Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 20 Aug 2010 23:13

The positions may not be contradictory now that you have made me think. Because, F&F from the operators side - But ATM-3 proposed a launching & designation unit which could be located separately. So yes, it seems to be a mix of methods, as the Army requirements were "absolute fire and forget" for the NAG which meant IIR and MMW as the only possible options.

So yes, you are right, if the launcher fires and runs off, it is F&F for the more exposed launcher.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 20 Aug 2010 23:58

Karan M wrote:
I'd take what the CAG says as being one part of the picture, not the overall. That's usually the case with their reports, where they end up missing some of the details.

<SNIP>

The issue became more critical once it became known that Pak was upgrading even its Type59's to the Al Zarrar standard (re-manufacturing) with ERA. The simplest option was to ask for upgraded versions of the ATGMs in service already, namely the Milan 2 and Konkurs.

Hence, the requirements for the Milan2T and the Konkurs-M. Why two differing classes of missiles, because the latter is as memory serves me, heavier and meant for mainly the BMPs, whereas Milan firing posts are given to infantry and are even on jeeps.

<SNIP>

This was the immediate impetus for the Milan 2T acquisition. Get a tandem warhead equipped missile in service as urgently as possible

Karan, I'm fully aware of the requirement of the Milan-2T and Konkur-M.

And I'm sure the IA does too. The case here is of BDL promising something and then not delivering - and on top of that, arm twisting IA into purchase of the system. There is no merit in the case. Here is the link to the CAG Report and it is pretty explicit in bringing out the problem. http://www.cag.gov.in/html/reports/defe ... /chap2.pdf

Excerpts:

Army HQ formulated a General Staff Qualitative Requirement (GSQR) in 2003 for the upgrade version, with tandem warhead. The tandem warhead was to be obtained under TOT from the OEM. The GSQR of inservice missile Milan-2 provided for essential range as 1850 metres and desirable range of 2000 metres. The GSQR of 2003 for Milan 2T indicated the range as 2000 metres to meet the need of modernisation of forces. Based on GSQR of 2003, RFP for procurement of 4100 Milan 2T was issued to BDL in January 2007.

The Technical Evaluation Committee (TEC) did not find the product offered by BDL compliant with the GSQR as the range of 2000 metres offered had only 1850 metres under guidance phase while the last 150 metres was left unguided. The case for procurement was therefore closed in May 2007.

Subsequently, the BDL confirmed that the range of Milan 2T would be 2000 metres. The case was reopened and trials of Milan 2T were conducted in February 2008. Based on trial results, the General Staff did not recommend its introduction into service in view of difficulties in engaging moving targets during last 150 metres. Besides, requirement was not met as regards flight time and weight.

Based on the representation of Staff union of the BDL to the then Raksha Up Rajya Mantri as non-placement of order for Milan-2T, would result in redeployment of work force of BDL and wastage of already procured material common to Milan 2/2T, it was decided to procure minimum required quantity of Milan-2T in May 2008 by amending the GSQR for Milan 2T with 1850 meters range and with waiver of trials, considering the time required for procurement of the 3rd generation missile and that the shelf life of existing stock of Milan-2 would expire by 2013. In August 2008, the GSQR of 2003 was amended in favour of BDL to suit the trial results of February 2008. The revised RFP was issued to BDL in September 2008 as per amended GSQR seeking commercial offer.

We should let the IA decide on the merits of procurement and urgency of requirement - and not the Staff Union of a PSU.

2nd Gen, per your definition noted above.

The program was known as ATM-3. It was based on technology DRDL at the time was familiar with & was lower risk in terms of time, development and cost. The IA asked for F&F based on projected operational needs and best in class requirements. While IIR is more survivable (F&F) it has brought a lot of complexity and expense to the missile. The US, and many other nations continue to use guided missiles (SACLOS TOW2A now in production replaces the wire with RF guidance) and such rounds are usually cheaper & hence fielded in far more number.

Many thanx for the explanations. As for the TOW - it is not your classic manportable ATGM - that was the M47 Dragon(in US Service) - which has been replaced by Javelin. TOW is considered to be too bulky for comfortable classic ATGM fire unit type operations. More often than not, it is mounted on a mobile platform. Just check it's size to see the dimensions of the launcher and the optronics+guidance kit. Even our freinds across the border to west use them on mounted platforms.

And as for Nag - there is a reason we have that missile on NAMICA - it is a specialized missile for special units. And that is why we need a 3rd Gen F&F Manportable ATGM.

The Army may have changed its requirements later on & the BDL union stepped in as a line may have been affected (BDL operates multiple lines of assembly for different missiles) but the operational requirement for the Milan 2T was driven firmly by its tandem warhead, which is critical to punch through ERA.

Please see the CAG Report excerpts above.

