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.
member_20317
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3167
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby member_20317 » 25 Oct 2014 21:53

Why is there a doubt on our capability to have a good NAG developed. Why must Javelin be the crutch to have it. In any case, its not like the Amerikhans need us to develop Javelin. If the NAG fails then you can always seek imports from them, FMS route.

nash
BRFite
Posts: 880
Joined: 08 Aug 2008 16:48

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby nash » 25 Oct 2014 22:08

I think there is space for both Nag and Javelin, also CLGM, in future if requirement is 40K+

As per wiki:

MILAN/MILAN2T : 35K+
KonKurs: 25K+

and some thousands others

These are going to be phase out in coming future, by then DRDO should not only able to develop various version of NAG and CLGM but also make them ready for manufacturing and induction

Victor
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2628
Joined: 24 Apr 2001 11:31

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby Victor » 25 Oct 2014 22:10

^Nag will arrive when it does but it is not here NOW. When your house is on fire you reach for the nearest bucket. And why does it matter if Javelin (or Spike) is a crutch? If we are lame, as we undoubtedly are, any stick is a blessing. Kudos to bjp for moving decisively. There is good reason why AJ holds both finance and defence. It was well planned in advance.

pankajs
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13878
Joined: 13 Aug 2009 20:56

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby pankajs » 25 Oct 2014 22:13

Once Spike is selected why go for another new system (Javaline) rather than just acquire more Spike if needed. There are variants available for all roles. Also, it will be faster and cheaper to produce given the existing infrastructure at that point of time.

Sagar G
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2594
Joined: 22 Dec 2009 19:31
Location: Ghar

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby Sagar G » 25 Oct 2014 22:19

pankajs wrote:Once Spike is selected why go for another new system (Javaline) rather than just acquire more Spike if needed. There are variants available for all roles. Also, it will be faster and cheaper to produce given the existing infrastructure.


Javelin is dumped period and most probably this is the only order of man portable ATGM that any foreign nation will get. By the time the Spike order is full filled we will have our own version ready.

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

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby rohitvats » 25 Oct 2014 23:02

Well, there is some method to this madness of selecting Spike ATGM, it seems.

First - there are news items from 2010 which say that Spike had failed the cold and hot launch tests in India. But beyond this standard line, there is no other clarification.

Second - it seems the RFI originally sent by IA for 3rd gen F&F missile called for 'Active and Passive' F&F capability. Basically, Spike MR missile (range of 2,500 meters) comes with optional facility of fiber-optical cable which allows for switching targets post launch of the missile.

To me, it seems that while IA was hunting for 3rd Gen F&F ATGM, they discovered the whole Spike family and RFP was mentioned capabilities which only Rafael could match with its missiles. It was the 'love' of MMS for US and kind of pressure they could bear to bring on GOI which brought Javelin into the fray.

I was reading up on other forums to understand the Spike missile performance and it seems that many countries in Europe have opted for this missile. Those - like UK and Norway - which went for Javelin did more so for political reasons. Javelin was available to other European countries as well but they found the performance of Spike to be better. Further, Javelin as we know, literally costs a bomb!

On the Spike performance in India part - as someone said, Israel's operative environment in desert matches that of India. So, it is unlikely that missile could not perform in Indian desert environment.

What would be interesting to see is the versions of Spike IA inducts - the standard version infantry version is Spike-MR with 2,500 meter range and missile weight of 13.5 Kg + launch unit weight of further 13 kg (Command Launch Unit - 13 Kg, Tripod- 3kg and Battery-1 kg).

The Spike LR version employs same missile and launch unit but with range of 4,000 meters - the FO cable thing is given in this case.

Will IA go for a mix of Spike MR and Spike LR for infantry? That would be an interesting development.

Finally, where does it put the man-portable NAG? No one knows though it has all the components of the PC-7 and HTT-40 story in making.

Though, Saurav Jha said on twitter that DRDO is working on man-portable version of NAG as per GSQR - but inspite of my repeating asking him, he did not mention any timeline for development.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PS: where are we on seeker improvement on NAG? Has the peak temperature problem affecting seeker range being addressed? Also, since HELINA and NAG use same seeker, would not HELINA also suffer from same problem during the peak temperature? range?

Sagar G
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2594
Joined: 22 Dec 2009 19:31
Location: Ghar

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby Sagar G » 25 Oct 2014 23:04

Karan M wrote:What is a five spoke radio container??


Six submarines to be ‘made in India’

Five and 7.5 tonne radio relay containers, which are mounted on vehicles with communication equipment, worth Rs. 662 crore were cleared for which Acceptance of Necessity (AON) will be issued soon to domestic manufacturers.

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

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby rohitvats » 25 Oct 2014 23:23

To understand the convoluted saga of ATGM purchase, need to go back and read the article on this page:

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewtopic.php?p=1503886

Here's a promotional (a bit over the top commentary) video on Spike family of missiles. Gives good intro about Spike MR, LR and ND-T.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19516
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby Karan M » 25 Oct 2014 23:27

Sagar, thanks!!

RV, later reports note Spike cleared all trials. Expect brown shalwars and breast beating across the border.

nash
BRFite
Posts: 880
Joined: 08 Aug 2008 16:48

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby nash » 25 Oct 2014 23:35

Former Army chief has certainly given his insight on this matter.

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

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby rohitvats » 25 Oct 2014 23:39

Karan M wrote:Sagar, thanks!!

RV, later reports note Spike cleared all trials. Expect brown shalwars and breast beating across the border.


Good to hear that.

But one thing is bloody obvious - our defense procurement has become a huge money making enterprise for literally everyone. From global arms vendors to their power brokers, bureaucrats, politicians and few senior Service officers. And I really feel pity for these Service officers who fritter away honor for mere crumbs!

The biggest looser in this entire saga were the Services themselves.

Under the UPA-1/2, power brokers were literally manipulating the system and no one had any thought or concern about the requirement of services and overall security scenario of the nation. It was simply a free for all. From weapon systems being inducted from abroad to kind of Joint Ventures being inked by Indian DPSU, everything is tainted. Only the degree of corruption varies.

Services were literally left begging for equipment with few like Admiral Joshi resigning in sheer disgust. It seems deals were being done and Acceptance of Necessity (AON - starting point of any procurement) being generated to procure what powers-that-be wanted to buy to facilitate a deal rather than as per requirement of Services.

While some in Service HQ connived in generating Acceptance of Necessity with associated GSQR to suit for monetary gains, others would've agreed to simply get what was being made available. Courtesy the whims and fancies of power brokers.

For me, the tenders for Pegasus ULWH and Apache fall in this category.

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

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby abhik » 25 Oct 2014 23:54

AFAIK the Spike has an uncooled IR seeker vs cooled seeker of the javelin, so the seeker performance of the latter might have actually have been better.

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

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby rohitvats » 26 Oct 2014 00:00

2nd and very good video which shows the utility and flexibility of fiber-optic cable based down-link capability on Spike Missile. Video post ~4:00 minutes covers the SPYDER SR SAM missile system.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VpOCBCZ7ox0

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

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby SaiK » 26 Oct 2014 00:07

ramana, if we consider how difficult is to tell IA that Arjun >= T90s you know... the reason why I am saying is that we need better charters. clearly specified requirements and scope of projects so that acquisitions like this actually feeds into the larger program.

it is okay to gap fill.

Victor
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2628
Joined: 24 Apr 2001 11:31

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby Victor » 26 Oct 2014 00:28

If we are talking "anti tank" then top-down attack mode is crucial. Javelin has this as fire and forget mode select option. Just lock target, launch and immediately move to new location. With Spike, top-down mode requires shooter to control the missile with a cable and stay on it till impact, which is far more dangerous.

The Spike purchase is a no-brainer because we need it yesterday and is available off the shelf. I hope we still enter into some joint development situation with either Spike or Javelin (if Israel allows, I'd prefer them) while Nag is carried thru to its induction even if it doesn't pay back in short term. BJP has determined that under no circumstances should army (or airforce) be held hostage by a domestic effort. What is needed now will be got now, period. That IMO is the main source of pant-browning in tsp.

Cosmo_R
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3407
Joined: 24 Apr 2010 01:24

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby Cosmo_R » 26 Oct 2014 01:15

Victor wrote:If we are talking "anti tank" then top-down attack mode is crucial. Javelin has this as fire and forget mode select option. Just lock target, launch and immediately move to new location. With Spike, top-down mode requires shooter to control the missile with a cable and stay on it till impact, which is far more dangerous.

The Spike purchase is a no-brainer because we need it yesterday and is available off the shelf. I hope we still enter into some joint development situation with either Spike or Javelin (if Israel allows, I'd prefer them) while Nag is carried thru to its induction even if it doesn't pay back in short term. BJP has determined that under no circumstances should army (or airforce) be held hostage by a domestic effort. What is needed now will be got now, period. That IMO is the main source of pant-browning in tsp.


Are of these missiles going to be built in India? Even if we need them yesterday, they can duplicate assembly lines in India. No mention of the 49% rule.

Cosmo_R
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3407
Joined: 24 Apr 2010 01:24

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby Cosmo_R » 26 Oct 2014 01:21

Are Javelin and Spike comparables? I have a sneaking suspicion, that Javelin will be slotted in somewhere else.

It is good that we can use the Israelis as leverage to get more from the US.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20712
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby Philip » 26 Oct 2014 01:28

Well the Javelin has been well and truly "spiked"! The Spike looked to be the "bird in the hand" against the "bird in the bush",no pun intended.The Yanquis will scowl and there will be much gnashing of teeth,waving of fists and stomping of feet in the halls of Foggy Bottom tonight.A wise decision as Israeli products will be sanction free.As was said in an above post,the Javelin was "thrown" into the ring by the Yanquis thanks to the supine spine of the MMS regime. Little chance for the Javelin now,as the costs fo acquiring two AT missiles would be prohibitive,plus the IA requires arty yesterday,a dcision which looks as if it may be taken at the nxt. DAC mtg.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19516
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby Karan M » 26 Oct 2014 01:32

Cosmo_R wrote:
Victor wrote:If we are talking "anti tank" then top-down attack mode is crucial. Javelin has this as fire and forget mode select option. Just lock target, launch and immediately move to new location. With Spike, top-down mode requires shooter to control the missile with a cable and stay on it till impact, which is far more dangerous.

The Spike purchase is a no-brainer because we need it yesterday and is available off the shelf. I hope we still enter into some joint development situation with either Spike or Javelin (if Israel allows, I'd prefer them) while Nag is carried thru to its induction even if it doesn't pay back in short term. BJP has determined that under no circumstances should army (or airforce) be held hostage by a domestic effort. What is needed now will be got now, period. That IMO is the main source of pant-browning in tsp.


Are of these missiles going to be built in India? Even if we need them yesterday, they can duplicate assembly lines in India. No mention of the 49% rule.


BDL

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19516
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby Karan M » 26 Oct 2014 01:39

John wrote:
Karan M wrote:
Prahaar and variants will likely be available for that role. CMs are expensive, thx to engine, seeker.


I don't think price will be Prahaar's selling point it would be its speed which would give it better penetration ability against bunkers. Solid propelled missile that is around 1.5 tons won't be cheap by any means. The most direct comparison is ATACMS vs TLAM. For US Army MGM-140 are currently around 1.3 million, TLAM cost around the same 1.34 to 2 million. So at least Prahaar will cost half as much as Nirbhay with a local engine.


We have discussed this before. India doesn't have the USs huge supply chain for precision manufactured components in engines or the large production runs there. Our engines will be more expensive. In contrast, we are heavily into propellant manufacture for Pinaka, akash and other programs. Next, Prahaar does not have a seeker, Nirbhay does. That's 40 perc of the missile spend right there. Prahaars USP is not just speed but it's prithvi style non ballistic trajectory which makes it a pain for interception. Against bunkers and the like, BMs are not a good bet. At the end of the day seeker equipped weapons are best for those.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19516
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby Karan M » 26 Oct 2014 01:45

Cosmo_R wrote:Are Javelin and Spike comparables? I have a sneaking suspicion, that Javelin will be slotted in somewhere else.

It is good that we can use the Israelis as leverage to get more from the US.


Infantry may still get Javelin both are com parables but spikes won against jav several times and is stated to be cheaper. US didn't want to give Jav seeker TOT.

Victor
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2628
Joined: 24 Apr 2001 11:31

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby Victor » 26 Oct 2014 01:51

Cosmo_R wrote:Are of these missiles going to be built in India? Even if we need them yesterday, they can duplicate assembly lines in India. No mention of the 49% rule.

What the reports are saying is that "8,356 missiles and 321 launchers" will be brought. To me those babu-like exact numbers means most likely off the shelf purchase to be available immediately with more being built under ToT, maybe another 10,000 -15,000. That is also what would make the most sense.

Again, I would hope we can go beyond the "ToT" and into joint development, kind of like Brahmos but where both parties are able to then make *everything* in house individually, not some here, some there. Correct me if I'm wrong but if Russkies refuse to give us the Brahmos engines (stranger things have happened) then we are kaput even if we make the remaining 98%.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19516
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby Karan M » 26 Oct 2014 01:55

It's stated that we intend to make the engines locally as well.

Will
BRFite
Posts: 637
Joined: 28 Apr 2011 11:27

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby Will » 26 Oct 2014 02:22

Philip wrote:Well the Javelin has been well and truly "spiked"! The Spike looked to be the "bird in the hand" against the "bird in the bush",no pun intended.The Yanquis will scowl and there will be much gnashing of teeth,waving of fists and stomping of feet in the halls of Foggy Bottom tonight.A wise decision as Israeli products will be sanction free.As was said in an above post,the Javelin was "thrown" into the ring by the Yanquis thanks to the supine spine of the MMS regime. Little chance for the Javelin now,as the costs fo acquiring two AT missiles would be prohibitive,plus the IA requires arty yesterday,a dcision which looks as if it may be taken at the nxt. DAC mtg.


Well the way the Yankees acted by refusing tech transfer and even refusing to send the missile for trials, no self respecting nation and army was going to condone it.Hope they get the message that the days of FMS sales are coming to an end. Now its joint development and not the type they offered for the Javelin...I wouldn't be surprised if the Yankee version of joint development was for the casing and the paint. The Yankees need to get of their high horse and stop being condescending. Refusing the javelin offer is India's way of telling them "up yours" :twisted:

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

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby Indranil » 26 Oct 2014 04:41

As far as I have read: link
1. The number of ATGMs required is around 40,000.
2. The current decision is for the outright order of 8,356 missiles and 321 launchers from Rafael.
3. This would be followed by ToT to BDL for large-scale manufacture.
4. So bye bye man-portable NAG.

And for those who are questioning Nag/Helina's capability in hot desert conditions, non of these missiles with uncooled seekers would be able to better them. The leaked results adequately demonstrated that. It is quite simple. In the simmering heat and dusty conditions, one needs a seeker with a higher resolution Focal Plane Array. This is exactly what DRDO is doing with the new FPA from Sofradir. The extended ranges have already been demonstrated in the recent summer trials. But alas!

Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12030
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby Aditya_V » 26 Oct 2014 06:21

nash wrote:I think there is space for both Nag and Javelin, also CLGM, in future if requirement is 40K+

As per wiki:

MILAN/MILAN2T : 35K+
KonKurs: 25K+

and some thousands others

These are going to be phase out in coming future, by then DRDO should not only able to develop various version of NAG and CLGM but also make them ready for manufacturing and induction


Rather than disposing of these, while inducting new missiles , the old issiles can be utilised for bunker busting on IB and LOC for ceasefire violations.

Kakkaji
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3282
Joined: 23 Oct 2002 11:31

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby Kakkaji » 26 Oct 2014 07:43

Re. the Nag, IMHO the current focus should be on productionizing and inducting the vehicle-mounted and helicopter-mounted versions in large numbers. In the meantime, if Spike is purchased for the man-portable slot, with good ToT and domestic production, it is not a bad thing. After the delays and inaction of UPA years, and with Pakis and China both acting up, there is a need to quickly fill the critical gaps, while still safeguarding the indigenous research in the long-term.

I think this Govt has made the right decision.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20712
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby Philip » 26 Oct 2014 07:46

Yes,the FMS route with freebies to selected OEMs has ended."Horses for courses" is the new mantra.The IA fecommended the Spike after trials and it is good to see that the GOI/MOD has concurred.If here are to be JVs with firang OEMs,then the BMos model has to be the benchmark.The swift decisionmaking by the GOI and "Jet Li" in particular must be hugely welcomed .One is sue that there were celebrations last night in the mess halls of the services....and more decisions are to come in the immediate future.

