Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

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.
Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19517
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby Karan M » 21 Sep 2014 21:45

hecky wrote:India drops Israeli LAHAT, will develop own missile for Arjun Mk-2

In an exclusive interview to HT, DRDO chief Avinash Chander said, “The LAHAT missile doesn’t figure in our plans anymore. We are dropping it. We have been working on a tube-launched anti-tank missile :?: :?: , which hopefully can be configured for the tank’s cannon.”


Chander said the LAHAT missile did not meet the army’s requirements of engaging targets at ranges of less than 1,200 metres. It has an effective range of 6,000 metres.


What an article, to the media, everything Arjun related is a setback. Whereas for anyone tracking the program, this is a good thing. Otherwise Israel was making a killing on the program. So, SAMHO instead of being an Indian LAHAT, was basically our own program which gives us an alternative option. The import % stuff is anyways pointless since its by cost & doesn't track the LRUS. Since the FCS and now the missile will be locally sourced thats mitigated to an extent, but the ALWCS (a huge portion of the cost) will probably be imported.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19517
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby Karan M » 21 Sep 2014 21:46

Welcome B Thakur!

Ranjani Brow

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby Ranjani Brow » 21 Sep 2014 22:29

Image

VEM Technologies-built Laser Seeker for SAMHO

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19517
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby Karan M » 21 Sep 2014 23:55

Looks like the entire missile.

negi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13112
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: Ban se dar nahin lagta , chootiyon se lagta hai .

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby negi » 22 Sep 2014 00:00

Round looks really neat and TFTA the slots for retractable fins are nicely finished ; I know it's foolish on my part to talk about aesthetics but hey if we are to win the import lobby war a nice looking weapon on a brochure does help.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19517
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby Karan M » 22 Sep 2014 00:01

+`1

Thakur_B
BRFite
Posts: 1616
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby Thakur_B » 22 Sep 2014 09:25

Karan M wrote:Welcome B Thakur!


Thanks Karan.

Thakur_B wrote:
Karan M wrote:This two color seeker is a new beast apart from the ones above! Probably the IIR one for the PDV HK vehicle.


More likely for a short ranged version of Astra to complement medium range and long range variants.


You were right, Saurav Jha has confirmed that it is indeed for HTK missile in BMD program.

-----------------------------
In case anyone's interested, here are some pretty detailed drawings of LR-SAM Pulse 1 motor. This is from a tender called ut by HEMRL for limited production of LRSAM.
http://www.drdo.gov.in/drdo/tenders/viewTender.jsp?paramMicro=7006
Last edited by Thakur_B on 22 Sep 2014 17:37, edited 1 time in total.

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8216
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby Pratyush » 22 Sep 2014 09:40

hecky wrote:
VEM Technologies-built Laser Seeker for SAMHO


What is that? The LAHAT replacement or the proposed DRDO man portable ATGM??

Thakur_B
BRFite
Posts: 1616
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby Thakur_B » 22 Sep 2014 09:51

Pratyush wrote:
hecky wrote:
VEM Technologies-built Laser Seeker for SAMHO


What is that? The LAHAT replacement or the proposed DRDO man portable ATGM??


CLGM (Cannon Launched guided missile; for Arjun)/ SAMHO (semi active laser homing; ManPAT version) completely separate from man portable NAG.
Image

Might get integrated on helicopters/UAVs in the future as a cheap PGM, filling the space between 68/70 mm rockets and Helina.
CLGM is a new generation anti-tank missile developed by the Aeronautical Development Establishment (ADE) at Bangalore. It can destroy any target in 3 km to 5 km range. It is an all terrain missile to be used by the army, navy and air force.

http://www.newindianexpress.com/nation/article1440857.ece

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8216
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby Pratyush » 22 Sep 2014 09:55

Thanks. I was confused by the absence of the curved glass faring housing the laser spot seeker.

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

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby srai » 22 Sep 2014 10:04

hecky wrote:Man-portable version of Nag is currently in 'hardware realization phase' (courtesy: Saurav Jha).
Prototype (3 yrs) --> Development Trials (2 yrs) --> User Trials (1-2 yrs :oops: ) --> Production !!
So it'll take 7-8 years for MP Nag to be operational and more to be procured in quantities. For operational readiness in this decade IA will definitely be going for Javelin (imho).


