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.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54560
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby ramana » 13 Jun 2012 01:57

Prem Kumar, you didnt get the nuance of rejecting the Nag for not meeting the minimum range requirement.
See the IA wants the 500m or 0.5km minimum range as a last ditch weapon. Instead DRDO gives them a range of 800m or 0.8km which is not so last ditch weapon. More like canal then a ditch.
Hence the rejection.

Anyway the IA has ensured it will field obsolete weapons due to its own special culture.

Can't blame babus for that.

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7765
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby nachiket » 13 Jun 2012 01:59

The IA didn't reject the Nag. They rejected the NAMICA since they couldn't find anything wrong with the Nag.

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7730
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby rohitvats » 13 Jun 2012 09:29

Prem Kumar wrote:Interesting that you mentioned about 4K Milan as a stop-gap order even when it had a range problem! No such concession for the Nag, which is a 3rd gen missile, which can take out pretty much any tank out there. Recall that the IA wanted a 2nd trial in 2011 because the 2010 trial tested a minimum range of 800m, while IA wanted a min range of 500m. Then came the Namica episode. All this for a paltry order of 443 Nags


PK, all you've done by writing the above is to show your opinionated mindset. So, you think IA used double standards with Milan-2T and Nag? And you suppose this was because Milan-2T is a foreign product? Well, my dear good sir, Milan-2T is made in India by one of the DPSU (BDL I think). So, IA inducted (actually was forced to by MOD) as much an Indian system as possible. As for Nag and the paltry order - the role of Nag and NAMICA in IA has been discussed on BRF before passing such comments as "paltry orders".

Prem Kumar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2489
Joined: 31 Mar 2009 00:10

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby Prem Kumar » 13 Jun 2012 23:03

Rohit: I do have an opinionated mindset regarding the IA's step-motherly treatment towards several indigenous products like Nag, Arjun etc. There is enough evidence to substantiate such a mindset.

You may want to read this article: http://pragmatic.nationalinterest.in/2011/03/24/the-reason-we-buy-low-quality-missiles/

Yes - BDL makes the Milan-2T (cheaper than imported Milans for sure) and the MOD arm-twisted the IA into accepting an inferior missile in 2008. So, you are right on this and I stand corrected. But the IA has itself to blame for this mess. No GSQR formulation for a 3rd Gen ATGM for 3 years - this when a 3rd gen ATGM is already under development. Then the usual IA Artillery-gun-style infinite trial tamasha. And then complain that it is short by over 40K ATGMs.

443 missiles out of a possible need for 40K "is paltry", whichever way we look at it. With a production run of 443 missiles, the per-unit cost will remain ridiculously high. I had read somewhere that the IA has an eventual need for 7K Nags. I hope to see the day when such an order materializes - the Akash success gives me some reason to hope.

To recap why I think the IA has been step-motherly towards Nag (all this has been discussed on this forum before):

a) Namica trials as far back as 2008
b) Nag trials in 2009, which it passes with flying colors. Minimum range tested: 800m
c) IA wants another trial in 2010 with a minimum range of 500m! Nag passes that one too
d) Namica complaints surface in 2011
e) Namica trials in 2012

There is no reason why the IA couldnt have placed a firm order in 2009 for Tranche1 of Nag/Namica for 443/13, to be followed by additional orders, once the newer minimum range was established and a newer version of Namica was delivered. There is also no sensible reason why the IA complained about Namica in 2011 - a full 3 years after testing it.

By now, they could have had their initial 443 missiles inducted, provided feedback on operational kinks to be ironed out & BDL could be manufacturing Tranche 2 or Tranche 3

If we want to be charitable to the IA, we can claim that this reflects a lack of foresight & planning. The uncharitable explanations would involve obsession with foreign maal or worse.

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7730
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby rohitvats » 14 Jun 2012 00:25

[quote="Prem Kumar"]Rohit: I do have an opinionated mindset regarding the IA's step-motherly treatment towards several indigenous products like Nag, Arjun etc. There is enough evidence to substantiate such a mindset.

And that is where the problem is. If I take cue from you, I can extrapolate the example of BEML TATRA fiasco and pain the entire DPSU set-up as corrupt and incompetent. And god knows how many "indigenous products" are serving with the armed forces of which may eventually come to know about. But would that be the right thing to do on my part? All you do by posting such statements (as about Milan-2t and Nag) is lower the quality of debate and take the focus away from the crux of the discussion.

You may want to read this article: http://pragmatic.nationalinterest.in/2011/03/24/the-reason-we-buy-low-quality-missiles/
Well, I had read the CAG Report when it came out and there was a round of discussion on this very topic on BRF.My assertion was based on this very CAG Report.

Yes - BDL makes the Milan-2T (cheaper than imported Milans for sure) and the MOD arm-twisted the IA into accepting an inferior missile in 2008. So, you are right on this and I stand corrected. Thank you for being humble on this account.


But the IA has itself to blame for this mess. No GSQR formulation for a 3rd Gen ATGM for 3 years - this when a 3rd gen ATGM is already under development.

Sorry, but the argument is non-starter - and this goes for CAG as well.

CAG main argument is that by not asking for 3G F&F Missile, Army bought it upon itself to be coerced into buying substandard missiles.While the very argument about 3G F&F Missile is nonsense IMO, the entire line of argument enemy having longer range ATGM is absurd. Let us see the chain of events -

GSQR 2003 for Tandem Warhead ATGM (most probably because the ERA started making appearance in the sub-continent) - noting happens between 2003 and 2007 - 2007 BDL reverts with missile, it fails to meet target - 2008 BDL again reverts with missile, it again fails to meet the target - GSQR amended to allow induction of inferior missile.

Now, coming to charge about "GSQR for 3G F&F Missile" from CAG - can you, or CAG shed light on what was happening between 2003 and 2007? In the absence of any comment on this period in time in terms of IA's assessment of requirement, how can anyone say that IA SHOULD have come out with GSQR? What if the GSQR never progressed to purchasing stage because of shenanigans of MOD and DPSU? Can anyone authoritatively comment on this aspect? Choosing to blame the army is the easy way out. The difficult way is to some time researching on the topic and look for answers. Anyone can point fingers!!!


As for the in-house 3rd Gen ATGM - which missile are you talking about? NAG? How does the same meet the requirement of Man portable ATGM? Or are you also from the school which claims that by simply "reducing" certain components in weight and size, we'll have a man portable ATGM? As you've yourself written below, NAG came of age in 2009 - are you suggesting that IA should have placed the bets on a system which itself was yet to be proven? While I'm all for indigenous products, simple hand-waving arguments do not suffice to answer some hard questions.

There were reports about DRDO working on man portable NAG version - has anyone heard about it?


Then the usual IA Artillery-gun-style infinite trial tamasha. And then complain that it is short by over 40K ATGMs.

Sorry, but the above is rant typical of those who read the headlines and pass judgments. The IA Artillery procurement saga is well know - if you place the blame of infinite trials at IA's doorstep, then it is you who is ignorant of the topic and need to read up on that.

As for shortage of ATGM missile - well, all I can do is :roll: ...you're simply picking an unrelated data point and in absence of any other explanation for the same, placing the blame at IA's doorstep. If the TATRA and ARV tamasha has shown anything, IA is seriously hamstrung as far as purchases are concerned. The ATGM shortfall that you blame army for, is procured by MOD - from international vendors or DPSU...unless, you can show me proof that IA simply forgot to place orders, the blame will rest on MOD's shoulder


443 missiles out of a possible need for 40K "is paltry", whichever way we look at it.

The problem here is - you don't know which the right way to look at. :roll:
There is no equivalent of NAG in IA inventory - there are only three types of ATGM in IA service: (1) the man portable one of which we have Milan and Milan-2T (2) ones used with BMP-1/2 (3) Cannon launched ATGM on T-90 and Arjun (in future). Any requirement for NAG will be over and above the 84K supposed holding for ATGM in IA.

NAG is a type of a system which will require innovative deployment philosophy and technique by the IA - my guess is that the R&S Battalions of RAPID and other mechanized formations are going to be prime candidates.


Apart from the NAMICA fiasco, other parts of your argument are not tenable. How is the tranche system applicable here? Can you upgrade the older tranche missiles to newer level like you can in Arjun? What happens to the older missile equipped regiments? Does the army continue to have different regiments equipped with different systems?

As I said earlier, finger pointing without background research is most easy thing to do.


srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4699
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby srai » 14 Jun 2012 03:56

There are also a huge number (10,000+) of 84mm Carl Gustav--one per infantry section--in service. These are pretty capable anti-tank weapons as well.

Prem Kumar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2489
Joined: 31 Mar 2009 00:10

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby Prem Kumar » 14 Jun 2012 03:57

rohitvats wrote:But the IA has itself to blame for this mess. No GSQR formulation for a 3rd Gen ATGM for 3 years - this when a 3rd gen ATGM is already under development.

Sorry, but the argument is non-starter - and this goes for CAG as well.

CAG main argument is that by not asking for 3G F&F Missile, Army bought it upon itself to be coerced into buying substandard missiles.While the very argument about 3G F&F Missile is nonsense IMO, the entire line of argument enemy having longer range ATGM is absurd. Let us see the chain of events -

GSQR 2003 for Tandem Warhead ATGM (most probably because the ERA started making appearance in the sub-continent) - noting happens between 2003 and 2007 - 2007 BDL reverts with missile, it fails to meet target - 2008 BDL again reverts with missile, it again fails to meet the target - GSQR amended to allow induction of inferior missile.

Now, coming to charge about "GSQR for 3G F&F Missile" from CAG - can you, or CAG shed light on what was happening between 2003 and 2007? In the absence of any comment on this period in time in terms of IA's assessment of requirement, how can anyone say that IA SHOULD have come out with GSQR? What if the GSQR never progressed to purchasing stage because of shenanigans of MOD and DPSU? Can anyone authoritatively comment on this aspect? Choosing to blame the army is the easy way out. The difficult way is to some time researching on the topic and look for answers. Anyone can point fingers!!!


As for the in-house 3rd Gen ATGM - which missile are you talking about? NAG? How does the same meet the requirement of Man portable ATGM? Or are you also from the school which claims that by simply "reducing" certain components in weight and size, we'll have a man portable ATGM? As you've yourself written below, NAG came of age in 2009 - are you suggesting that IA should have placed the bets on a system which itself was yet to be proven? While I'm all for indigenous products, simple hand-waving arguments do not suffice to answer some hard questions.

There were reports about DRDO working on man portable NAG version - has anyone heard about it?


You are missing my point. I didnt say that the NAG is a man-portable ATGM. Neither did I say that the NAG is a replacement for the Milan-2T. My point for the above statement is simple: its difficult to imagine the IA's inability to come up with GSQR for a MANPATGM when a 3rd gen missile (though not a man-portable one) is nearly development complete in-house and missiles like Javelin are already in use.

At any rate, I provided the report just for your reference. I dont want that to be a red herring because its not the crux of my argument.

My main argument is not about Milan or Javelin. Its about IA's step-motherly treatment to Nag. I have listed data that shows such behavior towards Nag, which you have not addressed - other than to say that the Namica issue is the only one where IA can be deemed to be at fault. Far from the case.


Then the usual IA Artillery-gun-style infinite trial tamasha. And then complain that it is short by over 40K ATGMs.

Sorry, but the above is rant typical of those who read the headlines and pass judgments. The IA Artillery procurement saga is well know - if you place the blame of infinite trials at IA's doorstep, then it is you who is ignorant of the topic and need to read up on that.


As for shortage of ATGM missile - well, all I can do is :roll: ...you're simply picking an unrelated data point and in absence of any other explanation for the same, placing the blame at IA's doorstep. If the TATRA and ARV tamasha has shown anything, IA is seriously hamstrung as far as purchases are concerned. The ATGM shortfall that you blame army for, is procured by MOD - from international vendors or DPSU...unless, you can show me proof that IA simply forgot to place orders, the blame will rest on MOD's shoulder


I am not blaming IA exclusively for the artillery fiasco. In the artillery case, they are more sinned against than sinning. But the IA decision makers aren't above blame either. I quoted the infinite-trials to point out the the similarity between that and the repeated Nag trials. Once again, I dont want this debate to now drift into an artillery discussion

The data point isnt unrelated. The shortfall, at least partly, can be filled by Nag, if the IA is willing to order it in larger quantities

443 missiles out of a possible need for 40K "is paltry", whichever way we look at it.

The problem here is - you don't know which the right way to look at. :roll:
There is no equivalent of NAG in IA inventory - there are only three types of ATGM in IA service: (1) the man portable one of which we have Milan and Milan-2T (2) ones used with BMP-1/2 (3) Cannon launched ATGM on T-90 and Arjun (in future). Any requirement for NAG will be over and above the 84K supposed holding for ATGM in IA.

NAG is a type of a system which will require innovative deployment philosophy and technique by the IA - my guess is that the R&S Battalions of RAPID and other mechanized formations are going to be prime candidates.


Category (2) above is where Nag+Namica would logically fall under - i.e. vehicle mounted ATGM. Granted that the IA needs to figure out its deployment model, but it has had sufficient time to do so. Nag’s development trials finished in 2005. By the IA's own accounts, the Nag is the deadliest ATGM in the world. What’s the hold up?

Apart from the NAMICA fiasco, other parts of your argument are not tenable. How is the tranche system applicable here? Can you upgrade the older tranche missiles to newer level like you can in Arjun? What happens to the older missile equipped regiments? Does the army continue to have different regiments equipped with different systems?

As I said earlier, finger pointing without background research is most easy thing to do.



The tranche system is very much applicable here. Dont we have Brahmos-Block1, Block2 and Block3 employed with different regiments in the IA? What's so unique or difficult about this? Lets say the IA had inducted Nag Mk1 (with the 500m in range) in 2010. The regiments that have Mk1 can come in for an upgrade to Mk2 standards if need be.


Pranav
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5280
Joined: 06 Apr 2009 13:23

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby Pranav » 14 Jun 2012 06:57

Is there is domestic version of the Stinger missile?

tejas
BRFite
Posts: 768
Joined: 31 Mar 2008 04:47

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby tejas » 14 Jun 2012 07:25

^^^ India has the Russian supplied Igla. No indigenous Indian equivalent.

Image

RoyG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5180
Joined: 10 Aug 2009 05:10

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby RoyG » 14 Jun 2012 07:41

Igla-M and not the Igla-S. Isn't a competitive trial supposed to be taking place soon?

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36415
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby SaiK » 14 Jun 2012 07:47

The fact remains that there is a large discrepancy between what needs and wants are, and what the developer (r&d shops and labs) produces. We can blame two critical parties, the buyer/consumer/needy and the seller/producer/developer... and we find arguments either side valid, and at the same invalid as well. The premise of all these problems are inadequate processes in RE (requirement engineering), and better process model w.r.t indigenous product development. It is no one's black box when it comes to knowing our status in terms of capability and the process established to get there. This is where, we see supporting discussion points taking sides,, and that is exactly the place where the problem lies.. taking sides - the forces vs. the developers. this is the fundamental problem not just in BR, but including our street talks.

The need of the hour is joint strategies, that includes CAG, Forces, and R&D labs.. and not just them, but including gov, and private parties who are regulators and producers. private parternship especially in ToTing from R&D and establishing production engineering setup is vital for growth.. and we are at ground zero here., and I don't see any arguments or discussions leading in that direction.

kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3973
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby kit » 14 Jun 2012 10:46

SaiK wrote:

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NEWS/news ... wsid=19014

alliance with the US, such that they make their airspace available for such operations or that the NGB will be so stealthy that it will penetrate Indian airspace at will before doing the same to the Chinese. Neither is, of course, a particularly settling prospect to India. Not to mention that a Seventh Fleet in the Bay of Bengal impinges on a core area of interest for India and can surveillance seed numerous Indian facilities in the vicinity, including missile test ranges.

OT but.,
This is probably one area where India and china can work together and not let Bangladesh too chummy with the yanks.Neither India nor china will be comfortable with a US military base even if it is not overtly so., in their back yard.

Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4701
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby Manish_Sharma » 14 Jun 2012 11:18

When it is said certain missile for example 'Milan 1' is being phased out from army, what happens to these missiles? They are taken apart and sold in kabaad? Or used on the border for answering in time to time shelling by porkis?

krishnan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7342
Joined: 07 Oct 2005 12:58
Location: 13° 04' N , 80° 17' E

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby krishnan » 14 Jun 2012 11:36

Probably destroyed....

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby Singha » 14 Jun 2012 11:51

the thermal imagers could be removed, refurbished and issued to infantry units.

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7730
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby rohitvats » 14 Jun 2012 12:05

Manish_Sharma wrote:When it is said certain missile for example 'Milan 1' is being phased out from army, what happens to these missiles? They are taken apart and sold in kabaad? Or used on the border for answering in time to time shelling by porkis?


Most would be used in training the troops and for annual firing practice. The older ones where the shelf life has expired are destroyed. There are SOPs for recovering those elements which may have some value - like seekers, fuzes etc.

Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4701
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby Manish_Sharma » 14 Jun 2012 12:16

^^ Thanks !

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36415
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby SaiK » 14 Jun 2012 18:09

SDRE-ness will never put anything to waste! is my belief

Surya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5034
Joined: 05 Mar 2001 12:31

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby Surya » 14 Jun 2012 18:12

Training since most soldiers get arare chance to fire a live missile


Having said that many a expired missile fires like a Diwali rocket :)

at least the AAMs my friends have fired.
:mrgreen:

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36415
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby SaiK » 14 Jun 2012 21:42

surya, didn't understood your pun. btw, training with real missiles is vital for preparedness., and this should happen for systems that are in service. some level of batch testing will always happen.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16814
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby NRao » 19 Jun 2012 08:17

DRDO plans to build reusable missiles

As part of plans to develop reusable ballistic missiles, the Defence Research and Development Organization (DRDO) will test indigenously developed scram jet engine next year, DRDO chief V K Saraswat said in a TV interview.

"We have propulsion technology, re-entry technologies, we have the technology which can take a re-entry system which will deliver a payload and have yet another re-entry system which will bring the missile back when it re-enters the atmosphere on its return journey," he said.

"We have demonstrated the performance of a scram jet engine operating at Mach six speed (six times the speed of sound)," he said. On the range of Agni V missile, which was successfully test-fired off the Odisha coast, the DRDO chief said, with moderate modifications, "it can be extended to any range which is of our interest".

Surya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5034
Joined: 05 Mar 2001 12:31

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby Surya » 19 Jun 2012 19:42

saik said

btw, training with real missiles is vital for preparedness.,


yes and they are expensive so not everyone gets to fire live ones .. not in India not in US.

you get expired ones but even that does nto go to every person (whether its a squadron, platoon etc)

and expired ones are expired because they are unreliable.

Friends have flown out over the Arabian sea and fired AAMs at dummy targets and seen them take a diwali rocket like trajectory into the sea

A Sharma
BRFite
Posts: 1148
Joined: 20 May 2003 11:31

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby A Sharma » 21 Jun 2012 05:32

Army set to get air defence missiles

The Ministry of Defence is set to clear a Rs 12,000-crore proposal of the Indian Army to procure new generation air defence missiles to replace its ageing Russian systems. A boost for the transport wing of the Indian Air Force is also on the cards with the purchase of an additional 14 Dornier aircraft likely to be given the go-ahead on Thursday.

The Army is seeking to procure eight regiments of Quick Reaction Surface to Air Missiles (QRSAMs) to replace the Russian Kvadrat systems that have reached obsolescence. Sources said the proposal was set to be given a go-ahead by the Defence Acquisition Council (DAC) that is meeting on Thursday.

After a clearance by the DAC, the Army will float a global tender to purchase the systems. The Rs 12,000-crore tag makes it one of the largest-ever global contracts floated by the Army. Defence PSU Bharat Dynamics Limited (BDL) will be the designated partner agency for the maintenance transfer of technology that will be required in the contract.

The DAC is also likely to give the go-ahead for 14 additional Dornier transport aircraft for the IAF that will boost its fleet level up from the current 41. The aircraft — used in light transport or personnel carrier roles — will be procured from Hindustan Aeronautics Limited at a cost of over Rs 1,000 crore.

A go-ahead for the procurement of the QRSAMs will come as a major relief for the Army that is struggling with an obsolete air defence network. This is the second time in the last five years that the Army will try to obtain the systems after the indigenous Akash systems as well as an earlier round of procurement failed to meet its requirements.

Earlier this year, the Army had floated a ‘request for information’ for the systems that was responded to by most global missile manufacturers. It is looking for a quick reaction system that can engage targets at a range of 15 km at a minimum altitude of 6,000 metres in under six seconds.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54560
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby ramana » 21 Jun 2012 05:59

A new scam in making?

Kvadrat = SA6 Gainful.

Wasn't the Akash supposed to replace that missile?

So whats going on?

Boreas
BRFite
Posts: 315
Joined: 23 Jan 2011 11:24

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby Boreas » 21 Jun 2012 06:37

:shock:

A Sharma
BRFite
Posts: 1148
Joined: 20 May 2003 11:31

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby A Sharma » 21 Jun 2012 07:02

15 km for QRSAM vs 25 Km for Akash
I guess the Army likes to take the enemy up close

sankum
BRFite
Posts: 850
Joined: 20 Dec 2004 21:45

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby sankum » 21 Jun 2012 08:01

Akash is MRSAM with 40 km(mk2 version) range and 15km altitude ceiling of which 2000 nos missiles in 2 regiments will be procured which will replace kvadrat.

QRSAM is entirely different requirement of SRSAM of 15km and 6km altitude requirement of spyder class.

member_23360
BRFite
Posts: 152
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby member_23360 » 21 Jun 2012 08:05

A Sharma wrote:15 km for QRSAM vs 25 Km for Akash
I guess the Army likes to take the enemy up close


It's a different category, Maitri was supposed to be the Indigenous QRSAM for Army, seems like this project is scrapped.

Maitri was the new avatar of Trishul System.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby shiv » 21 Jun 2012 08:18

A Sharma wrote:15 km for QRSAM vs 25 Km for Akash
I guess the Army likes to take the enemy up close

No other go. It is always the army that has to get up close to the enemy. The Air Force and Navy inherently can operate at a distance by choice. The army has no such luxury.

sum
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10057
Joined: 08 May 2007 17:04
Location: (IT-vity && DRDO) nagar

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby sum » 21 Jun 2012 08:27

This is the second time in the last five years that the Army will try to obtain the systems after the indigenous Akash systems as well as an earlier round of procurement failed to meet its requirements.

Spyder also failed IA requirements? :-?

vic
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2412
Joined: 19 May 2010 10:00

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby vic » 21 Jun 2012 08:32

Seems like create a requirement which can be only fulfilled by imports when we have Astra, LRSAM and Akash in our kitty.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby Austin » 21 Jun 2012 08:46

A Sharma wrote:Army set to get air defence missiles

The Ministry of Defence is set to clear a Rs 12,000-crore proposal of the Indian Army to procure new generation air defence missiles to replace its ageing Russian systems.


This is a QRSAM and will replace the SA-8/SA-13 for Army Mobile AD unit ....... Akash on T-72 chassis is a MR-SAM will replace the SA-6.

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7730
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby rohitvats » 21 Jun 2012 10:39

ramana wrote:A new scam in making?

Kvadrat = SA6 Gainful.

Wasn't the Akash supposed to replace that missile?

So whats going on?


ramana, we have grand total of two regiments of SA-6 and Akash in the long run is the replacement for these missiles as well new inductions in this segment. The above requirement is for replacement of OSA-AK missile/SA-8 Gecko in the IA inventory.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby Singha » 21 Jun 2012 10:41

who could be the potential contenders for this deal. the spyder & VLmica not being in a mobile vehicle seems not be in running?

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7730
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby rohitvats » 21 Jun 2012 10:41

vic wrote:Seems like create a requirement which can be only fulfilled by imports when we have Astra, LRSAM and Akash in our kitty.


Well, can you apply your mind before posting drivel on the IA? :roll:

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby Singha » 21 Jun 2012 10:58

the three which would fit the 15km bill are Tungushka-M1, TOR-M2 and the CrotaleNG mk3
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/crotale/

the crotale likely has the better EO/radar kit - radar being a derivative of thales netherland SMART-S.
and its also quite the latest, having entered trials in 2008.

member_19648
BRFite
Posts: 265
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:13

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby member_19648 » 21 Jun 2012 11:35

All fine, but what the hell do the DDMs mean by this?
This is the second time in the last five years that the Army will try to obtain the systems after the indigenous Akash systems as well as an earlier round of procurement failed to meet its requirements.

The recent user trials weren't proof enough?

pragnya
BRFite
Posts: 728
Joined: 20 Feb 2011 18:41

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby pragnya » 21 Jun 2012 11:40

Singha wrote:who could be the potential contenders for this deal. the spyder & VLmica not being in a mobile vehicle seems not be in running?


MBDA was keen (still is IMO) of a joint development of Trishul QRSAM called Maitri (with DRDL) to pitch for the above project. since this has not been given go ahead by the powers be, i am not sure.

MBDA To Race Indo-French SR-SAM In 2 Indian Competitions

Add on.

member_20453
BRFite
Posts: 613
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby member_20453 » 21 Jun 2012 13:41

Guys whatever happened to the Spyder-ADS, has it been inducted, didn't we order like a huge nulber of these?

Why the heck should we order anything else, SPYDER-ADS with Python-5 is by far the most capable, plus it out ranges the requirements and comes with 8 missile clauncher if needed.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby Singha » 21 Jun 2012 13:46

Spyder delivery seems to be going at the space of a particularly small and drunk spider. even livefist is a blank on it, if it exists its more secret than our N-program. perhaps the System as a whole was not ready upto the level in which it was finalized, discovered after the contract and israelis are slowly working to fix it and bring it up to par after taking a couple tranches of money. the usual scene with most imports.

the CVC has also got its claws on it probably.

if the IA wants a high mobile tracked system with integral EO/Radar then spyder does not fit the bill and neither does VL mica. both the SA8 and SA13 have all sensors on same vehicle and are hence self contained with no dependency other than reload vehicle.

for IAF/IA Spyder works fine for defence of fixed assets like airports, camps and supply dumps.


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 29 guests