Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 16547
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: woh log gawad hai, unpad hai !
Contact:

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby Rahul M » 29 Apr 2014 23:52

John wrote:There was a variant of S-75 that carried the nuclear warhead.

SA-2 = S75

John
BRFite
Posts: 1998
Joined: 03 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby John » 30 Apr 2014 02:55

Yes i know pointing out as you said S-75/SA-2 not Kub missile carried nuclear warhead. Trying to show my support for mother russia in current standoff by not using the NATO desig. :D

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19801
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby Philip » 30 Apr 2014 10:02

Naval Akash should be attempted by the DRDO when Barak-8 is delayed by 3+ years..Can't understand why there is no naval program for our capital ships.

vic
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2415
Joined: 19 May 2010 10:00

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby vic » 30 Apr 2014 10:06

Israeli have locked in Naval SAM requirement through Barak 1&2. It is all honest only and off course no kick backs to prevent DRDO developing Naval Variants of Astra, Akash and AAD.

srin
BRFite
Posts: 1617
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:13

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby srin » 30 Apr 2014 10:54

Philip wrote:Naval Akash should be attempted by the DRDO when Barak-8 is delayed by 3+ years..Can't understand why there is no naval program for our capital ships.


The weakness there is command guidance. Against supersonic maneuvering cruise missiles, there probably won't be enough time for the missile to wait for ship's guidance. You'd require a SARH-like mode or even better, an active seeker.

Akash seems bulky for the specified range, compared to other ship-based SAMs. No idea why, ramjet should make it weigh less because you don't need to carry the oxidant.

So - you are now trying to build a new missile ...

Yogi_G
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2389
Joined: 21 Nov 2008 04:10
Location: Punya Bhoomi -- Jambu Dweepam

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby Yogi_G » 30 Apr 2014 11:15

Kersi D wrote:I think the Soviet SA 5 SAMs NATO Codename 'Gammon' / 'Galosh' had a nuclear warhead. The tactic is to explode a nuclear warhead amidst the hordes of NATO / US bombers attacking the rodina


I think the EMP from the explosion would fry more electronics over a large radius first as against the shock wave taking out aircraft.

srin
BRFite
Posts: 1617
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:13

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby srin » 30 Apr 2014 14:18

vic wrote:Israeli have locked in Naval SAM requirement through Barak 1&2. It is all honest only and off course no kick backs to prevent DRDO developing Naval Variants of Astra, Akash and AAD.


At the time Barak-1 was chosen, the only option was a non-performing Trishul. If not for Barak missile, IN would have been forced to deploy ships without anti-missile defense, especially, when the TSP had Orions with Harpoons.

Irrespective of the kickbacks - and given the byzantine MoD rules and blacklisting procedures and CBI "clean chits", nobody will ever know either way for sure - IN has found for years that the missiles have been effective and that is all that matters.

I can't say much about Barak-2 - the more I read, the more confused I become ...

vic
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2415
Joined: 19 May 2010 10:00

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby vic » 30 Apr 2014 16:08

Who prevented DRDO to run a simultaneous plan for developing Naval Variants of Akash, Astra and AAD? Today development of all these missiles is way ahead of Barak-2.

srin
BRFite
Posts: 1617
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:13

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby srin » 30 Apr 2014 18:17

I'm afraid you need to ask DRDO about that. I also don't have any open source information on where Barak-2/8/NG is, and how much longer it will take to get ready.

member_28502
BRFite
Posts: 281
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby member_28502 » 30 Apr 2014 18:31

The problems with Aakash and Nag are same seeker

John
BRFite
Posts: 1998
Joined: 03 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby John » 30 Apr 2014 19:57

vic wrote:Who prevented DRDO to run a simultaneous plan for developing Naval Variants of Akash, Astra and AAD? Today development of all these missiles is way ahead of Barak-2.


Keep in mind Akash can easily be fitted into existing shtil launchers and AAD can be canisterized and fitted into Brahmos universal launcher.

vic
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2415
Joined: 19 May 2010 10:00

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby vic » 30 Apr 2014 22:28

Rs 20,000 crore orders have already been given to Barak-2 without even one successful test firing let alone successful user trials. Practically no technology transfer will be made in the deal to India. The nomenclature of JV is beautiful scam to award non competitive single vendor inflated price orders for undeveloped products with hardly any ToT or Manufactering rights.

titash
BRFite
Posts: 329
Joined: 26 Aug 2011 18:44

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby titash » 30 Apr 2014 23:05

The Akash SAM is best compared with the RN's Sea Dart as operated during the Falklands conflict.