SAMHO should be made the top priority for induction this decade. Future variants could make use of other seeker types as well to give it F&F capability.

Where man-portable version of NAG comes into play is its top attack capability. This can be inducted in the next decade to supplement SAMHO. IMO, there is plenty of room for inducting both types as there are over 30,000 ManPATs to be replaced over the next two decades.

Given the "import-loving" preference of the IA, if the Javelin is inducted SAMHO/MP-NAG are good as dead.

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

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby NRao » 22 Sep 2014 10:45

negi wrote:Round looks really neat and TFTA the slots for retractable fins are nicely finished ; I know it's foolish on my part to talk about aesthetics but hey if we are to win the import lobby war a nice looking weapon on a brochure does help.


A result of using digital techs: cad/cam perhaps to design, etc and an machine that understands those drawing to carve out the product.

Catching up. No way to go but up.

negi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13112
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: Ban se dar nahin lagta , chootiyon se lagta hai .

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby negi » 22 Sep 2014 18:10

Chander said the LAHAT missile did not meet the army’s requirements of engaging targets at ranges of less than 1,200 metres. It has an effective range of 6,000 metres.
Karan , Rohit can someone clarify the above ?

It is a bit unusual to hear and find that a missile with a range of 6km has such a long minimum effective range . What is strange is IA wants to use this at a range of 1200 m I mean isn't that a very expensive mode of engaging a threat at 1200 m range which is very much under main gun's kill radius ?

Anyways with NAG, HELINA and SAMHO all showing good promise scrapping LAHAT import is good news.

koti
BRFite
Posts: 1119
Joined: 09 Jul 2009 22:06
Location: Hyderabad, India

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby koti » 22 Sep 2014 19:13

negi wrote:
Chander said the LAHAT missile did not meet the army’s requirements of engaging targets at ranges of less than 1,200 metres. It has an effective range of 6,000 metres.
Karan , Rohit can someone clarify the above ?

It is a bit unusual to hear and find that a missile with a range of 6km has such a long minimum effective range . What is strange is IA wants to use this at a range of 1200 m I mean isn't that a very expensive mode of engaging a threat at 1200 m range which is very much under main gun's kill radius ?

Anyways with NAG, HELINA and SAMHO all showing good promise scrapping LAHAT import is good news.


NLOS perhaps.

Ranjani Brow

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby Ranjani Brow » 22 Sep 2014 19:19

Refleks/Invar anti-tank missile fired from T-90 has minimum range of 75m.

negi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13112
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: Ban se dar nahin lagta , chootiyon se lagta hai .

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby negi » 22 Sep 2014 21:12

Both INVAR and LAHAT are beam riders so they both have to be within the beam footprint to engage the target; so at close proximity NLOS type engagement is ruled out.

abhik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2835
Joined: 02 Feb 2009 17:42

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby abhik » 22 Sep 2014 21:46

^^^
LAHAT has a semi-active laser seeker, its not a beam-riding missile.

Prem Kumar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2453
Joined: 31 Mar 2009 00:10

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby Prem Kumar » 22 Sep 2014 21:48

Strange that a line-of-sight laser homer like LAHAT has a huge minimum range restriction. Its eye opening to see the foreign maal's weaknesses once you look beyond the brochure. Overall, great news for CLGM/SAMHO

srai: SAMHO on a Rudra should also be looked at from a perspective of COIN operations at the LOC (& not just in an anti-tank role). What better way to take out a bunch of infiltrators in one shot! I hope we see the day when EO video of pig-hunting gets loaded on YouTube

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8161
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby Indranil » 22 Sep 2014 23:53

Ananth Krishnan M (tarmak007) tweets:

#BreakingNews; #Nirbhay launch: DRDO sources say that the next launch of Nirbhay subsonic missile is fixed between Oct 15-17 from Balasore.

dinesha
BRFite
Posts: 1163
Joined: 01 Aug 2004 11:42
Location: Delhi

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby dinesha » 23 Sep 2014 06:57

Faulty power supply creates most glitches in missiles: DRDO
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/art ... aign=cppst

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19517
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby Karan M » 23 Sep 2014 13:02

The bigger bit of news in that report is the local firm making these for DRDO
http://www.mpsindia.in/catalog/AC-DC-Power-Supplies/

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19517
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby Karan M » 23 Sep 2014 14:16

indranilroy wrote:Ananth Krishnan M (tarmak007) tweets:

#BreakingNews; #Nirbhay launch: DRDO sources say that the next launch of Nirbhay subsonic missile is fixed between Oct 15-17 from Balasore.


