex in India for the first time in IIRC 2009, and it was an eye opener for them and they came up with this requirement of a 3rd gen MP ATGM.
Even a start in 2009 would have been OK. They had already seen the Nag trials upteen times by 2009 and the Nag was near perfect, even at that time.

IA had already placed huge orders for Milan 2T and Konkurs (somewhere in the range to 10,000 to 15,000 missiles each), between 2007 to 2010. They surely knew that they needed to phase out the older Milan's and replace them with the 3rd gen fire and forget type of missiles.

To think of all the hard work that has gone into the Nag, 20 plus years of effort, having an indigenous IIR seeker and also perhaps a MMW seeker shortly, an order of 443 missiles, is almost an insult.

Reducing the range from 4 Kms to 2.5 Kms and making other other changes to system, the weight can probably be reduced to between 14 to 18 Kgs. In fact there was a news item in 2005, stating that DRDO was going to start working on a Man portable version of the Nag. Though nothing seems to come of that.
Here's a link to the news item:
http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/tod ... ef=archive

The last few user trials of Nag are also an indicator, that the missile system is never going to be deployed in numbers by IA. First they found faults in the Namica, after having slept for atleast the last 5 years, during which time they have been conducting user trials. Then in the last trials, they seemed to have tried Lock On After Launch, when the system is clearly not designed for it.
John
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3447
Joined: 03 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Post by John »

Pratyush wrote:^^^
Even then, the IA will not ask for the domestic product, it will buy some Russian product or will pick up the RF guided Milan 3. I got into a heated argument on this thread a long time ago WRT, MP NAG. I mean all the hard work has been done with the missile, all that is needed to be done is to integrate that knowledge into a smaller and lighter weapon.
Fact is man portable version hasn't been developed, developing sub 20kg fire and forget missile is easier said than done. So the fault lays with IA for not waiting for another 20 years for man portable variant?
Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3065
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Post by Kanson »

vasu raya wrote:if its all electronic they could do any number of tests without actually firing interceptors, and they do that based on Kanson's post that simulations were carried prior to the 2006 test, so why do they announce that dimension only when actual interceptors are fired, deterrence? they could have fired PDV next month without saying anything about its electronic simulation in the recent test
It is an important step in BMD where multiple missiles were intercepted though electronically. It shows the maturity of the BMD to tackle multiple threats as you see in Israel Gaza border. So being such an important event, they publicized the test. These steps give confidence to both user and nation in BMD development. By publicizing these events they(both user and nation as whole) are indeed treated as stakeholder. Ultimately this is for them. Further as add-on, this gives no room for anyone to say, "DRDO is pulling rabbit out of hat", or "Only so little tests were conducted whereas US conducted so many tests in BMD"
On a separate note:
if an AESA based Rajendra were to fill in for the desi version of Iron Dome's radar, do we really need add a new set of logistics for this layer of defence?
ID became hot topic among Indians with the introduction of Nasr. These Nasr and Fajr-5 are copies of Chinese rockets and Chinese do have wide variety of rockets. Point I'm making is, the threat we may face from this sector could be very different and sophisticated than what Israeli might be facing. Probability of retaining Rajendra(here i mean, a desi product than outright purchase) is high. Let's see.
rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7830
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Post by rohitvats »

mody wrote:The sanctioned strength of Man portable ATGM in the IA is 81,000 missiles. This is a government sanctioned figure, similar to the 42 squadrons of combat aircrafts in the IAF. Not to have developed a man portable ATGM upto now or the IA not mandated and sanctioned the development of a man potable ATGM is simply criminal.
That is the total number of ATGM holding for the IA - which comprises primarily of requirement for Infantry and BMP-1/2 used by Mechanized Infantry. Gun launched ATGM like INVAR (for T-90) is the latest addition to this tally. In due course of time, helicopter mounted ATGM (like Hell-fire for Apaches and PARS-3LR for WSI-Dhruv/LCH and then HELINA) will add to the tally.