1) Sea Dart has the same propulsion (ramjet) and is actually a smaller & lighter missile than the Akash (550 kg vs. 720 kg)
2) The Akash is a longer, heavier missile and carries a significantly larger warhead (60 kg vs. 11 kg). A larger warhead may imply less confidence in the guidance mechanism OR the desire to inflict heavier damage on an aircraft that might return home if lightly damaged.
3) Akash has command guidance (less accurate in the terminal stage); Sea Dart had semi active radar homing
4) Sea Dart's range was ~ 70 km in its initial version. The upgraded version with an autopilot (allowing a more optimal flight path) was ~ 150 km. Compare that to Akash with a 25km range

This leads me to conclude that possibly:
1) Akash system has LOWER life cycle costs because the missile itself is lower tech and CHEAPER (command guidance) while the radars are somewhat sophisticated. This enables a large number of missiles to be purchased
2) Akash uses a relatively large warhead to compensate for slightly degraded guidance compared to SARH or active homing
3) A smaller proportion of the Akash missile body is devoted to propellant, and this decreases range...reasons being the lower accuracy of command guidance once you go farther from the guidance radar + the need to carry a larger warhead. The Akash is probably OPTIMIZED for performance at 25 km
4) Akash follows a non optimal flight path due to continuously (slaved to radar) command guidance as opposed to independent autopilot

The RN mounted Sea Dart only on larger ships (Invincible class, HMS Bristol, Type 42s) and those ships carried a small number of missiles. Akash is larger and, by design, is best employed in a scenario wherein a larger number of rounds can be fired against each target at closer distances...i.e. airfield defence. My guess is that makes it unsuitable for today's IN requirements wherein the desire is to take out the maritime patrol aircraft or the JF-17/Mirage BEFORE it can fire a harpoon/exocet.

Not to mention, Sea Dart was not equipped to handle low level aircraft or sea skimmers. I wouldn't be surprised if the Akash has the same limitations.

Thanks,
Titash

member_23694
BRFite
Posts: 732
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby member_23694 » 30 Apr 2014 23:20

slightly OT:
one thing is for sure, most of the indigenous defence product and ISRO rockets are over-weight . Not sure why ? :roll:
But they are definitely not a looker , with the sleekness ,lightness, compactness of there Western counterpart.
Hope the next generation products further improves on this front.
Designer defence products 8) . I don't mind :wink:

member_22733
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3788
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby member_22733 » 30 Apr 2014 23:26

Errr.. I think the thinking is: If it meets its design specifications we will accept it. And 'looking good' is not one of the design specs :)

srin
BRFite
Posts: 1617
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:13

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby srin » 30 Apr 2014 23:46

titash wrote:The Akash SAM is best compared with the RN's Sea Dart as operated during the Falklands conflict.

1) Sea Dart has the same propulsion (ramjet) and is actually a smaller & lighter missile than the Akash (550 kg vs. 720 kg)
2) The Akash is a longer, heavier missile and carries a significantly larger warhead (60 kg vs. 11 kg). A larger warhead may imply less confidence in the guidance mechanism OR the desire to inflict heavier damage on an aircraft that might return home if lightly damaged.
3) Akash has command guidance (less accurate in the terminal stage); Sea Dart had semi active radar homing
4) Sea Dart's range was ~ 70 km in its initial version. The upgraded version with an autopilot (allowing a more optimal flight path) was ~ 150 km. Compare that to Akash with a 25km range

This leads me to conclude that possibly:
1) Akash system has LOWER life cycle costs because the missile itself is lower tech and CHEAPER (command guidance) while the radars are somewhat sophisticated. This enables a large number of missiles to be purchased
2) Akash uses a relatively large warhead to compensate for slightly degraded guidance compared to SARH or active homing
3) A smaller proportion of the Akash missile body is devoted to propellant, and this decreases range...reasons being the lower accuracy of command guidance once you go farther from the guidance radar + the need to carry a larger warhead. The Akash is probably OPTIMIZED for performance at 25 km
4) Akash follows a non optimal flight path due to continuously (slaved to radar) command guidance as opposed to independent autopilot

The RN mounted Sea Dart only on larger ships (Invincible class, HMS Bristol, Type 42s) and those ships carried a small number of missiles. Akash is larger and, by design, is best employed in a scenario wherein a larger number of rounds can be fired against each target at closer distances...i.e. airfield defence. My guess is that makes it unsuitable for today's IN requirements wherein the desire is to take out the maritime patrol aircraft or the JF-17/Mirage BEFORE it can fire a harpoon/exocet.

Not to mention, Sea Dart was not equipped to handle low level aircraft or sea skimmers. I wouldn't be surprised if the Akash has the same limitations.

Thanks,
Titash


Titash-ji, this is the best analysis I've read up on the Akash missile. Thank you !

titash
BRFite
Posts: 329
Joined: 26 Aug 2011 18:44

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby titash » 01 May 2014 03:25

Thank you srin-ji. Much appreciated!!!

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16068
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby NRao » 01 May 2014 03:41

I vaguely recall a discussion about maintaining speed through the flight envelop. This from Wiki:

The Akash missile's use of ramjet propulsion system allows it to maintain its speed without deceleration, unlike the Patriot missiles.[21] The missile is supported by a multi-target and multi-function phased array fire control radar called the 'Rajendra' with a range of about 80 km in search, and 60 km in terms of engagement.[22]

The missile is completely guided by the Radar, without any active guidance of its own. This allows it greater capability against jamming as the aircraft self-protection jammer would have to work against the high power Rajendra, and the aircraft being attacked is not alerted by any terminal seeker on the Akash itself.

John
BRFite
Posts: 1998
Joined: 03 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby John » 01 May 2014 04:23

titash wrote:The Akash SAM is best compared with the RN's Sea Dart as operated during the Falklands conflict.

Titash Sea Dart suffers from poor performance against low flying missile and is designed as long range air defense system not versatile air defense system that can deal with all type of targets. In spite of much shorter range and being point defense system Sea Wolf performed far better in Falklands conflict than SeaDart. Akash is far better when it comes to dealing with low flying targets and its performance is similar to Shtil.

As for Akash's range apart from what you said, it is also due to limitations of ramjet engine one of the reasons Russian choose to go with Solid propellant for later variants of Kub missile.

titash
BRFite
Posts: 329
Joined: 26 Aug 2011 18:44

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby titash » 01 May 2014 04:51

John,

SA-N-7 Shtil, Standard SM-1-MR and Sea Dart were service contemporaries in the early 80s. Is there a specific reason that the SA-N-7 Shtil and Standard SM-1-MR are considered better than Sea Dart at low level target engagement?

[Sea Wolf is a completely different class of missile in the league of smaller, more maneuverable, shorter range missiles like Sea Sparrow, SA-N-4, Barak-1, and Trishul]

If I recall correctly, the Falklands (and Sea Dart) have been the only naval engagement where any of the above 3 missiles were used to engage BOTH long range high flying and close range sea skimming targets; Sea Dart's limitations were shown against low level maneuvering targets.

For SM-1-MR Standard however, USN carrier borne fighters have ensured that no turd world adversary ever comes close to launching a sea skimmer or engages in low level bombing...consequently SM-1-MR Standard has not been battle tested in those scenarios and its limitations have not been exposed.

Ditto for SA-N-7 Shtil...no "battle tested" badge. In fact the Barak-1 was procured because the navy feared that legacy SAMs would not deal with the sea skimming threat. The Delhi & Shivalik class mount both SA-N-7 Shtil as well as Barak-1. It can be safely concluded that their roles are not overlapping.

Both Sea Dart and Akash are of similar form factor, and ramjet powered (powered flight all the way to the target). What makes one better at low level interception that the other? Perhaps the new generation Rajendra offers superior capabilities??? Or is the missile body itself more maneuverable???

No easy answers here...

- Titash

chackojoseph
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4297
Joined: 01 Mar 2010 22:42
Location: From Frontier India
Contact:

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby chackojoseph » 01 May 2014 05:42

Why Sea Akash? Trishul could have been reconsidered.

vina
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6046
Joined: 11 May 2005 06:56
Location: Doing Nijikaran, Udharikaran and Baazarikaran to Commies and Assorted Leftists

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby vina » 01 May 2014 05:54

The Akash SAM is best compared with the RN's Sea Dart

The Akash is a direct descendant of the SA-6 Buk. Probably better kinematic performance than the Russian missiles and better radar and electronics. All else is similar, range etc.

John
BRFite
Posts: 1998
Joined: 03 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby John » 01 May 2014 07:58

titash wrote:SA-N-7 Shtil, Standard SM-1-MR and Sea Dart were service contemporaries in the early 80s. Is there a specific reason that the SA-N-7 Shtil and Standard SM-1-MR are considered better than Sea Dart at low level target engagement?

SA-N-7 in similar to SM-2 Blk II in terms of capabilities (terminal only illumination, inertial guidance etc) it however doesn't have the range due to smaller size and Orekh FCR limitations. Shtil atleast on tests has shot down low fly targets simulating missiles the only drawback is the arm launcher limits number of missiles that can fired and it requires FCR for illumination so ability to deal with saturation missile attacks is limited.

RIM-66/67 are quite capable of dealing with low flying target granted their range is quite limited against them and can't deal with newer Ashm. In falklands RN faced 1st generation of exocet and low flying aircraft which RIM-66 or Shtil could have easily dealt with.

titash wrote:Both Sea Dart and Akash are of similar form factor, and ramjet powered (powered flight all the way to the target). What makes one better at low level interception that the other? Perhaps the new generation Rajendra offers superior capabilities??? Or is the missile body itself more maneuverable???


SeaDart was never quite designed to intercept low flying targets quickly main threat was high flying soviet maritime strike aircrafts. I suppose they could have updated it with newer seeker and Fire control radar update and replaced the 70s computing, there were some updates done post Falklands.

To intercept low flying targets due to fact that you won't be able to detect the targets only 20 or so Km from the ship, you need to be able to engage targets quickly and with in 5 to 20 km envelope. SeaDart had high reaction time (if it was anything like SA-N-2 probably around 20+ secs vs couple secs for Barak) and minimum range envelope greater than 10 km, also i believe the main and fire control radar performed poorly when it came to tracking such targets. Argentina knew these limitations since they also operate Sea Dart.

titash wrote:Ditto for SA-N-7 Shtil...no "battle tested" badge. In fact the Barak-1 was procured because the navy feared that legacy SAMs would not deal with the sea skimming threat. The Delhi & Shivalik class mount both SA-N-7 Shtil as well as Barak-1. It can be safely concluded that their roles are not overlapping.

As i mentioned earlier Barak was procured due to limitations of arm launcher and limited # of targets that can be engaged due to FCR. Which made it susceptible to saturation attacks. Barak small minimum range and VLS launch allows it to deal with saturation attacks quite well.

As for Shtil during trials talwar using Shtil intercepted a drone simulating a harpoon AshM If you recall the talwar test was well publicized because earlier it failed forcing handover delay by couple months.
Last edited by John on 01 May 2014 08:12, edited 1 time in total.

member_28502
BRFite
Posts: 281
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby member_28502 » 01 May 2014 08:11

why not fit a gatling gun or GShG-7.62 machine gun on the missile and boom the sea skimming missile goes kaput,
if possible like thrust vectoring let the bullets be spread in a cone encompassing the incoming missile?

prabhug
BRFite
Posts: 173
Joined: 05 Dec 2008 14:31

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby prabhug » 01 May 2014 10:38

Titan sir
I had the following doubts

1.Active radar homing and SARH is susceptible to radar jamming and flares.How is it compared to a complex radar fuse in Akash.
2.What's the difference between Track via missile and secure command based guidance.
2.I always felt some issue with the range what DRDO advertises and other countries

Thanks

Prabhu.G

vic
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2415
Joined: 19 May 2010 10:00

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby vic » 01 May 2014 10:44

titash wrote:The Akash SAM is best compared with the RN's Sea Dart as operated during the Falklands conflict.

1) Sea Dart has the same propulsion (ramjet) and is actually a smaller & lighter missile than the Akash (550 kg vs. 720 kg)
2) The Akash is a longer, heavier missile and carries a significantly larger warhead (60 kg vs. 11 kg). A larger warhead may imply less confidence in the guidance mechanism OR the desire to inflict heavier damage on an aircraft that might return home if lightly damaged.
3) Akash has command guidance (less accurate in the terminal stage); Sea Dart had semi active radar homing
4) Sea Dart's range was ~ 70 km in its initial version. The upgraded version with an autopilot (allowing a more optimal flight path) was ~ 150 km. Compare that to Akash with a 25km range

This leads me to conclude that possibly:
1) Akash system has LOWER life cycle costs because the missile itself is lower tech and CHEAPER (command guidance) while the radars are somewhat sophisticated. This enables a large number of missiles to be purchased
2) Akash uses a relatively large warhead to compensate for slightly degraded guidance compared to SARH or active homing
3) A smaller proportion of the Akash missile body is devoted to propellant, and this decreases range...reasons being the lower accuracy of command guidance once you go farther from the guidance radar + the need to carry a larger warhead. The Akash is probably OPTIMIZED for performance at 25 km
4) Akash follows a non optimal flight path due to continuously (slaved to radar) command guidance as opposed to independent autopilot

The RN mounted Sea Dart only on larger ships (Invincible class, HMS Bristol, Type 42s) and those ships carried a small number of missiles. Akash is larger and, by design, is best employed in a scenario wherein a larger number of rounds can be fired against each target at closer distances...i.e. airfield defence. My guess is that makes it unsuitable for today's IN requirements wherein the desire is to take out the maritime patrol aircraft or the JF-17/Mirage BEFORE it can fire a harpoon/exocet.

Not to mention, Sea Dart was not equipped to handle low level aircraft or sea skimmers. I wouldn't be surprised if the Akash has the same limitations.

Thanks,
Titash


You are right on all counts. Akash missile presently is five times cheaper than Barak-2 missile. Akash effective range is same as effective range of Barak-2. Akash can achieve double or triple the range of Barak-2 if only better avionics and radar seeker from Astra are used. But further development of Akash has been killed off and AAD is also kept solely as BMD in order to help and promote Barak-2 which is running five years late inspite of being only enlarged version of Derby.

dinesha
BRFite
Posts: 1074
Joined: 01 Aug 2004 11:42
Location: Delhi

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby dinesha » 01 May 2014 14:57

Successive Failure of 'Akash' Trial
http://www.newindianexpress.com/states/ ... 199350.ece
Close on the heels of success on April 26, India’s sophisticated surface-to-air nuclear capable missile Akash on Wednesday once again failed to take off during a user trial by the Indian Air Force (IAF) personnel from a defence base off the Odisha coast putting the credibility of the DRDO at a stake.

Defence sources said after a failed attempt on Tuesday, the IAF personnel had planned at least four rounds of Akash missile from the Integrated Test Range (ITR) at Chandipur-on-sea. While two missiles were to target the tow bodies suspended from the Pilotless Target Aircraft (PTA), two others were planned to target the parabarrel within a span of one hour.

“As per the programme, the PTA was flown from the launching complex-II of the ITR. Subsequently, the missile was to be fired after nearly 15 minutes. But much to the embarrassment of the DRDO and other related laboratories which helped develop the Akash system, the missile did not take off,” said an official from the test range.

On Tuesday, during a similar planned trial, the PTA had failed to take off leading to the postponement of the missile test. Though the Akash team could not immediately figure out the exact cause of the failure of the missile to take off, defence experts said it was a perennial technical problem with the Akash missile system.

It was the missile’s second failure in the recent seven-test series by the IAF. On May 28 and 30, 2012, the missile had failed to take off from the launch pad at the ITR. The tests were to gauge the flight consistency and effectiveness of the missile.

The IAF personnel, who were to pack up after the test, are scheduled to carry out the same tests on Thursday. “The defence scientists are working to fix the problem and hopefully the missile will be ready for test. The DRDO is providing all logistic supports to the IAF for the user trials,” a defence scientist said.

Akash is a medium-range surface-to-air missile and can target upto 25 km. The 5.8 metre long sleek missile has a launch weight of 720 kg and can carry a warhead of 50 kg.

The missile is crucial to India’s air defence programme as it will be used to counter ballistic and cruise missiles, enemy aircraft and air-to-surface missiles.

It can handle multiple targets with the help of a digitally coded command and guidance system. It is fuelled by solid propellants. The Akash missile system which is similar to the American Patriot air-to-surface missile system can track 64 targets simultaneously and fire 12 missiles at a time.

After the IAF trials, Indian army personnel are likely to conduct a series of tests of the weapon system from the same test range.

Defence sources added that the successful trial of the missile would pave the way for its induction in armed forces.

pankajs
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10794
Joined: 13 Aug 2009 20:56

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby pankajs » 01 May 2014 17:35

CNN-IBN News ‏@ibnlive 6m

Akash surface-to-air missile testfired http://ibnlive.in.com/news/akash-surfac ... 891-3.html
Balasore: India on Thursday successfully testfired indigenously-developed surface-to-air Akash missile with a strike range of 25 km and capability to carry warhead of 60 kgs from the Integrated Test Range at Chandipur as part of a user-trial.

Describing the launch as successful, Defence sources said that the sophisticated missile was testfired at about 10.58 hours from launch complex-3 of the Interim Test Range.

"The mission was successful. The trial was conducted by Indian Air Force personnel," ITR Director MVKV Prasad said.

Aditya_M
BRFite
Posts: 166
Joined: 01 Aug 2002 11:31
Location: Blighty
Contact:

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby Aditya_M » 01 May 2014 18:13

Nijalingappa wrote:why not fit a gatling gun or GShG-7.62 machine gun on the missile and boom the sea skimming missile goes kaput,
if possible like thrust vectoring let the bullets be spread in a cone encompassing the incoming missile?


Can I get a Poe's Law ruling on this post, please?

srin
BRFite
Posts: 1617
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:13

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby srin » 01 May 2014 21:33

vic wrote:You are right on all counts. Akash missile presently is five times cheaper than Barak-2 missile. Akash effective range is same as effective range of Barak-2. Akash can achieve double or triple the range of Barak-2 if only better avionics and radar seeker from Astra are used. But further development of Akash has been killed off and AAD is also kept solely as BMD in order to help and promote Barak-2 which is running five years late inspite of being only enlarged version of Derby.


vic-ji, can you please quote the references for the above statements ? I couldn't find corroboration material for any of them ...

John
BRFite
Posts: 1998
Joined: 03 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby John » 01 May 2014 21:46

vic wrote:You are right on all counts. Akash missile presently is five times cheaper than Barak-2 missile. Akash effective range is same as effective range of Barak-2. Akash can achieve double or triple the range of Barak-2 if only better avionics and radar seeker from Astra are used. But further development of Akash has been killed off and AAD is also kept solely as BMD in order to help and promote Barak-2 which is running five years late inspite of being only enlarged version of Derby.

Not sure if you are being sarcastic? Barak-8 effective range is much greater than Akash and is said to be in class with Aster 30. Also there is larger variant in development which will be on par with SM-2ER details are sketchy no word if it is compatible with existing Barak-8 launchers in P-15A.

As for Akash lack of VLS means it is unlikely for any new platforms, adding all the functionality like Active seeker, VLS etc means an entirely missile plus we need to replace ramjet engine. All that will take a decade of development. IMO Akash could have used to complement Shtil fit into existing launcher and integrate it with Fregat/Orekh radar.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23034
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby Austin » 01 May 2014 21:51

Barak-8 is a good SAM but the naive thing to do is to bind it to P-15A when the SAM was just on drawing board , knowing from Trishul experince they should have avoided the mistake and such project barely end up on time and cost.

The long range Barak-8 is the good Barak-8 with fat booster to increase its range by putting it on high altitude flat trajectory

titash
BRFite
Posts: 329
Joined: 26 Aug 2011 18:44

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby titash » 01 May 2014 22:06

Good info John!

John wrote:As i mentioned earlier Barak was procured due to limitations of arm launcher and limited # of targets that can be engaged due to FCR. Which made it susceptible to saturation attacks. Barak small minimum range and VLS launch allows it to deal with saturation attacks quite well.

As for Shtil during trials talwar using Shtil intercepted a drone simulating a harpoon AshM If you recall the talwar test was well publicized because earlier it failed forcing handover delay by couple months.


On this point,

(1) The Barak-1 solves the rate of fire problem with a VLS. However, it is not an active homing missile. Like the Shtil, it depends on the illuminator to continuously paint the target. With only 2 illuminators per ship, the Barak-1 (just like Shtil) will have a hard time dealing with saturation attacks.

I suspect the reasons to incorporate Barak-1 inspite of Shtil's presence were: superior response time, VLS launch, and ability to engage low flying hard maneuvering targets

(2) You mentioned "minimum range" of Sea Dart and Barak-1. Is that the distance required to accelerate to a decent velocity (say Mach-2) or to arm the fuze?

But to return to the original point, I think Akash has 2 problems for today's naval applictaions:
a) Too large to fit on smaller ships that need point air defence < 20km. This job is better done with Barak-1
b) Too small a range to be truly effective for area air defence > 50km. This job is better done with Barak-2

I think it has found its niche with the Army/Air Force. Let them roll with it...

- Titash

John
BRFite
Posts: 1998
Joined: 03 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby John » 01 May 2014 23:41

titash wrote:(1) The Barak-1 solves the rate of fire problem with a VLS. However, it is not an active homing missile. Like the Shtil, it depends on the illuminator to continuously paint the target. With only 2 illuminators per ship, the Barak-1 (just like Shtil) will have a hard time dealing with saturation attacks.


It was discussed way back only 2 targets can be engaged per STGR but the minimum range of Barak is low enough to allow all targets to be engaged one after the other when dealing with subsonic threats. Kashtan for example is advertised as being able to engage and defeat 6 missiles. Key there being subsonic against supersonic targets that is big weakness.

titash wrote:Is that the distance required to accelerate to a decent velocity (say Mach-2) or to arm the fuze?

Yes and also in case of Semi active or active guided missile time it takes for seeker to be activated and acquire that target. Command or Command line of sight missiles like Barak do not have this issue. That is why Kashtan, Barak, Sea wolf have low minimum engagement range but Barak supposedly has lowest of the bunch.

member_28452
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 8
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Missiles- Akash Success or failure??

Postby member_28452 » 02 May 2014 11:15


pankajs
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10794
Joined: 13 Aug 2009 20:56

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby pankajs » 02 May 2014 11:17

Possibly (I just read the headlines)
----------->
Day 1 >> Aborted or did not launch or failed in flight or missed target
Day 2 >> Success!

vic
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2415
Joined: 19 May 2010 10:00

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby vic » 02 May 2014 11:34

srin wrote:
vic wrote:You are right on all counts. Akash missile presently is five times cheaper than Barak-2 missile. Akash effective range is same as effective range of Barak-2. Akash can achieve double or triple the range of Barak-2 if only better avionics and radar seeker from Astra are used. But further development of Akash has been killed off and AAD is also kept solely as BMD in order to help and promote Barak-2 which is running five years late inspite of being only enlarged version of Derby.


vic-ji, can you please quote the references for the above statements ? I couldn't find corroboration material for any of them ...


I will write a detailed post explaining rationale of my post but in a couple of weeks ie when Modi sarkar is in power.

Sanjay
BRFite
Posts: 1225
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Chaguanas, Trinidad

Re: Indian Missiles- Akash Success or failure??

Postby Sanjay » 02 May 2014 15:08

ray_donovan wrote:I saw two reports which said two different things.

Indian Express says Akash test failed

http://www.newindianexpress.com/states/odisha/Successive-Failure-of-Akash-Trial/2014/05/01/article2199350.ece

Livemint says it was a success

http://www.livemint.com/Politics/7uBMnDAokFXieMvPS2mXDM/Akash-surfacetoair-missile-testfired.html

So what is what? :shock:


Two different attempts. Look at the day cited in the text.. Rout's report is for Wednesday. Livemint is for Thursday.

Rout's report appeared in the 1/5 edition because of the fact it is delayed by print time.

Supratik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5909
Joined: 09 Nov 2005 10:21
Location: USA

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby Supratik » 02 May 2014 17:54

There are issues with Akash may be QC as it keeps on failing and succeeding alternatively.

pankajs
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10794
Joined: 13 Aug 2009 20:56

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Postby pankajs » 02 May 2014 20:50

TOI India ‏@TOIIndiaNews 2h

Akash missile successfully test fired for second day in a row http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/indi ... 538903.cms
BALASORE: In a perfect launch of the same missile for second day in a row, India on Friday successfully test fired indigenously-developed surface-to-air Akash missile as part of a user trial from the Integrated Test Range (ITR) at Chandipur in Odisha.


Return to “Mil-Tech Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests