India's missile defence - Arrow vs. S-300

Raj Malhotra · Post by **Raj Malhotra** » 04 Oct 2002 00:44

As we are talking about these systems then we might try to know them a little

Arrow missile is two stage 1200kg with “active radar” seeker.I think this is the most sophisticated system in service. I am assuming this as USA does have mastery of electronics/computers and when two missiles may be closing at each other at 10,000km per hour, it IS necessary.

Almaz S-300PMU-1-2-3 or SA-10 is single stage 1500kg missile. Both anti aircraft and ATBM role. It only has semi active seeker, means that completely dependent of ground based radar for end game also. Also installed on ships by Russia and China. India seems to have gone in for lighter Shitil 700kg missile for ships (perhaps depending upon Carrier to provide extended aircover). Later on I think this ship based role will be taken over by Akash for India. Though if India builds bigger ships then arrow or S-10 may also be considered. Advanced version of this missile Sa-10 called s-400 has been supposedly cancelled. Russian intends to go in for fifth gen missile directly. To be fielded in 2010-15. (??)

Antey S-300V or Antey 2500 or Sa-12 is two stage missile of around 2500-5500kg (depending on the size of the booster). Primarily ATBM role. I strongly suspect that India and Russians are together developing an advanced version of this missile with active radar seeker on the missile. (Guess date would be 2004 onward for fielding. The secrecy may be as some aspects of a very heavy missile may infringe MTCR). Perhaps advanced computers for the radars also. This missile may be down the road for a couple of years and that is why the desperation to get arrow. India will use Akash for anti aircraft use I suppose. Though it is also possible that India may develop two versions of the missile with small and big booster – a mobile/ship based system and another heavier ATBM version. (Note I am not referring to 400kg small missile-forgot name which is part of these systems as this role will be played by Akash in India.)

Tim · Post by **Tim** » 04 Oct 2002 01:33

Bhavani,

I never said Russian deterrence didn't work. I simply objected to the statement that Russia could win a nuclear war with the US.

I think the US deployed nuclear tipped SAMs in the 1950s. I can't remember offhand, but I believe the Nike or Nike-Hercules, and also possibly one of the "T" series of naval SAMs, had nuclear warheads.

The Galosh/Gazelle used to have large (up to 1MT) warheads, as did the US Sprint/Safeguard types deployed in the 1970s. I believe the Russians have redeployed their ABMs with smaller warheads in the kiloton range.

Tim

John · Post by **John** » 04 Oct 2002 03:44

Also installed on ships by Russia and China. India seems to have gone in for lighter Shitil 700kg missile for ships (perhaps depending upon Carrier to provide extended aircover).

SA-10 naval version is called SA-N-6 it is only fitted on russian cruisers no chinese vessels have them reason why India didn't choose is because its expensive and needs vessel with displacement greater than 10,000 tons or delhi's are only around 7,000 tons. Shtil has some anti ballistic missile capability shtil can also launch akash missile so in time it will be fitted in vessels.
There is no need for active radar for anti ballistic missile system SA-10 is not semiactive it uses track via missile similar to the patriot i doubt the russian will change because using active radar u can't get range as great 200 km.

geeth · Post by **geeth** » 04 Oct 2002 11:03

I have some problems in understanding this 'guidance' thingie fitted on missiles (take it as poor grasp of electronics). Could someone explain in some more detail the functions of :

1. A radar in 'guiding' a missile - ground based or that fitted on the nose of the missile - i.e., How does the Radar 'guide' the missile? Is it just a sensing unit?
3. What is the most important component that makes the missile deadly - ie., to make the 'guidance' accurate? Do mechanical components play any role?
4. How does the accuracy/advancement in Radar tech translate into accuracy of the missile?
5. Where exactly does the Russians lack in knowledge / expertise?
6. If the Russians are inferior in missile technogogy, why most of their missile systems are considered deadly? Some of them are considered to be even superior to the American systems.

===========

Tim, let us give credit where it is due. May be to put at rest such speculations, a couple of years back Russians claimed to have fired an ICBM buried in a silo (or nuclear sub?) for almost 30 years. The missile hit its target some 8,000 KMs away. Later they fired another one - this time the Americans who tracked it found the trajectory a bit funny.The missile after gaining height changed course and moved horizonally. It was speculated that Russians were testing scramjet tech.

Raj Malhotra · Post by **Raj Malhotra** » 04 Oct 2002 12:12

Originally posted by john:
SA-10 naval version is called SA-N-6 it is only fitted on russian cruisers no chinese vessels have them reason why India didn't choose is because its expensive and needs vessel with displacement greater than 10,000 tons or delhi's are only around 7,000 tons. Shtil has some anti ballistic missile capability shtil can also launch akash missile so in time it will be fitted in vessels.
There is no need for active radar for anti ballistic missile system SA-10 is not semiactive it uses track via missile similar to the patriot i doubt the russian will change because using active radar u can't get range as great 200 km.

John, I am not sure but I believe China has ordered land based versions of SA-10 and also ordered for/installed the SA-6-N for its naval vessels.

My comments on Shitil were just a statement of fact and not a criticism. I doubt whether present version of SA-6-N can be useful over the full range at all. In any case the Delhi class may have been ordered/planned when SA-6 may not have been on offer and in any case you are right to say that Delhi class is too light to install heavier SAM missiles. I wonder about Shitil anti missile abilities as its response time seems very long. (~25 seconds)

With my limited knowledge, track via missile is just two way data transfer system and has nothing to do with active seeker in the missile.

Also the active seeker becomes useful over long range only. As the ground based radar does not have to illuminate the target for the whole time and also at the extended ranges. In fact with the radar seeker on the missile the error margins may be smaller allowing for better interception profile. Also with active radar seeker, I guess the proximity fusing and warhead detonation will be more accurate and timely. So I really donot understand your comments as to why one cannot get 200km range with active radar seeker. I think you may be confusing active phased array ground based radars with active radar seeker on the missile.

I hope Indian version of Sa-12 also have vector thrust on second stage which will perhaps allow it more maneuverability and capability to intercept at higher altitudes.

Raj Malhotra · Post by **Raj Malhotra** » 04 Oct 2002 12:14

Originally posted by geeth:
I have some problems in understanding this 'guidance' thingie fitted on missiles (take it as poor grasp of electronics). Could someone explain in some more detail.

Geeth roughly speaking:-

1. surveillance radar detects the target. This radar is long range but less degree of accuracy. It informs the concerned sector about the threat. Say 360 degree coverage, 600km range with 500m accuracy
2. sector surveillance radar with now track the target and assign a specific missile battery to deal with the target. This radar will normally have sector coverage say 90 degree, 300km range with 100 m accuracy
3. then the missile radar will lock on the target the fire the missile towards the target. It will tract the target and missile and provide the info to missile to reach to the target. Say 200km range with 25m accuracy
4. at close range, the missile own seeker will take over and do the end game. Radar range say 10km with say impact and proximity fuse.

The sophistication of the radar lies on :-

1. Speed of detection and accurate measurements of its bearings
2. Correct identification of the target
3. data refresh rate
4. Resistance to ECM and ECCM
5. optronic capability
6. Data links and response time of missile
7. Range, coverage
8. Capability to remain locked on the target
9. Capability to filter out the clutter
10. IFF
11. MTBF
12. The size of target which can be detected
13. Capacity to differentiate between close targets
14. Multiple target tracking, missile guidance etc
15. User friendliness
16. Ruggedness
17. fusing

Harry Van · Post by **Harry Van** » 04 Oct 2002 14:35

The sophistication of the radar lies on :-

1. Speed of detection and accurate measurements of its bearings
2. Correct identification of the target
3. data refresh rate
4. Resistance to ECM and ECCM
5. optronic capability
6. Data links and response time of missile
7. Range, coverage
8. Capability to remain locked on the target
9. Capability to filter out the clutter
10. IFF
11. MTBF
12. The size of target which can be detected
13. Capacity to differentiate between close targets
14. Multiple target tracking, missile guidance etc
15. User friendliness
16. Ruggedness
17. fusing

wow ! I will just come back ...on the way to the bathroom....!

I think track-via-missile is where the trajectory data is bounced off the target missile and received by the seeker on the head of the intercepting projectile.

I think given the low re-entry velocities of the paki missile posted in the previous L&M discussion folder , intercepting it using S-300 and the other variants should pose no such problems.I think India has warheads which can be fitted on SAMs.It has always been reported Akash can carry a nuke warhead.A sub-kiloton warhead or a neutron bomb can make a mess of any missile from a distance of even 2 km.Plus I think we an try other conventional EMP devices such as those which give bursts of high-radiation when a conducting coil is imloded using explosives.

Harry Van · Post by **Harry Van** » 04 Oct 2002 17:21

5. Where exactly does the Russians lack in knowledge / expertise?
6. If the Russians are inferior in missile technogogy, why most of their missile systems are considered deadly? Some of them are considered to be even superior to the American systems.

The gap that existed betwen the Russians and Americans in the cold war is fast closing though the Russians may still lag behind.

In submarine tech , the Kilo class has brought silence back to the Russian subs.The latest AKula II SSN's are said to be more silent than the LA class SSN.Though the Viriginia class SSNs are silenter.

In a/c Mig-29 marks a level of sophistication close to western standards.USA bought 29 of them from Moldova and subjected it to a scalpel.

In AD systems the latest AD systems are better than western systems.

The gap is much less today , even if Russia lags behind.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 04 Oct 2002 18:10

Austin,

I'd be very surprised if the latest versions of the S-300 have the capability to intercept an incoming IRBM. Maybe with a nuclear warhead on the interceptor, but even then your intercept envelope is pretty small.

>>>Well Tim , The russians as i have said the S-300V in atbm role ,They have tested it against target like Scud , the kinda once used in gulf war , with a conventional warhead with sucessful result , Although the ability of the Russian SAM Survellence & FC radar to discriminate a real warhead against a Decoy or for that matter the Missile breaking up in Mid Air and creating lots of debris as happened in Gulf War remains unknown .
>>> India is going for the Anetey-2500 a much improved version of S-300V, It is possible that the Indians are working with russians to improve its Guidance and improving its electronics etc . Russians he Russians have cancelled the S-400 Triumf and have decided to field the A-2500 , which really shows the armed forces have in this SAM. More ever the Russians have been Masters in the field of SAM/ATBM the kind of technology even the Western countries dont posses till this date.
>>>>> One should not forget about the recent war in Eastern Europe where even the Americans AWACS was told to stay away far of from basic S-300PMU1 missile enevelope coz the Americans suspected that the Yugoslavia had few of these SAMS such is the fear of this sam.
>>>>> BTW India is very much capable of making a N-warhed small enough to be fit on a SAM . I think it has been discussed on the Forum.
>>>>> one should also not ignore recent reports of fielding a Modified version of Agni as an AMB , similar to what the Americans are testing , There was a story of Defence News some time back.

member_201 · Post by **member_201** » 04 Oct 2002 18:21

Harry, what kind of drugs are you smoking? Ganja or Hashish? Russian weaponry is no doubt good and formidable, but Americans are the leaders in the weapons industry. The sonar of the Seawolf Class submarines can even hear shrimp feeding on the ocean floor! The F-22/JSF are generations ahead of what Russia can field anytime in the near future. Even if you remove American superiority in weapons out of the picture, they have something which the Russians don't have much of - financial resources. Russia is not even remotely economically sound when compared to the States. To win a war, you need both. Having individual advancements in weapons is not going to change the tide in the Russians favour. Not now or not anytime in the near future.

That is why our beloved Vajpayeeji has to go to the US and sing the following in front of President Bush, if needs to get the Phalcon AWACS system:

"Kehdo Ki Tum Mere Dil Mein Rahoge, Kehdo Ki Tum Mujshe Dosti Karoge!"

geeth · Post by **geeth** » 04 Oct 2002 19:19

Raj Malhotra,

Thanks very much for the substantial input about Radar. From what you have said, I can see that the Radar is sort of a Hawkeye..but, how does it 'guide' the missile? or is it just a sensor and guidance is elsewhere?

Avid · Post by **Avid** » 04 Oct 2002 19:19

In a/c Mig-29 marks a level of sophistication close to western standards.USA bought 29 of them from Moldova and subjected it to a scalpel.

US buys used weapons systems from other countries not because these are extremely sophisticated but typically when these are likely to be sold to countries that USA does not approve of. Additionally, these serve as good practice partners. It is not they (Mig-29s) have some UFO tech buried deep inside them, but knowing their capabilities/weakness through inspection can help formulate strategies.

geeth · Post by **geeth** » 04 Oct 2002 19:22

>>>The sonar of the Seawolf Class submarines can even hear shrimp feeding on the ocean floor!

The guys onbaord have a probleem then..They can't munch peanuts in the wardroom when the shrimps feed! It will be overheard

Rudra · Post by **Rudra** » 04 Oct 2002 19:33

what was that loud BOOM ? torpedo in the water!!
oops scratch that- was just the cook farting.

Umrao · Post by **Umrao** » 04 Oct 2002 19:33

remember folks, Rodney king touched 100/110 MPH in his Hyundai Excel (dinky car) before the Police patrol cars Chevy Caprice (V-8) and Ford Crown Victoria (v-8) could zero on him after nearly one hour chasing.

Actually Hyundai wanted to use Rodney King to Model for Hyundai cars, but decided against it so as not to offend the senstivities of Chevy and Ford owners!!

dont worry how sophisticated the equipment is if one has will to fight sticks and stones are enough. (Ref David & Goliath)

Harry Van · Post by **Harry Van** » 04 Oct 2002 19:42

I only said Russians were lagging behind.I never said they had superiority.Also things like Seawolf can hear shrimp and virginia class is 4 decibels silenter than the Akulas make no sense when your ealsie that kilo is still difficult to detect even if it is noisier.

-----------

That is why our beloved Vajpayeeji has to go to the US and sing the following in front of President Bush, if needs to get the Phalcon AWACS system:

"Kehdo Ki Tum Mere Dil Mein Rahoge, Kehdo Ki Tum Mujshe Dosti Karoge!"

-----------

That is the basic difference between India and other countries of the world.Every country in the world is thrilled to get an oppurtunity to fight the USA , the greatest power on earth.Cuba , Argentina , Brazil , Iraq , Iran , Yugoslavia , China , Russia , EU ,in simpler words all countries except India.Only we want to be with the superpower and will go down on the knees and sing such songs.

Any other country (except India) would ahve grabbed the second rate Russian technology with tech transfer and tried to improve on electronics and challenge US global domination and carve a place for itself on its own military strength.Indians want to become important in the world by being known a the friend of the USA.Hold joint exercises and other crap which enable sthem to map the liitoral waters and stand in a queue with folded arms hoping that they will drop some sophisticated stuff t you.But that will not happen.In fact countries opposed to them and shelter anti-american terrorists (like pak) are more likely to get the weapons than India itself.

While Russian technolgy is undoubtedly second -rate compared to the USA , it is enuf to inflict high costs on the enemy.Any other country would ahve gone for A-50 instead of begging for phalcon.

Do you think in a war between USAF and PVO armed with F-16 and F-18 pitted against MiG-29 and SU-30 , the latter would lose all the aircraft and not a single F-16 or F-18 would be shot down ?

The much inferior PVO would still inflict unacceptable damage on the USAF.

It is this attitude of high-tech or nothing that is responsible for all of DRDO projects getting derailed.

Harry Van · Post by **Harry Van** » 04 Oct 2002 20:00

Avid what you say is true , USA bought it to avoid Iran buying them off from Moldova.But they were interested in a new ECCM fitted on the a/c and also the fact that they didnt dump it into the sea proves that Mig-29 is a formidable a/c and can shoot down F-16's in close combat.Plus what Moldova had was Mig-29C the latest verison and knowing its elcetronics and frequencies would be a great advantage.

Harry Van · Post by **Harry Van** » 04 Oct 2002 20:07

Geeth,
Guidance is of many types.

1) Ground radar bounces signal off target , also receive sthe echo computes distance to target, velocity and radios teh details to the missile.This is also called command guidance.Eg Trishul.

2)Ground radar bounces signal of target and the missiles seeker head receives the echo and it computes distance and velocity with on board computers and homes into the target.Semi-active guidance.

3)Ground Radar bounces signal of target computes everything and passes on all detaisl to missile till it is close to target.Then missile turns on radar in its nose and starts bouncing signals at the target and receiving echoes on its own , does the computations and homes in on the target.Since radar on missile is likely to be weaker it will be easy to jam , then the missile will usually home on the source of the jamming signal.eg: Phoneix , AMRAAM , Astra , etc.

As you go down the list cost of missile projectile increases correspondingly.

Advantage of 1 is low cost of projectile.Advantage of 2 is at far-off ranges missile will receive better echo than the ground radar and hence better chances of homing.Advantage of 3 is engagement possible at extended ranges and also after sometime ground radar becomes free to concentrate on other targets.

geeth · Post by **geeth** » 04 Oct 2002 20:15

IMO, All that you have said is about detection, not guidance.

Harry Van · Post by **Harry Van** » 04 Oct 2002 21:34

Guidance involves taking the distance to target between two sweeps of the RADAR calculating velocity and then keeping in mind the current position of the projectile give appropriate insttructions to the projectile to head in a particualr direction in an imminent collision course.In other words always keep the projectile moving towards the target.

The calculations from ground computer or on board computer are converted to commands that order the
servo motors on the missile to turn by a particular amount which cause the winglets and other control surfaces on the missile to move and put the missile on a particaular course.

Missile attitude info is provided by gyroscopes.Its speed and acceleration by accelerometers and other devices which are connected to computers.

Michael · Post by **Michael** » 04 Oct 2002 21:47

Originally posted by Tim:
The Galosh/Gazelle used to have large (up to 1MT) warheads, as did the US Sprint/Safeguard types deployed in the 1970s.

Holy Crap!!! That's one hell of a SAM.

I was thinking more along the lines of a 1kt (or smaller) tacnuke for equipping an S-series missile. That should be more than sufficient given that the S-300 or S-400 are already fairly accurate to begin with.

Raj Malhotra · Post by **Raj Malhotra** » 04 Oct 2002 21:53

Geeth, I suppose the answer you are looking for is that after getting the target info the radar sends it by radio waves to missile and then the missile knows where the target is.

For end game interception the missile used its own active or passive seeker

Also in beam riding missiles, the radar generates a narrow beam of radio waves and the missile rides on it (remains within center of it) by aiming the beam at the target the missile is enabled to intercept it.

MohanJ · Post by **MohanJ** » 05 Oct 2002 14:04

My perspective (frm Moscow) is as follows:
Russian Military Industry is silently taking over a number of Oil Fields so that it can finance its R&D independently without the budget involved figuring anywhere else. So don’t worry about Russian Economy affecting its military capability. Russia has only one thing left for national pride and it will feed it whatever it needs to keep it up.
Russia is actively trying to woo the EU on building a AB Theatre Defense system for them. While Russia had vocally opposed the expansion of NATO year or two ago, the voices have seemed to water down... In part due to some agreement reached during the past few months. Apart from the Kalingrad Issue, Russian leaders are trying to search for common ground with EU and are now resolving most of the other outstanding issues with considerable success. The new US-Rus honeymoon has gone to such an extent that Russia has silently acceded to US presence in CIS, with assurances from US about non interference in Russia's interests in the huge oil/gas fields in Kazakistan, Uzbekistan and other CIS countries.

Now back to the Topic:
Some have suggested Indo-Rus cooperation for future Anti-ballistic missile dev; Russia is not interested. For missile defense, it is trying to procure funding from EU which can be an 'undisclosable -practically unlimited' amount of Euros

.
The thing is all about what Russia can comfortably share and what not to share.
Defense capability, it is ready to share, develop with EU (thats what eu's hesitation to go in for Russian defense systems explain); While Offensive, i.e Sukhois and etc, with EU/US/Nato: No way. Sharpen the Swords with India, Strenghten the shields with EU

Russian Capability in Theatre Defense is way underestimated although time to time various reports feast on their 'superiority'. Experience matters and Russia has plenty of it.
I am not downplaying the Arrow Project but it was built in virtually no time and has not been tested under combat conditions. Its improvements might come in only after a real battlefield engagement. And Israel is fielding it against Scuds, not Chinese M11 and dingdongs.
Americans might lead in Electronics, Software etc, but when it comes to hardcore Military Technology, they lack cohesiveness between various projects. This is what Russian Military Analysts from time to time record in their views. Lockheed might design great engines, but they won't share their expertise with General Electric for example. US Military Machine is all about Making Money, lest we forget. Why do you think US&EU can’t build a space station all by themselves? Even throw in Japanese expertise, Russia has cutting edge technology in certain fields that came from long and wide research spending.

US is against Indian Arrow acquisition. Lets go in for Russian ABM systems, atleast we don't have to worry that Israel will sell Pines to TSP (as are our fears about French a/f). When we have acquired a bare 'minimum' capability to ward off a few of Paki 'Pink Heads', we can go after Arrow leisurely. So I am for: need of the moment to call paki nuclear bluff/blackmail: a few batteries of S-300/400 whatever and NOW! Then we can go in for a pre-emptive strike whenever it fancies Vajpayee to eat Kheer.

In case we get either Pine or S300/400, What will the Chinese reaction to Indian procurement of a effective atbm capability be? Whatever they do, you can be sure that they will share it with their underdog.

Was it a joke when Putin offered Russian Tech to EU? Remember that EU showed at least a fleeting interest in it and that substantiates the worthfullness of Russian ATBM systems.

On the lighter note, why not approach Taiwan for their ATBM?

geeth · Post by **geeth** » 05 Oct 2002 15:55

>>>Geeth, I suppose the answer you are looking for is that after getting the target info the radar sends it by radio waves to missile and then the missile knows where the target is.

Yes, and here is my take on it:

Having a state of the art Radar is important. But if you don't have an equally capable missile attached with it, it won't serve any purpose in an anti-ballistic missile role - for the simple reason that the velocities that we are talking about are enormous. ANY missile is not good enough. It should have highly accurate and rapidly responsive control and guidance systems fitted onboard, be it micro mechanical devices, aerodynamic control surfaces etc. IMO this is where the Russians score above everyone else. They have vast knowledge on missile manufacturing tecnhiques and have developed some unique processes for cheap manufacuring of sophisticated missiles.

Why is that Akash, Trishul, Pinaka are still limping? The MTCR has put severe restrictions on procurement of sophisticated Guidance & Control devices for accurate maneuvring and India does not have the experience to design / manufacture these devices yet. May be that is why we are trying to buy the Green Pine from Israel and mate it with the Russian missiles - sort of best of both worlds. Even Americans are curious to know the tech involved in these missiles.

JTull · Post by **JTull** » 06 Oct 2002 06:25

Israel Set to Use New Missile Shield to Counter Scuds
This site needs (free) registration.

<img src="http://www.nytimes.com/packages/images/ ... ILE_01.gif" alt="" />

Raj Malhotra · Post by **Raj Malhotra** » 06 Oct 2002 11:04

Geeth frankly it does not strictly matter whether Russian systems are comparable to US ones, as for India they should work against Pakistan and China. In that respect they are good enough. Having said that many of the advantages of US tech depth in radars will also be present in missiles but I suppose this is not strictly relevant.

MohanJ · Post by **MohanJ** » 06 Oct 2002 12:13

Trying to locate articles on possible Pakistani response to India's procurement of a viable Theatre Missile Defense System, I stumbled upon this article from the Monterey Institute of International Studies' Nonproliferation Review named 'Theater Missile Defense and South Asia: A Volatile Mix'

Plain HTML view from Google: http://216.239.51.100/search?q=cache:Qfc2BExrlTkC:cns.miis.edu/pubs/npr/vol04/43/koblen43.pdf+akash+multiple+sam&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

Original PDF ver of article: http://cns.miis.edu/pubs/npr/vol04/43/koblen43.pdf

According to this article, Akash outperforms all other others including S-300 and Arrow? or is it old data?

Figure 1: India's Options for Anti-Tactical Ballistic Missiles

Name........ATBM........Target........Target........Engagement
.............Velocity......Velocity.......Range........Range
.............(km/sec)....(km/sec)........(km)..........(km)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Akash ...........5+.......4.3.......2,000.......27 (vs. aircraft)

S-300P ..........2.........1.3.......170.........25

S-300PMU-1....2+....... 2.8.......800.........40

SA-12A.........1.7.........2.3......600?.........25

SA-12B.........2.4.........3........1,000.........40

Arrow...........?...........3........1,000.........100

-Also Quoting from the article:
The Antey bureau's S-300V was the world's first operational, dedicated ATBM system. 22 The S-300V actually is comprised of two different missiles, the dedicated anti-missile 9M82 (NATO code-name: SA-12b Giant), and the dual-role 9M83 (NATO code-name: SA-12a Gladiator). The entire system, which is also mobile, can intercept ballistic missiles with ranges of up to 1,000 kilometers. The S-300V has reportedly shot down over 60 tactical ballistic missiles with ranges of up to 600 Kilometers during tests and has demonstrated a single-shot kill probability of 40 to 70 percent.

Avid · Post by **Avid** » 06 Oct 2002 21:05

Geeth,

from Defense news
India's state-owned Bharat Dynamics Ltd., Bangalore, is under contract to produce roughly 25 Akash missiles at a cost of about $500,000 per missile

Akash is headed for user trials - so it is definitely not limping.

Pinaka is currently undergoing user-trials.

Trishul -- the sea-skimming role is undergoing testing, but I believe that the short-reaction time SAM is under user trials

Avid · Post by **Avid** » 06 Oct 2002 21:10

Originally posted by Dr. Jagan Mohan:

According to this article, Akash outperforms all other others including S-300 and Arrow? or is it old data?

I think there's a typo in the 2000km target range numbers. Rest of the numbers are quite accurate. Most people have bought into this DDM and FDM propogated mumbo-jumbo of Akash being reverse-engineered SA-6 which it is not. It is definitely headed for the user-trials

from the same defense news (posted by vick on another thread)

India's Defence Research and Development Organisation also has begun work on new Akash variant, which will be quipped with indigenously produced Rajendra radar system and have an extended range of 65 kilometers.

another version of Akash under development and slated to begin testing in near future?? Would this be the indo-russian joint venture for S-300V or would it be something different?? I am trying to locate the URL - if someone else has it please post it.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 06 Oct 2002 21:46

One aspect not discussed is the survivability of the radar tracking systems of these ABM systems in the light of new weaponry aimed at destroying the electronics of anti-air systems.These have been tried out in the Balkans and have now been perfected by both the US and UK.The first blows in any campaign will now be the use of UCAVs and stealth aircraft with such weaponry to take out air defences.AWST in a past issue had details of such systems now available against Saddam.

In future conflicts,a number of false radar targets have to be used by the side under attack in order for the enemy to waste his expensive weaponry.With the increasing use of UAVs,UCAVs,and satellite recon assets, mobility and survivability of air defences are vital.The defenders will have to be able to saturate the spectrum with false targets,which will make it very difficult for the attacking side to track the true positions of real defences and move their mobile launchers and control facilities within a ten minute time frame.These factors should be examined with respect to each system being evaluated.

Kaushal · Post by **Kaushal** » 07 Oct 2002 05:02

http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/10/06/israel.missile.shield/index.html

"The Arrow system will operate alongside Patriot anti-aircraft missile defense systems situated at strategic locations across Israel. Patriot defense shields are reportedly arriving in Israel from the United States.

Israeli defense officials are reluctant to comment publicly on the Arrow system or any other operational activities Israeli security forces have undertaken in respect to possible U.S. action against Iraq.

The Bush administration has requested that Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and other Israeli officials go "mum" on the subject.

When they meet at the White House in 10 days, Sharon is expected to hear from President Bush that the United States wants Israel to adopt an altogether low profile and to stay out of any war with Iraq.

At the same time, the Israeli leader expects an American promise that the United States will do its utmost to prevent Iraq firing missiles at Israel, including the deployment of a full defensive array of Patriots. "

Kaushal

JCage · Post by **JCage** » 07 Oct 2002 06:56

Originally posted by geeth:
>>>Geeth, I suppose the answer you are looking for is that after getting the target info the radar sends it by radio waves to missile and then the missile knows where the target is.

Yes, and here is my take on it:

Having a state of the art Radar is important. But if you don't have an equally capable missile attached with it, it won't serve any purpose in an anti-ballistic missile role - for the simple reason that the velocities that we are talking about are enormous. ANY missile is not good enough. It should have highly accurate and rapidly responsive control and guidance systems fitted onboard, be it micro mechanical devices, aerodynamic control surfaces etc. IMO this is where the Russians score above everyone else. They have vast knowledge on missile manufacturing tecnhiques and have developed some unique processes for cheap manufacuring of sophisticated missiles.

Why is that Akash, Trishul, Pinaka are still limping? The MTCR has put severe restrictions on procurement of sophisticated Guidance & Control devices for accurate maneuvring and India does not have the experience to design / manufacture these devices yet. May be that is why we are trying to buy the Green Pine from Israel and mate it with the Russian missiles - sort of best of both worlds. Even Americans are curious to know the tech involved in these missiles.

Geeth.One word.Sanctions.We have been hit badly in everything related from servos for fin movement to gyros for guidance.Bloody yanks have really clamped down on dual use items and replacing each item with a much more expensive french analogue isnt a pretty picture.In some we're going indian but its takin time.
Perhaps in the long run its gonna benefit many more indian co's but its definitely hit the timeline.But work is going on.
Trishul is another case altogether.Of teh three revised requirements have hit this the hardest.I have my doubts whether Trishul-the naval version-will really hack it.The Army one is simpler!

Regards,
Nitin

JCage · Post by **JCage** » 07 Oct 2002 07:00

Also i may add the IAF has undertaken to upgrade its SA3 Pechoras with digital components replacing the old ones etc.
y'can find details of the entire procedure in Milparade by a google.

Regards,
Nitin

davidn · Post by **davidn** » 07 Oct 2002 07:47

that per unit price of $500000 sounds quite a bit. Is that the price for the pre-production series only?

What I'm asking, is will the price come down with full scale induction?

Div · Post by **Div** » 07 Oct 2002 08:14

Israel: 'More Than 90 Percent' of Incoming Missiles From Iraq Could Be Destroyed
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,64949,00.html

John · Post by **John** » 07 Oct 2002 08:35

John, I am not sure but I believe China has ordered land based versions of SA-10 and also ordered for/installed the SA-6-N for its naval vessels.

Doubt the chinese have sa-n-6 because lets put this way not even sovremenny size can carry it and also its performance its not even remotly capable as the aegis destroyers/cruiser.

I wonder about Shitil anti missile abilities as its response time seems very long.

The reaction time for shtil is about 16 seconds partly because it is also attributes the fact the missile needs to be reload every time which takes about 12 secs.

Active radar ranges are shorter partly because its limited to the power of the seeker on the missile while using SAR and command/inertial guidance you can sueeze out long ranges and it reduces the need for illumination till only the end of the flight.

Trishul is another case altogether.Of teh three revised requirements have hit this the hardest.I have my doubts whether Trishul-the naval version-will really hack it.

Yeah i can vouch for that i have serious doubts about IN is mum about it with reports the israel is going ahead and devoloping super barak one can't help but wonder whose funding it.

geeth · Post by **geeth** » 07 Oct 2002 10:39

>>>Akash is headed for user trials - so it is definitely not limping.

Almost two decades since the first decision making and still it is undergoing trials - user or designer. If it is not limping, I don't know what to call it. I am not trying to criticize DRDO for the delay - it is an acknowledged fact that our industry hasn't reached that kind of sophistication, that is all. No doubt they are trying and improving constantly, but it takes time and money.

Harry Van · Post by **Harry Van** » 07 Oct 2002 16:08

We can't even make servos to control fins ? I can understand gyros but not being able to make servos is too bad.I guess its because private manufacture of defence products has not been allowed.

If u look at the chinese they are not making anything , just buying it all. I think the best think would be to fund development and get tech-transfer.Thus instead of making Trishul Naval Version we should fund the super barak and better to fund the S-400 and S-500 instead of trying to make our own stuff.And instead of MCA fund JSFski.This would result in greater advantage as there will be tech transfer and the tech we will get will be more than what we would have got by indigenous development.In other words let the entire DRDO budget be used for funding others.Once we get the good tech base due to TOT we can start from there and go for indigenous stuff.

geeth · Post by **geeth** » 07 Oct 2002 18:32

UAE ready to buy $4-bn Russian air defence system: Report
The United Arab Emirates (UAE) is prepared to sign a four-billion dollar contract for the delivery of a new custom-built Russian anti-aircraft defence system, the Russian business daily Kommersant reported on Monday.

The Gulf state had opted to pay for the design and development of a new defence system rather than purchase a pre-existing system, the newspaper said, without indicating its sources.

The UAE signed a $734-million deal with Moscow in 2000 for the delivery of 50 Pantsir-S1 anti-aircraft systems (SA-19, by NATO classification).

The country now needs a system that combines means of localisation and destruction of airborne targets along with electronic warfare, Kommersant said.

A new Russian consortium, Almaz-Antai, formed last year and specialising in anti-aircraft systems, believes the new contract with the UAE an be signed next year, it said.

The delivery and payment for the new system would be phased over a period of years.
Russian President Vladimir Putin said late last year that Russian arms sales for 2001 totalled 4.

Manohar · Post by **Manohar** » 07 Oct 2002 21:45

Quite a debate on this topic. In spite of the resistance from State, I think an Arrow sale will happen - the Pentagon in firmly behind it. The process will have to be carefully managed.

Didn't the Phalcon sale get cleared last year? I thought that it was...

And to Harry - despite whatever you may think about a diminishing gap between Russia and NATO, witness the campaign in Afghanistan where the European allies found themselves unable to keep up with the US integrated command. America spends twice as much on defence as all of NATO combined - and that's just the money on the books.

Fighting a war on America's plane involves not just the fighters, but the command, control and early warning systems to provide complete coverage of the air, sea and land.

Your conceived encounter between F-16s/F-18s and Mig-29s assumes that they will come upon each other in an even manner - at the moment, US EW and control systems make that unlilkely.