The NAG has been in development for so many years. Yet no one had the sense to see that a BMP or a vehicle mounted ATGM had only a limited role in IA??
And this wisdom is based on what kind of understanding? You do realize that an ATGM is the only means which allows a BMP-2 to take on a MBT - w/o ATGM, these BMPs (and their occupants and entire Mech Infantry Force) stand no chance against MBT force. The only other vehicle mounted ATGM are on BRDM - but these are recce vehicles and ATGM are again critical for them to fight their way out or act as screening force.
The development of a man portable version of NAG with a 2.5 Km range should have been sanctioned at least in 2005, with a time window of 5 years to demonstrate a prototype version, comparable to the likes of Javelin and Spike. From comparable I only mean in terms of weight and ease of use. The performance would obviously be same or similar to the Nag, which is good enough. When the requirement is so huge, not to have developed something, which is well within our scope, shows the apathy of the services and particularly of IA, towards to indigenous products.
Jumping to conclusions, are we?

NAG reached the status of a mature platform in 2008-2010 time frame...on what basis (level of technology available in house) could the development of a man-portable version have been sanctioned? What kind of technology base did we have to develop a man-portable version of a missile which itself was to yet to prove its credentials?

And you forget that BDL was in the process of providing Milan-2T to the Indian Army - IA had formulated a RFP for tandem-warhead Milan-2T in 2003 (because of advent of ERA in PA) and BDL delivered a missile in 2007 - which did not meet the requirement and IA closed the RFP. But BDL returned with 'new' missile in 2008 - this again did not meet the requirement. Finally, on the protestation of BDL Union, IA was forced to accept sub-standard missile in 2008 by the MOD.

Another question which you need to answer - there were reports of DRDO developing a man-portable version of NAG, whatever happened to it? If I understand correctly, stuff is nowadays imported only if DRDO says they cannot develop it in the required time frame. HELINA is no where in picture and PARS-3L is set to come as INTERIM measure...sometimes, we need to look beyond simply blaming IA for everything that ails Indian MIL-IND Complex.
rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7830
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Post by rohitvats »

mody wrote: Even a start in 2009 would have been OK. They had already seen the Nag trials up teen times by 2009 and the Nag was near perfect, even at that time.
Reducing the range from 4 Kms to 2.5 Kms and making other other changes to system, the weight can probably be reduced to between 14 to 18 Kgs. In fact there was a news item in 2005, stating that DRDO was going to start working on a Man portable version of the Nag. Though nothing seems to come of that.
So, as per you, all it takes is simple miniaturization of the elements and voila, NAG would have materialized into a man-portable version? Well, it that was so easy, why was it not done? As you've yourself stated, DRDO did make announcement about man-portable version of NAG but nothing came out of it - I'm sure, even that is the fault of IA. Isn't it?

Again, if I understand correctly, each RFP falls in a certain category - and this category is arrived at after scrutinizing the domestic capability and securing the interest of DPSU (like in case of EW equipment which went to DPSU). The fact that RFP was issued to Uncle Sam for Javelin in the first place (and other OEMs) with condition for TOT, it is likely that DRDO was itself looking for technology from abroad - especially, the seeker tech for a man-portable version.
IA had already placed huge orders for Milan 2T and Konkurs (somewhere in the range to 10,000 to 15,000 missiles each), between 2007 to 2010. They surely knew that they needed to phase out the older Milan's and replace them with the 3rd gen fire and forget type of missiles.
To begin with, please get your facts correct - rather than post what you thing, please read up and post the facts.

RFP was issued in 2009-2010 for 3rd generation ATGM - and keeping in mind the induction schedule for these missiles, the delivery of 4,100 Milan-2T was staggered. Konkurs are irrelevant to debate - they are for BMP-2 in the IA.
To think of all the hard work that has gone into the Nag, 20 plus years of effort, having an indigenous IIR seeker and also perhaps a MMW seeker shortly, an order of 443 missiles, is almost an insult.
What to you is an insult, is to me plain ignorance - using your knowledge, please tell me, how many Nag missiles should have IA ordered and what should be done with them? Also, ever heard of Defense Plan wise induction of equipment into Services? And, how do you know there will be no repeat orders?
The last few user trials of Nag are also an indicator, that the missile system is never going to be deployed in numbers by IA. First they found faults in the NAMICA, after having slept for at least the last 5 years, during which time they have been conducting user trials.


Was the IA conducting trials of NAMICA all these years or the Missile itself?
Then in the last trials, they seemed to have tried Lock On After Launch, when the system is clearly not designed for it
Again, jumping the gun, are we?

Here, read this: http://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/techno ... 707196.ece

So, as per the above report, RCI had as of 2011 tested RF Technology for MMW Seeker during NAG trials and this can be used for Lock-on After Launch (LOAL) mode.
Nag Project Director S. S. Mishra said that in Sunday's flight, the seeker's capability to track the target in a ‘Lock-on-Before-Launch' method, right from the missile's firing and throughout the trajectory, was successfully demonstrated. In future, the seeker would be used in a system in ‘Lock-on-After-Launch' mode for extension of the range.
How do you know that IA was not testing this feature in one of the NAG missiles during the trial? All the news we have of that test is some anonymous source from DRDO.
JE Menon
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7127
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Post by JE Menon »

>>Prithvi Defence Vehicle (PDV) interceptor missile will be launched from Wheeler’s Island, travelling 110-150 kilometres into space, where it will destroy an incoming missile

Question from a neophyte: does this mean we can also hit satellites? I'm presuming so, but some confirmation would be nice.
negi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13112
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: Ban se dar nahin lagta , chootiyon se lagta hai .

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Post by negi »

^ I would think so , spy/military satellites are generally stationed in LEO (100-500km) .
kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6278
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Post by kit »

negi wrote:^ I would think so , spy/military satellites are generally stationed in LEO (100-500km) .
the lower LEO orbit sats might be targeted using PDV at its highest known altitude ceiling, but for a effective envelope the missile needs to go much further., possible next gen PDV could achieve that goal feeding telemetry data from deep space tracking systems.

But ., probably it is the ocean reconnaissance Chinese sats parked in GEO orbits that might be of more concern to India.
vasu raya
BRFite
Posts: 1658
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Post by vasu raya »

Kanson wrote:It is an important step in BMD where multiple missiles were intercepted though electronically. It shows the maturity of the BMD to tackle multiple threats as you see in Israel Gaza border. So being such an important event, they publicized the test. These steps give confidence to both user and nation in BMD development. By publicizing these events they(both user and nation as whole) are indeed treated as stakeholder. Ultimately this is for them. Further as add-on, this gives no room for anyone to say, "DRDO is pulling rabbit out of hat", or "Only so little tests were conducted whereas US conducted so many tests in BMD"

ID became hot topic among Indians with the introduction of Nasr. These Nasr and Fajr-5 are copies of Chinese rockets and Chinese do have wide variety of rockets. Point I'm making is, the threat we may face from this sector could be very different and sophisticated than what Israeli might be facing. Probability of retaining Rajendra(here i mean, a desi product than outright purchase) is high. Let's see.
Thanks for the info Kansonji! with all the Chinese proliferation in the neighborhood, the opacity about their armaments and capabilities should be cleared
Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Post by Singha »

Kit ghe cheen ocean recon sats are not in geo. thats why someone was saying they need 100 in sets of 3 to get real time coverage over the west pacific....hence must be leo or at best meo to be rotating so fast presumably in northsouth direction. I dont know if the highly elliptic polar orbit can be changed to a highly elliptic equatorial orbit to keep eyes on india longer..prolly not?
Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Post by Austin »

JE Menon wrote:>>Prithvi Defence Vehicle (PDV) interceptor missile will be launched from Wheeler’s Island, travelling 110-150 kilometres into space, where it will destroy an incoming missile

Question from a neophyte: does this mean we can also hit satellites? I'm presuming so, but some confirmation would be nice.
Hell No ....To intercept a Satellite at LEO you need an interceptor that can intercept a target flying at little more than 7 km/sec which essentially is the same needing to intercept ICBM type targets.

PDV is more in THAAD class it can intercept IRBM type targets but at higher altitude likely means target flying at 4-4.5 km/sec

The next interceptor under development to intercept ICBM types target may well intercept a LEO sats and its interception chart which DRDO showed was altitude of 200 km just the right type to intercept LEO sats :twisted:
nash
BRFite
Posts: 946
Joined: 08 Aug 2008 16:48

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Post by nash »

Austin wrote: The next interceptor under development to intercept ICBM types target may well intercept a LEO sats and its interception chart which DRDO showed was altitude of 200 km just the right type to intercept LEO sats :twisted:
It would be great if you share that chart with us or me..
SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 25085
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Post by SSridhar »

The building blocks for making an ASAT weapon are already there, such as Agni IV for propulsion and the kill vehicle of the AAD. Agni IV reaches a height of 900 Kms enough to cover all LEOs. That is why, I believe, that V.K.Saraswat keeps saying that the country possesses capabilities to neutralise adversarial satellites in space” in the low-earth and polar orbits.
Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Post by Singha »

Needs to be as light and cheap as possible fr volume production and mobility.
vivek_ahuja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2394
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 16:58

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Post by vivek_ahuja »

Following up from the Possible Scenarios thread to here for more relevance of discussion:
Manish_Sharma wrote:
Singha wrote:The kaveri is way too big and powerful to be a cruise missile engine unless you want a massive soviet era ks6 kingfish type missile as big as a plane.
Is it this one?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KSR-5#Variants
The Raduga KSR-5 (NATO reporting name AS-6 Kingfish) was a long-range, air launched cruise missile and anti ship missile developed by the Soviet Union. It was essentially a scaled down version of the Raduga Kh-22 'Kitchen', built to be carried by the less capable Tu 16.

Specifications

Length: 10 m (35 feet)
Wingspan: 2.5 m (9 feet)
Diameter: 0.9 m (3 feet)
Launch weight: 4,000 kg (8,800 lbs.)
Speed: Mach 3.5
Range: 300 - 700 km (185-435 miles)
Guidance: Active radar or anti-radar homing
Warhead: 1000 kg (2,200 lbs.) high explosive or 350 kT nuclear
Look up the AS-5 Kelt. That missile is actually going to look like a air-to-air missile in comparison to the kind of monstrosity you will end up with using the Kaveri for a LRCM design...

Image
SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 25085
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Post by SSridhar »

Land Identified for Missile Testing Range
Machilipatnam: This historic town in Krishna district will soon find a place in the world map with the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) proposing to set up a Missile Launch Site near Machilipatnam.

The State government has identified land for the proposed missile testing range in Nagayalanka mandal, near the coastal town. Details of the land available have been sent to the defence authorities.

Krishna District Collector Budhaprakash Jyothi said following a plea by the DRDO seeking land near Machilipantam for setting up the long range missile testing site, the Revenue officials forwarded the file to the Government of India on the extent of land and other information.

Machilipatnam Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) I. Venkateswara Reddy said that the DRDO had asked for land a few months ago and a 325-acre land was identified at Gollalamoda village for the new missile launch site. A few acres of the land are under occupation by local fishermen and farmers.

“The DRDO asked for 350 acres for the launch site. Recently, we submitted the details on the type of land available, price position and how much land is under occupation. We are waiting for further orders from the government”, said the RDO.

Director General of DRDO and Scientific Advisor to the Defence Minister, V.K. Saraswat, announced the launch of the missile testing range, near the Coastal town in Machilipatnam, in Andhra Pradesh at a cost of Rs.1,000 crore.

The ambitious project is expected to be completed in three years.
wig
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2162
Joined: 09 Feb 2009 16:58

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Post by wig »

Ammo worth Rs 408 cr defective, Rs 279 cr spent on import substitute
Design and manufacturing defects in ammunition for tanks produced indigenously by the ordnance factories led over one lakh rounds valued at Rs 408 crore being declared unserviceable. Consequently, the ammunition had to be imported at a cost of Rs 279 crore to overcome critical shortages with the mechanised forces.

This type of ammunition was being developed by the Ordnance Factory Board (OFB) on the basis of design developed by the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) since 1997 and since then several lakh rounds were procured by the Army.

Inspections of ammunition holding depots by Army Headquarters revealed critical defects such as cracks in the cartridge case, flimsy propellant material and sticking cartridge of cases in packing containers, which rendered the ammunition unsafe for firing. Audit scrutiny revealed that on the basis of these inspections, 1.36 lakh rounds were declared unserviceable, out of which 1.02 lakh rounds had not completed their prescribed shelf life.

This resulted in a slugging match between the stakeholders. While the Army attributed the defects to insufficient quality control during manufacture, the OFB passed on the buck to the DRDO claiming design deficiencies. DRDO argued that if the ammunition suffered from design defects, then the entire quantity of ammunition produced since 1997, valued at Rs 1,400 crore ought to have manifested similar defects and not just the lots in question.

A task force comprising representatives from the Army, the OFB, the DRDO and the Directorate General of Quality Assurance to look into the issue concluded that the ammunition was beyond repairs as the procedure was hazardous, costly and reliability of the repaired ammunition could not be guaranteed. It has also been revealed that contrary to prescribed procedure, no serious investigation was conducted to ascertain the reasons for defects in the ammunition and to fix responsibility for such failure.

BLAME GAME

The Ordnance Factory Board passed on the buck to the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) claiming design deficiencies
The DRDO argued that if the ammunition suffered from design defects, then the entire quantity of ammunition produced since 1997, valued at Rs 1,400 crore, ought to have manifested similar defects and not just the lots in question
A task force to look into the issue concluded that the ammunition was beyond repair as the procedure was hazardous, costly and reliability of the repaired ammunition could not be guaranteed
http://www.tribuneindia.com/2012/20121206/nation.htm#5
wig
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2162
Joined: 09 Feb 2009 16:58

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Post by wig »

http://www.tribuneindia.com/2012/20121206/nation.htm#5
regarding firing ranges it seems the army is losing them at an alarming pace, army has lost half of its firing ranges in 3 yrs The number falls from 104 in 2009 to 51 as states deny land use
In three years, the Army has lost over half of its field firing ranges that are vital for training and indoctrination of troops. The Ministry of Defence is holding the state governments responsible for not making land available for use by the Army, resulting in the number plummeting from 104 to just 51.

“Out of the total 104 firing ranges held by the Army till 2009, 38 were deleted from the list of firing ranges in 2009 due to these being not available for use by the Army or not re-notified by the state governments concerned in spite of concerted efforts,” Defence Minister AK Antony said in Parliament.

“Out of the remaining 66 firing ranges, 15 have been de-notified by various state governments,” he added.

The non-availability of ranges has adversely affected training and operational preparedness of the Army as it not only restricts mechanised manoeuvres under simulated battle conditions, but also prevents live firing by tanks and artillery which is essential for battle inoculation of troops and testing equipment.

Another reason behind dwindling number of ranges is said to be the clearances required to be obtained from the Ministry of Environment and Forests for use of forest land for non-forest activities in accordance with the Forest Conservation Act, 1980.

“Due to urbanisation, encroachment, unauthorised occupation and land rights resting with the state governments, the firing range land for armed forces is shrinking year after year,” Antony rued. Pointing out that concerted efforts were being made at all levels to ensure early re-notification of the de-notified ranges with the Army Commands also taking up the issue at Civil Military Liaison Conferences, Antony said efforts were on to impress upon the state governments and the Ministry of Environment and Forest for re- notification/acquisition of field firing ranges.

The issue of non-availability of firing ranges was also taken up by Parliament’s Standing Committee on Defence, which observed that while the Ministry of Defence had launched a process of consultations with all stakeholders in order to find a mutually acceptable solution to the problem, it was high time that the ministry initiated “expeditious and concrete steps” to resolve the issue in a time-bound manner.

In fact, a recent report by the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) had revealed that inadequate infrastructure and facilities, including firing ranges and simulators, had compromised the training standards of recruits. These deficiencies, CAG observed, resulted in poor standards of firing of troops and non-achievement of excellence in battle efficiency tests and physical proficiency tests.

DWINDLING NUMBERS

38 entries were deleted from the list of firing ranges in 2009
15 more firing ranges have also been de-notified by various state govts
CAG has recently observed that dwindling number of firing ranges has adversely affected the training standards of recruits
jamwal
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5727
Joined: 19 Feb 2008 21:28
Location: Somewhere Else
Contact:

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Post by jamwal »

tsarkar wrote:^^ We need to understand the dynamics of range, before concluding more range is best.

Firstly, for any engagement, we need to detect. Then we need to track to understand its intention & to extrapolate the track to understand its intentions. Thereafter we need to identify it - is it a Pak Mirage 5 coming out to attack the fleet or a Sea Harrier coming back with non functional communications).

As the radius of range increases, the challenges to detect + track + identify increases exponentially. For example, is the blip at extreme range a migrating bird or a UAV gathering target data? So for a weapons system, the limitation isnt the propellant of the missile but the sophistication of its sensors.

Hence 70 km is an optimized range based on considering all factors. And the Israeli sensors (2248, sharing commonality with Green Pine & our LRTR) are better than equivalent Russian ones. And much lighter, enabling ships to carry a higher load. (LRSAM weighs 275 kg, S300 weight is surely higher).

Just missile range is highly dangerous http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siberia_Ai ... light_1812
Cant's these long range missiles be guided by an AWACS ?
Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Post by Singha »

On paper possible but never operationalized because airborne presence cannot be guaranteed.
kmkraoind
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3908
Joined: 27 Jun 2008 00:24

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Post by kmkraoind »

Russian anti-tank missile passes state tests
Moscow, Dec 6 (IANS/RIA Novosti) The Russian military has completed state acceptance trials of the modernised Shturm-SM man-portable anti-tank missile system, its chief designer said.

“The modernised 9K132 Shturm SM made by KBM successfully completed its state acceptance trials,” Konstruktorskoye Byuro Mashinostroyenie (KBM) chief designer Georgy Vasiliev said.

The missile system was modernised to allow it to be used around the clock, he said.

“This is the main difference between it and the previous Shturm-S modification,” he added.

It has also been altered to allow it to be installed on air, land and sea platforms, he said.

“For this, the highly effective multi-role Ataka guided missile has been fitted with a second, laser guidance system,” he said.

Shturm-SM is optimised for destruction of modern armoured vehicles, fortified structures and low-flying aerial targets out to ranges of up to 6,000 metres
.
A new circus might start in Indian ATGM acquisition process. :D
krishnan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7342
Joined: 07 Oct 2005 12:58
Location: 13° 04' N , 80° 17' E

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Post by krishnan »

I got a pooch...why do ships need anti-tank missile , even ship born helos wont probably need it
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12187
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Post by Pratyush »

kmkraoind wrote:Russian anti-tank missile passes state tests
SNIP...........
A new circus might start in Indian ATGM acquisition process. :D

Yep, the IA will use this missile to Junk NAG and NAMICA. 9K114_Shturm
John
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3447
Joined: 03 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Post by John »

krishnan wrote:I got a pooch...why do ships need anti-tank missile , even ship born helos wont probably need it
They are used in fast attack boats and also portable ATM are deployed inflatables' by commandos.
Pratyush wrote:Yep, the IA will use this missile to Junk NAG and NAMICA. 9K114_Shturm
Is this post needed what is with all the latest bashing? This missile is not in the same class as PARS-3 or NAG.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Post by ramana »

So what happened to the DRDO planned range at Balasore? Chandipur was always Interim Test Range(ITR).
member_23364
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 39
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Post by member_23364 »

Any update on Astra? The last test of this missile was on May 20, 2011 and that was just a ballistic flight test.