PS: Thanx for solving the Kornet mystery - I always wondered why did we acquire them in the first place and that too in such numbers (wiki - 250)

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 21 Aug 2010 01:03

Karan, I'm fully aware of the requirement of the Milan-2T and Konkur-M.

And I'm sure the IA does too. The case here is of BDL promising something and then not delivering - and on top of that, arm twisting IA into purchase of the system. There is no merit in the case. Here is the link to the CAG Report and it is pretty explicit in bringing out the problem. http://www.cag.gov.in/html/reports/defe ... /chap2.pdf

Thanks for the excerpts.

Now if I may,

The problem is very simply that the Milan 2T would not even have been considered were it not for the IA. After the IA asked for it, the BDL guys and MOD negotiated for it with the MBDA guys and procurement made & the problem becomes of the chicken and egg.

As of 2002-3, irrespective of what the CAG now says or does not say, based on what the Army requirements were, BDL was in negotiations with MBDA. They cant promise anything, as simply put, the designer, owner is MBDA & supplier of the TOT as well.

Now IMO, the last 150 meters thing is "best is the enemy of good".

Lets look at the Milan 2 GSQR which states: The GSQR of inservice missile Milan-2 provided for essential range as 1850 metres and desirable range of 2000 metres. whereas Milan2T's amended GSQR notes:The GSQR of 2003 for Milan 2T indicated the range as 2000 metres to meet the need of modernisation of forces.

The key question is would the IA be better off with a missile which cannot knock out a tank at all, as versus a missile, which can knock out a tank at a marginally reduced range. The answer is clearly, the latter.

So on what basis did the IA come up with a 2Km range versus a 1.85 earlier. Its most likely based on a survey of current state of the art in ATGMs and what should be expected of their next acquisition and what the Milan can currently do (it should be as good as what we have). This has been the case in several RFP/RFI released in recent times & is the usual case, whether in India and abroad.

So the key issue is have things changed so far that a Milan 2 crew can remain safe at 2Km and suddenly become vulnerable at 1.85 Km? Not really. The crew are vulnerable in both cases. Modern tank armament can range to 2-2.5 Km easily & modern optics can discern medium targets at around the range (jeep with Milan). Tanks can carry, as you'd know, HE/HE-FRAG/HEAT all of which have destructive effects against infantry. The T-90 is to reportedly receive even more specialized ammo, the Israeli APAMs for this particular threat.

Furthermore, tanks like the Al Khalid reportedly have LWS - which means the tank can slew its gun to a likely threat. In short, the modern battlefield is going to be pretty dangerous for an Milan crew irrespective of 2Km and 1.85Km. Even if the crew now has to train to fire from a position 8% closer.

The bigger question is what happens if the Missile hits? In one case, the Missile is certain not to get through, if it hits ERA. In the other case, it has a good chance. That is the key determiner. So, lose 8% of range, but gain far more in terms of P-kill capabilities.

The next thing is - why compare? Why could we not have just procured a better system to begin with.

Now lets consider the usual protracted time taken for an acquisition by India. Are other off the shelf systems available that BDL can quickly master, which the MOD can quickly procure, the IA can quickly trial - clearly the answer was no, based on what we know of procurements so far.

So the Milan 2T comes out as a fairly ok deal based on these factors alone.

Then comes the issue of what the Staff Union presented:

Based on the representation of Staff union of the BDL to the then Raksha Up Rajya Mantri as non-placement of order for Milan-2T, would result in redeployment of work force of BDL and wastage of already procured material common to Milan 2/2T

Both are important points - skills need to be retained & procured material needs to be used.

The procurement went ahead to procure minimum required quantity which is hardly series production hobbling the Army to an inferior product for eternity.

it was decided to procure minimum required quantity of Milan-2T in May 2008 by amending the GSQR for Milan 2T

Furthermore:

We should let the IA decide on the merits of procurement and urgency of requirement - and not the Staff Union of a PSU.

The legacy of IA procurement is such that leaving procurement solely to best in class requirements & so forth, ends up with the armed forces having no equipment at all, when the balloon goes up.

When the T-72 was acquired, did it meet IA GSQRs? Reportedly, it had such a list of non compliance that a new list was drawn up and passed. Simply because it offered far greater punch against Pak assets vis a vis the Vijayanta.

Based on the situation at time of eval in 2003, and even now, its much better that we have stocks of Milan2T, even if limited in number as versus having none at all of a more advanced type, with a marginally greater range.

Furthermore, there is nothing wrong in the staff making a presentation.

All parties to any procurement decision such as this, including the PSU which invests considerable expense and effort into a procurement have the right to be heard & their opinion taken into account. The reason the Staff Union made a presentation (consider why!) is because clearly the PSU board wanted to present an alternative viewpoint but did not want to go up against their primary customer, the Indian Army. This was, a convenient method to avoid rancour. Stuff like this is common & who made the presentation is not germane.