Game changer if we can mass produce these. Our lack of long range strike assets - missiles etc is glaring. Brahmos is limited to 300 km, and long range BMs carry the risk of being mistaken as nook vehicles even if conventionally armed.

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7726
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby rohitvats » 23 Sep 2014 22:11

Prahaar and Shaurya need to be inducted in the three Services ASAP.

While Prahaar can be inducted in Missile Brigade under each Corps, Shuarya can be inducted into Missile Regiments reporting to Command HQ. Similarly, IAF can also have Missile Squadrons. One was hoping that a Missile Brigade under each Corps have a composition which is something like 2 x Prahaar MSL Regiments + 1 x Brahmos MSL Regiment but IMO, the steep cost of Brahmos might preclude that from happening.

Prahaar MSL with each Corps would definitely be a game changer. Will reduce dependency from IAF on hitting vital ground targets and give flexibility to Army Commanders.

Fighter aircraft and missiles like Shaurya + Prahaar + Brahmos need to be seen as land attack assets in totality. Ideally, the ground attack campaign needs to be planned jointly between IAF and IA (and Navy for areas of interest) where targets need to be assigned to each type of asset.

tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2958
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby tsarkar » 23 Sep 2014 22:39

^^ IAF needs to move out of CAS and get into interdiction. Like they discovered in Kargil, CAS from fast jets requires them to slow down to identify & acquire targets and employ weapons, making them vulnerable to MANPADS. AD systems like RBS70 have been designed to engage aircraft when they slow down to make gun, rocket & bomb runs. Which is why IAF switched to interdiction in Kargil rather than CAS.

CAS should be left to missiles like Prahaar & Prithvi, supported by helicopters like Apache & LCH.

Because of the vulnerability of fast jets in CAS mission, we need more Apache & LCH. Also, doesn't make sense using a multi million fighter to target sangars, like IAF discovered. An attack helicopter with rockets & missiles or a Prahaar or Prithvi will do the job better & cheaper.

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7726
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby rohitvats » 23 Sep 2014 22:46

^^^May be I was not clear enough but that was exactly my point. With organic assets like Prahaar, Shaurya and Brahmos the dependence of IA on IAF for CAS role would reduce. Further, not to forget role for systems like SMERCH and Long Range Pinaka. With Pinaka-Pinaka Mk2-SMERCH-Prahaar-Brahmos-Shaurya in its TOE, the army can handle lot of targets of importance to it by itself.

Working with IAF was from joint planning perspective and divvying up targets between them. Even with above arsenal, IA might need some assets to be taken out which could play vital rle in ground combat and needs IAF's help on the same.

tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2958
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby tsarkar » 23 Sep 2014 23:46

Unfortunately a lot of mindsets need to change. IAF is unwilling look at larger things beyond CAS, and its MiG squadrons religiously practice rocketry, while Sukhoi & Jaguar squadrons practice conventional bombing, despite the obvious vulnerability. It also opposes attack helicopter induction by IA.

Instead it should focus on Air Dominance & Deep Interdiction

koti
BRFite
Posts: 1119
Joined: 09 Jul 2009 22:06
Location: Hyderabad, India

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby koti » 24 Sep 2014 00:17

tsarkar wrote:IAF needs to move out of CAS and get into interdiction.

CAS IMO is two fold. Offensive and defensive.

I can see your point in offensive scenarios but in defensive scenarios, there will simply be no time for these organic assets to be deployed wherever needed. CAS will be the sole force multiplier available and training for it and having it as a capability is much apt.

I am not sure how FOO is employed in IA but that just adds another case to CAS.

Ankit Desai
BRFite
Posts: 520
Joined: 05 May 2006 21:28
Location: Gujarat

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby Ankit Desai » 24 Sep 2014 01:25

rohitvats wrote:^^^May be I was not clear enough but that was exactly my point. With organic assets like Prahaar, Shaurya and Brahmos the dependence of IA on IAF for CAS role would reduce. Further, not to forget role for systems like SMERCH and Long Range Pinaka. With Pinaka-Pinaka Mk2-SMERCH-Prahaar-Brahmos-Shaurya in its TOE, the army can handle lot of targets of importance to it by itself


That exactly being played out by vivek_ahuja in possible indian military scenarios thread.

-Ankit

Shrinivasan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2196
Joined: 20 Aug 2009 19:20
Location: Gateway Arch
Contact:

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby Shrinivasan » 24 Sep 2014 10:36

srai wrote:DRDO video on Akash:

all recent tests (IA or IAF) have shown Akash SAM being fired from a Truck or a stationary platform... i have two questions
1) Why no testing from a tracked vehicle (T-72 chassis)
2) Why limit it to only 3 when they can be deployed on stationary platforms (which can be quickly deployed by trucks at prepared / semi prepared sites)

dinesha
BRFite
Posts: 1163
Joined: 01 Aug 2004 11:42
Location: Delhi

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby dinesha » 24 Sep 2014 13:02

X-post

Pakistan is eyeing sea-based and short-range nuclear weapons, analysts say-The Washington Post
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asi ... story.html
...
For more than a decade, Pakistan has sent signals that it is attempting to bolster its nuclear arsenal with “tactical” weapons — short-range missiles that carry a smaller warhead and are easier to transport.

Over the past two years, Pakistan has conducted at least eight tests of various land-based ballistic or cruise missiles that it says are capable of delivering nuclear warheads. Last September, Sha­rif, citing “evolving security dynamics in South Asia,” said Pakistan is developing “a full-spectrum deterrence capability to deter all forms of aggression.”

The next step of Pakistan’s strategy includes an effort to develop nuclear warheads suitable for deployment from the Indian Ocean, either from warships or from one of the country’s five diesel-powered submarines, analysts say. In a sign of that ambition, Pakistan in 2012 created the Naval Strategic Force command, which is similar to the commands in the air force and army that oversee nuclear weapons.

“We are on our way, and my own hunch is within a year or so, we should be developing our second-strike capability,” said Shireen M. Mazari, a nuclear expert and the former director of the Institute of Strategic Studies Islamabad, a hawkish Pakistani-government-funded think tank.
..

..
In 2011, nongovernment experts interviewed by The Post estimated that Pakistan had built more than 100 deployed nuclear weapons. Now Pakistan’s fourth plutonium-production reactor is also nearing completion, and while most assessments of the country’s warhead inventory have not changed much in recent years, analysts say Pakistan continues to produce weapons material and develop delivery vehicles, positioning itself for another spurt of rapid growth at any time.

“They are going to make as much fissile material as they possibly can and keep making as many warheads as they possibly can,” said Pervez Hoodbhoy, a leading Pakistani nuclear expert and physicist.
...


..
Pakistan has repeatedly tested its indigenously produced, nuclear-capable Babur cruise missile, which has a range of 400 miles and can strike targets at land and sea, military officials said. In 2011 and last year, Pakistan also tested a new tactical, nuclear-capable battlefield missile that has a range of just 37 miles.

“This is the miniaturization of warheads,” said Mansoor Ahmed, a strategic studies and nuclear expert at Quaid-i-Azam University in Islamabad.

Maria Sultan, chairwoman of the Islamabad-based South Asian Strategic Stability Institute, an organization with close links to Pakistani military and intelligence officials, said the short-range missile is designed as a signal to India’s military.

“We are saying, ‘We have target acquisition for very small targets as well, so it’s really not a great idea to come attack us,’ ”
Sultan said. “Before, we only had big weapons, so there was a gap in our deterrence, which is why we have gone for tactical nuclear weapons and cruise missiles.”

Still, even a limited use of nuclear weapons on the battlefield would likely trigger a major retaliatory strike from India, said Manpreet Sethi, a senior fellow at the New Delhi-based Centre for Air Power Studies.
..

partha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4004
Joined: 02 Jul 2010 15:25

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby partha » 24 Sep 2014 13:24

Large number of smaller nuclear warheads increase the probability of them falling into the hands of terrorists. Recent Karachi naval dockyard attack by AQ men inside Pak Navy which highlights the level of AQ/Taliban penetration of Pak military makes this even more scary. Of course if God forbid, a terror attack happens with one of these weapons, standard arguments will be made both by Pakistanis and their "Indian" apologists - "retired / rogue military men who are non state actors responsible", "if only Kashmir had been solved, this would not have happened" etc. I hope we have a solid, fool proof plan to deal with or prevent such an attack.

Yagnasri
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9800
Joined: 29 May 2007 18:03

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby Yagnasri » 24 Sep 2014 13:43

So miniature nukes is developed by Pakis??? :D without any testing also. :mrgreen:

Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12031
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby Aditya_V » 24 Sep 2014 15:05

Pakistan does not have any domestic industry to produce even automobiles or Rail Engines, it however in ridiculously short time since wanting it develops miniature nukes without a budget for it and without the back up infrastructure. Its nuke plants are also built in a record time.

Somehow< I don't see USA, GCC and China who will give them nuke aid the in this. What if the AL qaeda faction in the Pakistan navy while commandeering a sub, take out a US sub.

I think this is more to posture and bring down the soon to announced the 3rd leg of the Triad for the Indian Navy, so that lifafa brigade in India can wipe out that achievement.

And why is this Ïndian Missiles and Munitions Discussion"- lets move the thread.

JE Menon
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7038
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby JE Menon » 24 Sep 2014 16:55

negi wrote:Round looks really neat and TFTA the slots for retractable fins are nicely finished ; I know it's foolish on my part to talk about aesthetics but hey if we are to win the import lobby war a nice looking weapon on a brochure does help.


A effing meeeeeeeen to that.

KiranM
BRFite
Posts: 575
Joined: 17 Dec 2006 16:48
Location: Bangalore

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby KiranM » 24 Sep 2014 19:10

rohitvats wrote:Prahaar and Shaurya need to be inducted in the three Services ASAP.

While Prahaar can be inducted in Missile Brigade under each Corps, Shuarya can be inducted into Missile Regiments reporting to Command HQ. Similarly, [b]IAF can also have Missile Squadrons[/b]. One was hoping that a Missile Brigade under each Corps have a composition which is something like 2 x Prahaar MSL Regiments + 1 x Brahmos MSL Regiment but IMO, the steep cost of Brahmos might preclude that from happening.


Just out of curiosity, why does IAF need SSM missile squadrons? To target enemy airfields? In the era of joint/ integrated warfare, cannot IA missile regiments be tasked for same? IMHO IA rocket & missile artillery need to be increased in numbers so as to support IAF SEAD just as IAF's has to support IA with CAS.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54397
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby ramana » 24 Sep 2014 19:21

tsarkar wrote:Unfortunately a lot of mindsets need to change. IAF is unwilling look at larger things beyond CAS, and its MiG squadrons religiously practice rocketry, while Sukhoi & Jaguar squadrons practice conventional bombing, despite the obvious vulnerability. It also opposes attack helicopter induction by IA.

Instead it should focus on Air Dominance & Deep Interdiction



tsarkar, I would request you to put down your thoughts on IAF's institutional culture in the IAF history thread from the perspective of an outsider.

Thanks,

ramana

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19517
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby Karan M » 24 Sep 2014 20:05

tsarkar wrote:^^ IAF needs to move out of CAS and get into interdiction. Like they discovered in Kargil, CAS from fast jets requires them to slow down to identify & acquire targets and employ weapons, making them vulnerable to MANPADS. AD systems like RBS70 have been designed to engage aircraft when they slow down to make gun, rocket & bomb runs. Which is why IAF switched to interdiction in Kargil rather than CAS.


IAF would have much preferred to fight the interdiction war. However, it was the IA which required CAS type ops and there was much anger expressed at the lack of IAF focus on CAS! At the time, IA lacked sufficient deep arty assets and own fire support. It had to bunch together its 155mm units to get the firepower it wanted.