19 months without a flight test? Has this gone the IJT way?
krishnan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7342
Joined: 07 Oct 2005 12:58
Location: 13° 04' N , 80° 17' E

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Post by krishnan »

Prem Kumar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4215
Joined: 31 Mar 2009 00:10

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Post by Prem Kumar »

I am not so worried about the Russian ATGM. If anything, I am concerned for the NAG & Helina, given the advent of Spike. If NAG/Helina dont get out of their test mode and into Production at the soonest, they will have competition from the "Spike family". This family consists of not just the man-portable ATGM, which is what the IA is evaluating. It has a vehicle mounted version, extended range Heli launched versions etc.

Its a good missile. And once the Yehudis get their foot in the door, I can bet my left testimonial that they are going to pitch the other variations.
sudhan
BRFite
Posts: 1157
Joined: 01 Jul 2009 17:53
Location: Timbuktoo..

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Post by sudhan »

Saar, this article is from 2011..
hnair
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4633
Joined: 03 May 2006 01:31
Location: Trivandrum

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Post by hnair »

^^^ the 2011 article answers questions on the lull in test firing of the missiles during 2012. Probably needed a big rework (2013 target)
krishnan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7342
Joined: 07 Oct 2005 12:58
Location: 13° 04' N , 80° 17' E

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Post by krishnan »

No wonder pinaka rockets take so much time to build......saw how they are done on discovery channel
nash
BRFite
Posts: 946
Joined: 08 Aug 2008 16:48

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Post by nash »

There is one bright part of that article is Tejas with Astra(sound like couple :) ) by the end of 2013, if it is done then not bad, we would have indigenous BVR capable Tejas by end of next year.
koti
BRFite
Posts: 1118
Joined: 09 Jul 2009 22:06
Location: Hyderabad, India

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Post by koti »

Iron Dome has proven capability against short range missiles, and so can counter Pakistan's Hatf series missile including Nasr (Hatf-9), a multi-tube short-range tactical missile in Pakistan's arsenal with a range of 60 km.
Link
I am yet to find a source that says Iron dome can be used against incoming SRB's or cruise missiles. David's sling OTOH is specifically designed for this. It makes more sense if we were looking at the David's Sling rather then Iron dome to counter the threat of Hatf to our formations or border cities let alone farther Metros.
Am I missing something about the Iron Dome here?
Varoon Shekhar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2178
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 23:26

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Post by Varoon Shekhar »

http://flonnet.com/stories/20121228292504200.htm

Another excellent write up by T.S., on the anti-missile test conducted Nov 23rd.
RamaY
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17249
Joined: 10 Aug 2006 21:11
Location: http://bharata-bhuti.blogspot.com/

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Post by RamaY »

I am sure the Indian team is doing a stress testing where a number of missiles are coming at multiple targets and multiple systems are engaging them. And the threats have disparate flight profiles and coming from both sides of the borders.

For example how would the system respond to 2 threats coming from west and 3 threats coming from east at a given area with different flight profiles?
nits
BRFite
Posts: 1155
Joined: 01 May 2006 22:56
Location: Some where near Equator...

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Post by nits »

A very silly Q - does our current AAD shield us from Cruise missile attack also... ? If No is india developing one ?
abhik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3090
Joined: 02 Feb 2009 17:42

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Post by abhik »

krishnan wrote:No wonder pinaka rockets take so much time to build......saw how they are done on discovery channel
Missed it, anybody recorded it by any chance?
Post Reply