The MOD then takes a decision based on all factors in account, including the procurement and urgency, cost, any TOT benefits, and the POV of the manufacturing agency, which too needs to keep skills current and avoid labor attrition. Things can get quite dire if adequate allocation is not made in time, with skilled workers leaving & skills lost.

It is the CAG's opinion that the staff presentation was the sole metric which drove the decision, based on their reading of literature and accounts. That does not however, insofar, make it the truth. This is something that must be understood. The CAG has a long record of absolute cock-ups when it comes to interpreting the total basis on which decisions were taken in defense and relies on the simplest metric - written records, which rarely if ever capture the entire decision making process. Perfect cases of this are the CAG's comment on the Su-30 procurement & license manufacture in India. The usual that happens is that the PAC then takes it up, and all sorts of points which the CAG would have dismissed in a 2-3 line summary, come out as far more considered decisions, or something else entirely.

So the question is what the MOD did is in itself flawed and I would say NO, irrespective of what the CAG believes, when considering the fact that the IA had NO tandem warhead missiles in number to speak of, without the Milan 2T & both China & Pakistan were ERA'ing their tanks.

Today with Konkurs-M, Nag, Milan-2T (functional Refleks hopefully) all in service, we can afford to be more sanguine and look for something which truly meets our needs.

IMHO the limited induction of Milan 2T did not come a day too soon. It gives our infantry/Milan guys a fighting chance.

Consider other CAG & other public domain reports noted over the years-

The AGS Plamya used by the IA in J&K and many ops to effect - did not meet GSQRs. But it works and gave our guys an AGL.

The TISAS acquired for the T-72s are not optimal (but as the Armed Forces recently told Shri Antony who noted in Parliament), they do give night fighting capability to the IA

Point is a MK1 in certain cases, even if it meets 80-90% of specs is good enough for us to get some urgent ability as it provides us time to get a MK2 out or procure something more advanced, while we have a good interim capability.

As for the TOW - it is not your classic manportable ATGM - that was the M47 Dragon(in US Service) - which has been replaced by Javelin. TOW is considered to be too bulky for comfortable classic ATGM fire unit type operations. More often than not, it is mounted on a mobile platform. Just check it's size to see the dimensions of the launcher and the optronics+guidance kit. Even our freinds across the border to west use them on mounted platforms.

Yes, thanks for jogging my memory...US guys used to crib that the Dragon was an absolute POS but the Iranians reportedly still manufacture their own local variants of it with the name Toofan or somesuch thing, so I guess it cant have been all that bad. Anyways, my point was till the Javelin got introduced, US units seemed to have been predominantly reliant on the TOW. Javelin seems to have come in the nick of time for them.

I do like the missile, and hope that even with its cost, we acquire a sufficient number to arm at least a significant chunk of our forces with it, to make a tangible difference.

And as for Nag - there is a reason we have that missile on NAMICA - it is a specialized missile for special units. And that is why we need a 3rd Gen F&F Manportable ATGM.

The problem is it can also be claimed that the missiles complexity and cost, make it suitable for specialized units.

The simpler ATM-3 design may have spawned a Milan 2 replacement, with wider production run. Its something of a conundrum. Its another case of the chicken and the egg.

Consider the case of the Akash, which has got a fair amount of orders and the missile itself is relatively cheap as it depends on command guidance.

Original plans were to put an ARH seeker in it. Dropped on account of weight & cost, but the missile ended up becoming significantly cheaper and the large orders placed for it, have been helped by that

VinodTK · Post by **VinodTK** » 21 Aug 2010 02:35

India to test advanced Agni II missile

India also may begin flight trials of what it calls Agni V with a range of around 3,100 miles, a military scientist said in February.

"Agni-V is out of the drawing board. We are aiming for a flight trial within a year," V.K. Saraswat, India's chief military scientist, said.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 21 Aug 2010 02:43

Now for Shourya to enter mass production

darshan · Post by **darshan** » 21 Aug 2010 08:49

rohitvats wrote:
darshan wrote:
Man portable ATGMs are overrated and a money waster.
And you arrived at this conclusion after what experience? Thanx.

Yes, ATGMs in the same class as Javelin are expensive and not that portable. Just look at US Army and you will realize. Even with all their logistics and supply, they consume more RF TOWs than Javelins.
Tanks: IA can find cheaper options to deal with them.
Terrorist houses in Indian territory: IA will not use it due to collateral damage and PR image.
Bunkers: When do you see India going on offensive bunker busting? For defending bunkers or recapturing occupied ones, IA is better off investing in the infrastructure to be more mobile and use semi portable Nag to deal with it.

There are essentially two reasons I can think of for IA to be interested in this. One is Javelin's CLU. And second one is trying to get some return on billions that are expected to be spent on American hardware. It is better to buy something in thousands rather than one or two when you may not get spares and/or support when wind does not blow in certain direction. Javelin deal keeps both sides happy. IA ATGM guys get to boast about Javelin in their arsenal while US ATGM guys get something to get by in days of budget cuts.

Even though currently I cannot even get a PCB manufactured to my liking in India, lets assume that IA gets ToT for first version of Javelin and manages to reduce the cost differential vs. Milan 2T, do you really think IA wants to carry that thing around? How effectively they will be distributed for regular use?

Why do not you give me scenarios where this will be more useful for IA than money spent somewhere else? I do not see any.

^Pratyush, I do not see India going on offensive and destroying Paki tanks or even terrorist bunkers with Javelin like expensive ATGMs. Money can be invested to use Nag for that if you really wanted to use ATGMs for that. No need for an expensive man portable ATGM for that. And, do not forget Pakis keep TOWs by thousands. Portable does not necessarily mean useful and cost effective. I am sure that IA knows that too but as I mentioned above IA is probably trying to get some meaningful return out of money that may go to waste otherwise if spent on some big ticket items.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 21 Aug 2010 09:30

Darshan Bro,

For killing bunkers existing inventory should be sufficient. However, for tanks in the modern battelfield. The IA should have 3rd gen weapons in as many classes as possible. Light MP ATGM, Medium Vehicle mounted, Airborn for Helos and Aircraft. Currently the IA is only inducting vehicle born catagory, with Airborn under development in the shape of HELINA for LCH. We need to have a Light weight MILAN class ATGM as well. Corrently domestic product is nt availabe. Which is why Javilin id being sought (I have made it clear in my previous posts that I want a MP nag and not javlin for the IA). Since the MP NAG is not available to the IA. They will acquire Javlin.

Whether, I like this purchase or not is irrelevant. I know that the IA must have this capability to kill enemy tanks. As such in the absence of MP NAG I will support this purchase.

BTW, the numbers of NAG as ordered in first batch are miniscule. It must be orderd in greater quantities. to make up for the shortfall in numbers of ATGMS. Also, a version for it should be developed which can be used from JEEPS and such types of vehicles.

JMT.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 21 Aug 2010 10:03

we have a lot of projects going on and some which are ready for productionizing, but whether due to lack of funds, political directives or desire to tinker endlessly, we have NOT cashed in on working products by building up a scary soviet style inventory of working missiles.

PRC is not scared of science projects and perpetual motion machiney. PRC is scared for fielded combat power.

even if things will get replaced eventually by better products, we need a constant high stream of production instead of waiting for
a mythical day when a 'steady state' final solution product is tested and certified, because war and ambitions does not wait
for our test timelines. enough resources need to be used to productionize and develop vendors for mass production.

if we are not ready TODAY, we are nanga today and asking for a whipping.

R Nathan · Post by **R Nathan** » 21 Aug 2010 14:52

One would assume that delay in procuring 155mm Guns with range of 40 Kms will result in more procurement of “Made in India” Pinaka with a range of 38-42 kms. Moreover Pinaka production is not by PSU but by L&T / Tata.

Each Pinaka costs 2.3 crores. (pretty cheap?) Associated vehicles and missiles will obviously cost more.

Each Regiment has 18 Pinaka plus associated vehicles. Only 36 ordered so far. Enough for 2 regiments.

Most of you must have read the CAG report on Smerch. Nothing so far on the Pinaka.

So why is the IA not ordering more? LOTS more…

....pinka is an electromechanical launcher with only the stabalization being hydraulic(being the designer i should know .....the software does include all mission planning and seamless integration with the command posts which further talk to the met radars and the likes...

http://livefist.blogspot.com/2010/01/ex ... -from.html ..Anonymous @ 1:16 AM

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 22 Aug 2010 19:00

The Army has limited allocation for new raisings, and will gradually replace BM-21 with Pinaka and more variants.

BTW, how does one post YouTube videos?

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 22 Aug 2010 19:04

Singha wrote:we have a lot of projects going on and some which are ready for productionizing, but whether due to lack of funds, political directives or desire to tinker endlessly, we have NOT cashed in on working products by building up a scary soviet style inventory of working missiles.

Don't understimate production rates once capabilities are built up. For instance, India mf'd over 30K Milans.

The kind of facilities being put in place for Akash, IGMP missiles etc are similarly comprehensive. No coincidence that Brahmos has been putting up more Mfg and Integration facilities as well.

Gaur · Post by **Gaur** » 22 Aug 2010 19:45

darshan wrote: Yes, ATGMs .....
Tanks: IA can find cheaper options to deal with them.

Like what? If you mean Namica and Nags, I will address this issue at the end of the post.

Terrorist houses in Indian territory: IA will not use it due to collateral damage and PR image.
Bunkers: When do you see India going on offensive bunker busting? For defending bunkers or recapturing occupied ones, IA is better off investing in the infrastructure to be more mobile and use semi portable Nag to deal with it.

Clearly your understanding of how IA operates leaves much to be desired. Even though javelin will most probably not be used for the above roles, that does not mean that they are not performed. "Terrorist Houses" are regularly blown up using Carl Gustav. If there is no hostage situation, then IA clears vicinity areas of personnel and uses carl gustav. In fact, blowing up of "Terrorist houses" is not only a practice, it is a "preferred" practice in Kashmir.

And, you cannot see India going on offensive bunker busting? Well, that is surprising. I do not see any reason why IA will not like to do exactly that.

Even though currently I cannot even get a PCB manufactured to my liking in India, lets assume that IA gets ToT for first version of Javelin and manages to reduce the cost differential vs. Milan 2T, do you really think IA wants to carry that thing around? How effectively they will be distributed for regular use?

I think most here would agree on the first part of this. India is most likely not going to get a satisfactory tot for Javelin. But even considering that, javelin is a potent atgm. And do we think that IA wants to carry that thing around? Yes. Considering that all IA infantry personnel regularly perform more than 30km fast marches while carrying excess of 30kg (I will not even talk to special forces which I suspect will recieve a large portion of Javelins), I do not think that Javelin could not be carried by IA. Make no mistake, carrying javelin around would be a problem but it would not be a problem which IA cannot handle.

Why do not you give me scenarios where this will be more useful for IA than money spent somewhere else? I do not see any.

By "somewhere else", I guess you mean Namica and Nags? Well, certainly a lot of them should be produced but that does not mean that man portable atgms are useless. Both have their pros and cons. Namica has its pros of being able to carry more missile with greater range. Also, it has the con of having too large a profile making it a priority target to enemy armor, aircrafts and man portable atgms. This is where man portable atgms are at advantage.
Also, man portable atgms have a specific role which no other equipment can fulfill. That is with Para, Para SF.

ADDED LATER:

rohitvats wrote:
darshan wrote:
Man portable ATGMs are overrated and a money waster.

And you arrived at this conclusion after what experience? Thanx.

darshan wrote: Yes, ATGMs in the same class as Javelin are expensive and not that portable.

By "Yes", are you reasserting your pov are are you affirming to rohitvats' question and conveying that you have come to your conclusion because you have some experience regarding man portable atgms? If it is the latter, can you tell us in what position did you have your experience?

IA is better off investing in the infrastructure to be more mobile and use semi portable Nag to deal with it.

Well, we have Namica carried Nags at present. I think I would speak for all forum members if I were to say that all would desire India to develop a man portable version of Nag. But what may be this "semi portable" Nag you want India to develop?

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 22 Aug 2010 20:51

The need for a missile like the Javelin has long been felt by the Indian Army, sooner it is inducted (in number) the better. Our soldiers deserve every tool that can save their precious lives.

yantra · Post by **yantra** » 22 Aug 2010 21:02

R Nathan wrote:One would assume that delay in procuring 155mm Guns with range of 40 Kms will result in more procurement of “Made in India” Pinaka with a range of 38-42 kms. Moreover Pinaka production is not by PSU but by L&T / Tata.

Each Pinaka costs 2.3 crores. (pretty cheap?) Associated vehicles and missiles will obviously cost more.

Each Regiment has 18 Pinaka plus associated vehicles. Only 36 ordered so far. Enough for 2 regiments.

Most of you must have read the CAG report on Smerch. Nothing so far on the Pinaka.

So why is the IA not ordering more? LOTS more…

....pinka is an electromechanical launcher with only the stabalization being hydraulic(being the designer i should know .....the software does include all mission planning and seamless integration with the command posts which further talk to the met radars and the likes...
http://livefist.blogspot.com/2010/01/ex ... -from.html ..Anonymous @ 1:16 AM

Can a Pinaka system effectively compensate for lack of 155mm guns? How does it play out tactically and on the field? Can the Gurus enlighten, please?

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 22 Aug 2010 21:04

I think IA needs far more artillery regiments (tube and rocket) than it has today. just replacing outdated kit on a 1:1 basis is not going to suffice. just like new mountain divs and strategic artillery units, we need new raisings of tactical artillery units and lots more cash devoted to it - pinaka should be deployed enmasse as a volume weapon to support the new 155mm guns(when they arrive).

using the israeli TCS they should be able to retain good accuracy even at the max range. both are needed, just guns or pinaka alone cannot turn the tide.

artillery, mortars and small arms are the roti, rajma and chawal of war - cant skimp on the staple diet.

D Roy · Post by **D Roy** » 22 Aug 2010 21:37

just cant'.

and can't skimp on MLRS either.

Sometimes I think of the IA as a giant people's army with tanks.

darshan · Post by **darshan** » 23 Aug 2010 02:25

^^^Gaur, my "Yes" refers to both and that is about it. As far as the deal goes, it is too late for IA to focus on something else and probably done barring some political mishaps. I still stand by my viewpoint that something expensive like Javelin in thousands (that too w/o any tangible ToT) is not an useful weapon as far as IA is concerned. However, given that a certain amount of money is going to be spent one way or another, it may turn out to be a good compromise between small ticket items and big ticket items. At the same time, IA may end up financing RF TOWs for PA.

Juggi G · Post by **Juggi G** » 23 Aug 2010 10:43

WTF

Cover Story
EXCLUSIVE
Intelligence Security Breaches
By The Way, I Dropped It
India’s defence data could be an open secret. Ask the NTRO bosses who lost their laptops.
Saikat Datta

Our Radar Deployments

Hanging Up On The Eavesdroppers

The Web Of Kafka

Open Source? The DRDO Lab at Metcalfe House in Delhi from which 53 Computers were Stolen

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 23 Aug 2010 10:55

Singha wrote:I think IA needs far more artillery regiments (tube and rocket) than it has today. just replacing outdated kit on a 1:1 basis is not going to suffice. just like new mountain divs and strategic artillery units, we need new raisings of tactical artillery units and lots more cash devoted to it - pinaka should be deployed enmasse as a volume weapon to support the new 155mm guns(when they arrive).

<SNIP>

The Arty spread on a Division basis is pretty much on the lines of world standard - only US Army and of course, USSR had massive (more than USA) arty concentrations.

The standard in IA was (actually is

) - 105mm*3 Regiments+130/155mm*1 Regiments+1* Light Regiments (120mm mortar). Now all this is slated to be 155/52mm*5 Regiments. Which is a massive upgrade in the capability of the Div Arty Brigade. Along with assets like IACCCS/Shakti and enhanced SATA Assets (WLR+UAV) this represents enormous puch. What IMO, we need to do is get a Smerch/Pinaka Battery in addition to the above per Division.

Also, like the US Army, we can have multiple (2/3/4) Corps Arty Brigades - these can be concentrated in the required sector and one of the Brigades can be a pure MLRS Brigade with at least 3 Regiments. But we need to remember that we have Artillery Divisions - if these have 3 Brigades worth of assets (I don't know the correct ORBAT) each, we do have considerable reserve firepower to be deployed as per requirement(s).

@ R Nathan - The induction of any system in the IA or Services for that matter, follows the Defence Plans. So, for every Plan years, X number of inductions (IIRC, 2 Regiments of Pinaka were planned for and inducted in current plan period) are planned and budgeted for. The next series of induction wil happen over next plan period.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 23 Aug 2010 11:08

dont forget the americans also have a massive amt of tactical artillery called the usaf & usn - in volumes and revisit times that others can only dream of at present. they also have lots of attack helicopters. this represents their trump card on top of already good towed, SP and MLRS units and battlefield networking.
those not so well endowed in air force/heli terms - like India - have to bulk up on the cheaper tube artillery and mlrs.

maybe we should fund BAE to produce a more automated version of the basic 105mm IFG suitable for truck mount and produce that
in large nos. reports claims with new ammo, the 105mm can considerable range and explosive radius not much less than 155mm.

155mm will be expensive in any format and we wont be able to afford a ton of them unless its a domestic design.

P Chitkara · Post by **P Chitkara** » 23 Aug 2010 11:56

Has anyone heard of any proposal to get a desi 155 mm?

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 23 Aug 2010 15:08

^^^ Please refer to the thread for Arty for answer.

sum · Post by **sum** » 24 Aug 2010 20:54

NDTV was reporting today about India's counter to Chinese border build up and the usual stuff which we in BR know was being discussed: 2 mountain divisions, newer ALGs, Arunachal scouts being raised , Su-30 MKIs being stationed etc. However, the reporter also mentioned that one missile unit has also been activated in the NE.

Any one have a clue as to which unit this could be? Is it a A-II unit ( which is still supposed to be under induction) or a Prithvi unit or a Brahmos unit?

Raghavendra · Post by **Raghavendra** » 24 Aug 2010 20:57

^2,000 km range Agni-II and 350 km range Prithvi III surface to surface ballistic missiles

India considering deploying missiles in North-East http://in.news.yahoo.com/20/20100824/14 ... les_1.html

sum · Post by **sum** » 24 Aug 2010 21:01

Hmmm, so the report says that India is "considering deploying these missiles" and "land will have to be acquired".

Wonder then if NDTV meant "to be activated" and not "already activated"?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 24 Aug 2010 21:21

Juggi G wrote:WTF

Arun Dixit, the centre director of the organisation’s atomic explosion division (AED), lost his laptop somewhere in Washington DC during an official trip to the US with the NTRO chairman. The laptop was crammed with top secret data on India’s intelligence on the nuclear weapons programmes of several countries,

Looks like something is crammed with lack of intelligence here..

Those "secrets" deserved to be stolen. If a chap loads up all sorts of secret stuff on a laptop and takes it to the US with him that is the first breach of security.

Secondly - if everyone - including the press knew what the laptop contained, it only means that its contents were advertised so that any interested party could pick up the laptop.

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 24 Aug 2010 21:36

^^ Standard intel op. Leaves laptop in a car, intel chap opens trunk, takes laptop. But this isnt used that much any more. Probably standard theft, facilitated by the officer.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 24 Aug 2010 21:39

Sometime back one member had suggested that West doesn't consider secrets as secrets unless they are acquired by them. IOW if a person comes out and says things blatantly it will be dismissed propagandu. however if same is acquired after hardwork then its consider intelligence.

Most likely those laptops are ment to be stolen so West can verify the state of progress.

sum · Post by **sum** » 24 Aug 2010 21:42

Shyamd-ji,
You are saying that the NTRO official is a mole?

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 24 Aug 2010 22:10

I think we will never come to know if this was a case of genuine theft , an excellent work by our Intel to mislead the enemy by passing false information or penetration of NTRO by rival agency and some mole providing gold mine of information to the enemy.

ShivaS · Post by **ShivaS** » 24 Aug 2010 22:46

The antidote to Tanks is Helicopter gunships, equiped with appropriate missiles.
Everybody in the world knows that the only theater for tank battles would in Rajasthan a little in Punjab terrain may be a litlle in Lhasa (as per our war in Tibet thread).
So where is the scope for massive tank battles that our College of Combat instructors are teaching.

The only reason you want is Javelin is may be we can learn to build copies of Stinger?
The army wants Javelin because it cant have CAS and Helicopter gunships because of IAF?
******
Its like our citizens cant take pictures of our airpots but everybody has copies of our hangers.
Our Santanam was castigated for expressing his opinion and he was asked to shut up or Official secrets act would descend on him.
Now the laptops have everything others want to know but we the tax payers will not know.

Reminds me LKg giving white papers to all ambasadors but not to parliament...

Another Samaba spy case, another (a)quittarocchi case

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 24 Aug 2010 23:12

If you look at the DRDO missiles program, there is no known program for a man protable Anti-tank missile. So the Javelin procurement is being proposed as a quick/easy/no brainer way to give massa some green bucks as a way of good faith. I dont know why it has to be but it is. Paksi get free TOWs which are helicopter launched while our jawans get updated bazookas. And Army brass hankers for such doo dads.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 25 Aug 2010 08:07

After a brief search for information on Javelin - a few things strike me. It can be used against armor but has not been proven. It has been developed on the basis of "test, see the results, and improve".

It has a range of 2.5 km. Considering that anti-tank weapons now need to have longer ranges nowadays - I doubt if the Javelin is going to be applied by the Indian army as a primary anti-tank weapons. More likely it will be used as a far superior alternative to the Carl Gustav in getting Jihadi bunkers and houses. The Carl Gustav puts the user within range of small arms fire from windows of houses that jihadis occupy - or even from sangers in mountain hideouts.

For its reported effectiveness the Javelin appears to be unique - I am certain there is some cutting edge tech there that it will actually take 20 years to catch up. It weighs only 22 kg, has a twin tandem warhead and an IR seeker (cooled by an Argon bottle) which presumably makes it possible to fire though the window of a building.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 25 Aug 2010 10:58

ShivaS wrote:The antidote to Tanks is Helicopter gunships, equiped with appropriate missiles. Everybody in the world knows that the only theater for tank battles would in Rajasthan a little in Punjab terrain may be a litlle in Lhasa (as per our war in Tibet thread). So where is the scope for massive tank battles that our College of Combat instructors are teaching.

The only reason you want is Javelin is may be we can learn to build copies of Stinger? The army wants Javelin because it cant have CAS and Helicopter gunships because of IAF?

<SNIP>

(a) If only anti-dote to MBT is an Attack Helicopter - then why on earth is everyone trying to develop 3rd Gen F&F ATGM? Including India? Has it occured to you that the ratio of MBT to Attack Helicopters is always going to be skewed? And more so in case of Indian Army? So, what do you proposed we do? Leave the infantrymen without any means to defend itself?

(b) How does the fact the room for Mechanized/Manoeuver Warfare existing only in Southern Punjab and Rajasthan take away the need for Armored/Mechanized Warfare? And whatever makes you feel that these sectors cannot accomodate "Massive" armored battles? And while you're at it, please explain what is massive? Armored Regiment versus Armored Regiment or Brigade versus Brigade or Division versus Division?

(c) And what has the fact that IAF operated Gunships has got to do with Javelin or any other ATGM in IA Service? By your argument, UA Army should not have any ATGM in service? They have massive Gunship support, don't they? Plus the USAF back-up?

I hope you answer the above questions.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 25 Aug 2010 11:08

ramana wrote:If you look at the DRDO missiles program, there is no known program for a man protable Anti-tank missile. So the Javelin procurement is being proposed as a quick/easy/no brainer way to give massa some green bucks as a way of good faith. I dont know why it has to be but it is. Paksi get free TOWs which are helicopter launched while our jawans get updated bazookas. And Army brass hankers for such doo dads.

ramana, what is the relationship between Indian Javelin procurement and TSPA TOW induction? IA has a long term need for a 3rd Gen F&F ATGM. The Spike is supposed to have failed trials in India (iirc, 2006 period).

TSPA has dedicated ATGM units - called Light Mechanized and Anti-Tank brigades - these TOW are most probably for these. Their line infantry uses the Bakthar-Shikan.

To call them updated bazookas is gross understatement.For a change, it gives Indian Infantrymen real chance of engaging and surviving against a MBT.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 25 Aug 2010 11:19

shiv wrote: <SNIP>

It has a range of 2.5 km. Considering that anti-tank weapons now need to have longer ranges nowadays - I doubt if the Javelin is going to be applied by the Indian army as a primary anti-tank weapons. More likely it will be used as a far superior alternative to the Carl Gustav in getting Jihadi bunkers and houses. The Carl Gustav puts the user within range of small arms fire from windows of houses that jihadis occupy - or even from sangers in mountain hideouts.

<SNIP>

Shiv, ATGM needing longer range and being manportable is a contradictory requirement.

If you look at the longer range ATGM -these are invariably vehicle or Gunship mounted and weigh north of 30kgs - and this is for missile only. Indian NAG (42kgs), German Pars-3LR (49kgs), Hellfire (45+kgs), Spike-ER (34kgs).

Your manportable ATGM are in 20-25kgs range and offer the same range(kms) profile - 2-2.5kms.

That is why one has something like NAMICA for longer range anti-tank operations.

dinesha · Post by **dinesha** » 25 Aug 2010 11:26

The government is considering the deployment of the 2,000 km range Agni-II and 350 km range Prithvi III surface to surface ballistic missiles close to the Chinese border, Defence Ministry sources said today.

The sources said that additional land was being procured by the Army in North-West Bengal and adjoining states for deployment of these missiles

http://www.hindustantimes.com/India-mul ... 91252.aspx

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 25 Aug 2010 11:34

TOW is a 40 kg class weapon, Infact with the tripod and the launch control unit the weight goes up to 100 KGs. At this weight, it is best used a jeep mounted ATGM.

Similarly, I would hope to see that the DRDO develop a Jeep mounted launcher for the NAG to complement the heavy ATGM ( Konkurs & similar ATGMS ) forces of the IA.

The sooner it happnes, the higher the probability of the NAG order going from a few hundreds to a few thousands.

The ATGM capability of the IA will increase many fold by doing so.

D Roy · Post by **D Roy** » 25 Aug 2010 12:10

Here's something from the latest Mod report section 7.64

BDL is presently
working for adaptation of
the system to a variety of
Aircraft Platforms and also
developing RF controlled
Anti Tank Guided Missile
(ATGM)

ShivaS · Post by **ShivaS** » 25 Aug 2010 12:13

Dont send infantry near tanks call for CAS, Helicopter gunships, or heck send in few prithvis...
the point is we need to change our doctrine of not using infantry and young captains to charge up the mountains (like Brave Amar Jawan Kalia & others).

Just because today we have some money in the coffers Javelin is Javali ( a romantic composition in carnatic music which mostly Love and lust in double entendre) we have money uncle needs money somebody wants to make money so we sing Javelin song and dnace.

So we have a situation in which a infantry guy gets close like in battle of Bulge heros or Saving private Ryan and boom he fires Javelin at close range, which any could be done by milan or Tow or wow or even RPG. ( The somalis have shown how RPG can become Stinger no).

Improvisation is the name of the game if not atleast make it locally, fight wars like Taliban, with improvised equipment.

And quoting Donal Rums "As you know, you go to war with the army you have, not the army you might want or wish to have at a later time."

The best way to protect infantry is to call for air support and served the army very well as Kargil histroy shows.

Even better dont go to war keep talking as GOI/MOD Sop is.

Finally US is US India is India, our doctrine is different our capabilities are different our requirements are different and our affordability is limited including commisions.