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

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby Thakur_B » 26 Oct 2014 07:53

Looks like spike has been ordered for infantry as well as BMPs.

NEW DELHI: Union Defence Minister Arun Jaitley, who will chair the meeting of the Defence Acquisition Council (DAC) on Saturday, is expected to decide on the fate of the Army’s long pending proposal to buy third-generation anti-tank guided missile systems worth an estimated `3,200 crore. Jaitley will have to take a call on whether to move forward with the Pentagon’s recent proposal for co-development and co-production of Javelin anti-tank guided missile system or go with Israel-made Rafael’s Spike ATGMS. During US Defence Secretary Chuck Hagel’s recent visit to the country in August, the US had offered not only to “co-produce” the ATGMs but also “co-develop” its fourth-generation version with India.

For Saturday’s DAC, the Army proposed to buy third-generation Spike ATGM systems, including 321 missile launchers, 8,356 missiles and 15 training simulators along with the transfer of technology. The Army would mount these ATGMS on its infantry combat vehicles.


http://m.newindianexpress.com/nation/382977

In a Rs. 3,200-crore deal, Mr. Jaitley has taken a call to go ahead with Israel-made Rafael’s Spike anti-tank guided missiles, rather than take forward the U.S. offer of joint production of Javelin missiles.

The deal includes 8,000-plus missiles, 300-plus launchers and requisite technology transfer to Bharat Dynamics Ltd. (BDL) to build them indigenously. Spike is a third-generation, fire-and-forget, man-portable anti-tank missile. It is intended to equip the 382 Infantry battalions and subsequently the mechanised forces.

http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/six-submarines-to-be-made-in-india/article6533492.ece


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

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby abhik » 26 Oct 2014 10:08

ToI is reporting that the initial 3,200 Cr deal for the Spike missiles will be followed up with local production for greater numbers which would take the total deal value to 20,000 Cr. So the Spike is not a 'gap-filler', this is a long term deal. RIP Man portable Nag. Really disappointed with the new government's weapons acquisition policy.

Victor
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2628
Joined: 24 Apr 2001 11:31

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby Victor » 26 Oct 2014 10:28

Thakur_B wrote:... It is intended to equip the 382 Infantry battalions and subsequently the mechanised forces.

The initial 300 odd launchers will probably be deployed against paki armor mostly. About 20-30 battalions with 8-10 Spike launchers each in addition to the Milan, Konkurrs is what it looks like till BDL goes on stream.

pankajs
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13878
Joined: 13 Aug 2009 20:56

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby pankajs » 26 Oct 2014 10:43

Saurav Jha @SJha1618 · 11h 11 hours ago

Indian Army Air Defence: SA-6 replacement - Akash MRSAM. SA-13 replacement - Sosna-R. SA-8 replacement - DRDO's QRSAM.

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

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby Thakur_B » 26 Oct 2014 10:59

abhik wrote:ToI is reporting that the initial 3,200 Cr deal for the Spike missiles will be followed up with local production for greater numbers which would take the total deal value to 20,000 Cr. So the Spike is not a 'gap-filler', this is a long term deal. RIP Man portable Nag. Really disappointed with the new government's weapons acquisition policy.


MP Nag will happen. If a prototype comes out next year then realistically speaking, 2 years for development tests, 2 years of user trials and another 2 years to hit production, ie 6 years from unveiling of prototype. It's not as if imports kill domestic production, sometimes domestic products kill imports as well (For eg: progress on HeliNa has killed the import prospects of Spike/PARS 3 for Rudra and LCH). Had MP Nag been at the final stages of development, we could have read obituaries for the project. Remember, we have thousands of Konkurs and Milans that would need to be replaced over the next couple of decades. The overall projected requirement in Javelin deal was 37860 missiles and our appetite for ATGMs is way more than that. The sanctioned strength for ATGM in IA is 81206 units. You can do the maths.

The truth is that Javelin and Spike are so ahead of the game that having a missile today gives a massive advantage over the adversaries. No harm in buying and then developing your own comparable system (like the french are doing with MMP).
Last edited by Thakur_B on 26 Oct 2014 16:47, edited 2 times in total.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby Viv S » 26 Oct 2014 11:55

After one takes a look at the figures, the Spike does start to make sense.

$525 million for 8356 missiles is about $63K each. Say $60,000 per unit. Most Javelin sales in contrast appear to be priced between $150,000 and $200,000 per missile. Even assuming the Javelin is a superior product (which by most accounts it is), the Spike still appears to deliver far superior value.

But just when one believes that sense had finally come to reign at AHQ and South Block, the absurdities reveal themselves.

1) 320 odd launchers for 8450 missiles? That's one launcher for every 26 missiles. Can anyone visualize a scenario where a single ATGM team employs 26 rounds. Even assuming the enemy was blindfolding and employing kamikaze tactics, the Spike is hardly like a RPG, when you shoot, reach into your satchel and pop another round in.

2) Apparently this doesn't end here.

Asked how much missles the Indian army needs to have to fully equip the Army's 382 infantry battalions and 44 mechanised infantry units, sources put the figure at about 40,000. link

So every infantry battalion will field almost 100 ATGMs on average. Assuming the bulk of the missiles are allocated to western formations, that figure may end up being far higher.

Also, factor in the 10,000 KONKURs, 25,000 tank launched INVARs on order, however many NAGs and HELINAs we may buy, plus DRDO's CLGMs & SAMHOs, remaining MILAN-2s in the inventory, 800 Hellfire Longbows accompanying the proposed 22 AH-64Es, 1500+ more for follow-on Apaches, all topped off with 510 CBU-105s.

Just what about the PA's (mostly geraitric) armored and mechanized forces, inspires such devotion to anti-tank warfare in the IA and IAF?

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby Viv S » 26 Oct 2014 12:20

Karan M wrote:Infantry may still get Javelin both are com parables but spikes won against jav several times and is stated to be cheaper. US didn't want to give Jav seeker TOT.


My understanding was that only some of the software (seeker algorithms?) with regard to the seeker was being withheld. In contrast, the Russians flat out refused seeker ToT for the INVARs forcing us look elsewhere for it.


The Russians refused to give India the technology for the guidance system for the missile, which will be fired from India’s Russian-made T-90 tanks, despite agreeing to the transfer for licensed production of the missiles, according to a BDL official.

The Russians agreed to grant a license for production of the missile and the transfer of technology in August, when a US $470 million contract was signed, the BDL official said.

State-owned BDL, which will manufacture the Invar missiles, has not been given the key technology for the missile’s laser beam-riding guidance system, the official said.


Link

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby Viv S » 26 Oct 2014 12:23

Philip wrote:Yes,the FMS route with freebies to selected OEMs has ended."Horses for courses" is the new mantra.


Hmm... tell me Philip, how many Russian products can you name that were purchased by the MoD through an open selection process?

vaibhav.n
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 575
Joined: 23 Mar 2010 21:47

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby vaibhav.n » 26 Oct 2014 12:31

Viv S,

Newer acquasitions are typically more munition intensive because your Trainers at Infantry Schools etc would need to be retrained get Instructor Grading all over again. Not to mention that same process would need to be done for a substantial portion of the ATGM Platoons across the IA. As a data metric, to give you an indication the original BDL Milan cost the IA around 5.5 Lacs/Round.

With the entire plethora of Multiple variants that the Spike Family fields, will make life very difficult for Nag.

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

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby Thakur_B » 26 Oct 2014 12:35

Question: How did the Sosna deal happen? Was there any tender out or is it direct government to government deal ?

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 » 26 Oct 2014 13:36

Viv S I think a lot of ATGMs are meant for infantry units to deter chinese armour attacks ?
we hold a little bit of the flat tibet in north sikkim and DBG and thats about it. PLA can bring in very large armour forces over time and resupplied via smooth roads and new railways to deliver crushing blows to infantry units deprived of our own armour support due to terrain.

so equipping with heavy warload of ATGMs seems to be our porcupine strategy...defensive but inflict a painful wound.

the RPG and carl gustaf are probably also quite ineffective in busting the modern chains of bunkers the TSP have put up everywhere. slogging in for even 50km through such lines of fortifications will need very heavy and sustained fire on fortifications.


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests