my goodness John, you are the one playing armchair quarterback here with all sorts of dodgy assumptions.
did IA inform you its not procuring prahaar?
if so, where is your insistence coming from that it wont be procured, when DRDO has gone on record stating it will replace prithvi and will be evaluated by IA post some mods.http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/new ... 866081.ece
of course chander, being completely unaware of what the IA plans for merely says: The under-development Prahar missile would be offered to the Army for user trials very soon and after its acceptance, it is planned to be part of its Corps of Artillery.
John wrote:Wasn't referring to Pinaka Mk II but 120 Km range variant which was reported on 2008 granted we haven't heard about it in a while.
where is this mythical 120 km missile pray tell us? why would DRDO develop a new 120 km Pinaka when the Prahaar is already ready and offers better performance?
cant you even see the gaps in your statements/logic?
a) no confirmed reports of any 120 km pinaka exist
b) 150 km prahaar exists with the starting range of 60 km (what a coincidence, the max range of the pinaka 2), is developed for a reason & yet you insist that a 120 km pinaka will come about and be superior.
c) common sense would suggest that very LR Pinaka was actually this program http://articles.economictimes.indiatime ... -adex-2013
and of course DRDO is doing this as well, for giggles, with no clear interest in the system, right?
The DRDO is also developing a 6x6 TEL fitted with two missiles and an 8x8 launcher fitted with four missiles. The 6x6 TEL is designed to be deployed in high-altitude, mountainous regions, which in India's case would presumably include the Jammu and Kashmir region and the Himalayas.
John wrote:Yes turbofan engine cruise missile would be cheaper than a 1.5 Ton solid fueled missile if they both are mass produced and use indigenous technology. As i mentioned ATACMS 1A (160 km ranged variant) is priced at around 1.5 million vs TLAM which is around 700,000 to 1 million (quote 2007 figures prices). What former offers is superior speed which we already have in Brahmos.
this is just pure mix and match stuff, which ignores the reality that
a) no indigenous turbofan for the nirbhay is ready yet
b) there is no sense in using a 1000 km class missile for a mission which requires a mere 150 km one
c) your cost estimates from a different country are irrelevant for india since india is leveraging its own BMD interceptor design/infra for economies of scale and will have to invest substantially in testing, and validating its turbofan engine for which it does not enjoy economies of scale either!
We have no idea how much Prahaar will cost if ATACMS is any indicator it would be around 1 to 2 million where as Brahmos is quoted at 10 crores+ (lets say 4 million), so the difference price isn't that much considering later has higher terminal velocity, more accurate and not to mention less chance of being intercepted.
the pakistanis or the chinese are not going to be fielding a plethora of iron dome or davids sling type systems to intercept any BM the class of prahaar. if they do so, they break their own banks.
DRDO wrote:The missile system has capability of deployment in stand-alone mode or centralised mode. its effective and intelligent end trajectory maneuvreing, Pragati defeats detection by any weapon locating radar.
Pragati being the upgraded prahar variant shown at ADEX.
good luck in using conventional AD systems in tracking this missile.
net, you dont know the capabilities of the system, are playing fast and loose with cost estimates, are making completely unrealistic assumptions about existence of a separate pinaka 2 (which btw common sense suggests was nothing else but this program) and are insisting the IA wont procure this system, when reports suggest that they intend to procure it, to complement their prithvis with even the AF picking up a few.