The IAF view on Op Safedsagar on what it did versus what it prefers:
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Histo ... henag.html

The IAF was thus drawn into this battle fought over some of the highest terrain on earth. Never before has any air force been tasked to achieve such military objectives; not to mince words, therefore, this operation by the IAF is, by professional standards, a trailblazer. The types of targets required to be engaged were not conventional target systems that air forces all over are trained to engage. No mobile forces or armored columns, neither industrial targets, nor power plants or railway yards here. No runways to neutralise, or communication networks to paralyse.


What the IAF believes as versus the fact that they do it because IA needs them to do so:

Firstly, in the area of interdiction of enemy supplies, the successful and incessant attacks on the enemy's logistic machine had, over the last few weeks, culminated in a serious degradation of the enemy's ability to sustain himself in an increasing number of areas. The series of attacks against Pt 4388 in the Dras sector was an excellent example of how lethal air strikes combined with timely reconnaissance detected the enemy plans to shift to alternate supply routes which were once again effectively attacked. In this the IAF succeeded in strangling the enemy supply arteries, amply testified to by enemy radio intercepts. The primacy of interdiction targets as opposed to Battlefield Air Strikes (BAS) targets was clearly brought out, as also the fact that air power is not to be frittered away on insignificant targets like machine gun posts and trenches, but on large targets of consequence (like the supply camp at Muntho Dhalo or the enemy Battalion HQ on top of Tiger Hill). Gone are the days of fighters screaming in at deck level, acting as a piece of extended artillery. The air defence environment of today's battlefield just does not permit such employment of airpower anymore, a significant fact that needs to be understood by soldier and civilian alike.


CAS should be left to missiles like Prahaar & Prithvi, supported by helicopters like Apache & LCH.


CAS requires man in the loop guidance because of the constant danger of closely located friendly troops. Missiles like Prahaar and Prithvi are meant for deep strike, not CAS!

You need the ability to call off or abort attacks at the last moment, thanks to the constant element of human errors eg wrong map details wrong target locations of friendlies etc.

Because of the vulnerability of fast jets in CAS mission, we need more Apache & LCH.


You are mixing up effectiveness with vulnerability. Fast jets are more survivable in CAS because they have the speed and energy to ingress and egress rapidly. Helicopters on the other hand, if detected are far more vulnerable. However the very speed that makes fighters more safe, makes them ineffective against hard to locate targets which require eyeball Mk1, even if it in turn is peering into a sensor and risk friendly targets.

Also, doesn't make sense using a multi million fighter to target sangars, like IAF discovered. An attack helicopter with rockets & missiles or a Prahaar or Prithvi will do the job better & cheaper.


Attack helicopters have weight/altitude restrictions (LCH apart) and Prahaar/Prithvi will simply not get the job done when the area to be covered is huge. No country has ever used BMs like Prithvi for replacing CAS. Interdicting/striking columns/C3I not "dangerously close" to own infantry, yes.

Even at Kargil, point blank bombardment from 155mm guns was not enough to get all the Pakis out, though it was a supporting factor and ultimately it took infantry at the point of the bayonet to get the job done.

So, if CAS has to be reduced, IA has to be built up with own helicopter assets and artillery + organic firepower all the way down to section/unit level. No other way.
IAF opposes IA getting heptrs because it sees that as an erosion of its own asset base, same way it opposed IN getting Connies. Not because it wants to do CAS.

In the US, the USAF similarly took over USArmy's C27J fleet. UK's inter service squabbles over resources are also legendary.

Shrinivasan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2196
Joined: 20 Aug 2009 19:20
Location: Gateway Arch
Contact:

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby Shrinivasan » 25 Sep 2014 12:50

KiranM wrote:Just out of curiosity, why does IAF need SSM missile squadrons? To target enemy airfields? ...
Kiran, Prithvi I, the 150Km range SSM was with the Army (Missile regiments), IAF wanted a missile with slightly longer legs... this was meant for SEAD/DEAD. Agni series was with Strategic Forces Command which was tasked with a nuclear role.

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

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby member_20453 » 25 Sep 2014 16:25

http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-new ... 68076.aspx

It appears the Javelin deal will most likely go through

Other goodies on offer for co-production and development :)

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

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby Singha » 25 Sep 2014 16:34

Atk makes 120mm shells not 120mm guns.


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests