I agree about AAD especially if it is adapated for naval purpose and deployed in L&T UVLS launchers on P15A.Yagnasri wrote:AAD and Prahar is somethings which are not not in the news. Prahar also could be game changer.
There continues to be a push for imports under urgent needs bla bla and attempt to scupper any significant local orders for local systems. The MOD etc have firmly told that make do with what's in current pipeline. There are Akash/Akash Mk2/Maitri/QRSAM/MRSAM/ABM program. Once again, if some folks had their way we'd be ordering Russian en masse and then wondering how to get spares a decade later.Kashi wrote:^^ Which could also mean that they are fairly confident about our own ABM and PAD programmes not to mention Akash.
Chaiwallah says ABM/PAD is well on track!!
Pinaka Mk2 has a third of the range. Brahmos is super expensive with an onboard seeker and limited by Russian supplies till it is indigenized. Nirbhay, yet to be indigenized engine wise.John wrote:As for Prahar its bit redundant especially with pinaka Mk2 , Brahmos and Nirbhay.
No evidence it will be cheaper.And not to mention there is Brahmos M in the horizon which would cheaper and more compact.
So we'll have roughly double the above. We are talking of 96 missile launchers & 6000 missiles.It seems Russia has decided to go through with the deal despite these concerns. The details of the actual deal have not been revealed, but reports in November indicated that China “had signed a $3 billion contract for at least six S-400 divisions, which have about eight missile launchers each.”
How did you get that figure?Karan M wrote:http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/indi ... 226062.cms
So we'll have roughly double the above. We are talking of 96 missile launchers & 6000 missiles.
Three deployed against Pak, two against PRC.
Brahmos M is supposed to be cheaper than brahmos as per last article i will link it if possible.Karan M wrote:Pinaka Mk2 has a third of the range. Brahmos is super expensive with an onboard seeker and limited by Russian supplies till it is indigenized. Nirbhay, yet to be indigenized engine wise.John wrote:As for Prahar its bit redundant especially with pinaka Mk2 , Brahmos and Nirbhay.
No evidence it will be cheaper.And not to mention there is Brahmos M in the horizon which would cheaper and more compact.
I believe that's what is happening, albeit, not uniformly. In this case, we will purchase S-400 for immediate needs and then start bringing our own systems into the fray as they mature.Karan M wrote:Best we get limited number of systems for current needs and rely on ourselves for the long term.
it sounds like you are confusing a LR PGM in Brahmos for hitting a single high value target vs a LR MRBL Prahar, which is an area weapon launched in salvos. The reason why the IA hasn't bought any Prahar is because they don't have a doctrine that requires it as yet and associated sensors for targeting at those ranges in place. But that will change in the future as longer ranged systems become the norm. I would think 150km range MRBL is perfectly suited for the new Cold Start doctrine that envisages penetration of limited depth supported by massive firepower destroying areas of troop and logistics concentration in the rear. Also, at 150-200km ranges regular salvos of Prahar would keep PAF airbases in check like when air attacks or ground operations are planned within the protective coverage of those airbases.John wrote:Brahmos M is supposed to be cheaper than brahmos as per last article i will link it if possible.Karan M wrote:...
Pinaka Mk2 has a third of the range. Brahmos is super expensive with an onboard seeker and limited by Russian supplies till it is indigenized. Nirbhay, yet to be indigenized engine wise.
{quote} And not to mention there is Brahmos M in the horizon which would cheaper and more compact.{/quote}
No evidence it will be cheaper.
Brahmos had much higher terminal velocity than Prahar and packs far bigger punch. Apart from the fact that it is guided and can preprogrammed to target different target mid course. Also Brahmos is much harder to shoot down, considering large number of SHORAD and S300 clone system chinese are fielding.
I dont know how good short range ballistic missile will do in that theatre. We can all play arm general chairs but there is good reason why the army is not procuring it.
Jugal R Purohit @jrpur 15h15 hours ago
JUST IN: IAF's vintage Pechora air defence missile systems to be digitized @ Rs 1200cr.
Cleared by DACJugal R Purohit @jrpur 15h15 hours ago
JUST IN: India to purchase five units of Russian S400 air defence system. Cost will be worked out in due course.
Is it not in earlier DAC meet, the Digitization of Perchora was also cleared how come it has surfaced again.Thakur_B wrote:Jugal R Purohit @jrpur 15h15 hours ago
JUST IN: IAF's vintage Pechora air defence missile systems to be digitized @ Rs 1200cr.Cleared by DACJugal R Purohit @jrpur 15h15 hours ago
JUST IN: India to purchase five units of Russian S400 air defence system. Cost will be worked out in due course.
One more point would like to add, S-400 is known for defending against Stealth Fighter Jets, perhaps the reason for increased Chinese flight test of prototype version of J-20 and J-31. Chinese probably doing the same with similar purchase to defend against US stealth bomber in south china sea.Karan M wrote:http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/indi ... 226062.cms
This is Rs 39000 crore ie $6.5Bn.
For rough ballpark figures.
http://thediplomat.com/2015/04/sold-rus ... -to-china/So we'll have roughly double the above. We are talking of 96 missile launchers & 6000 missiles.It seems Russia has decided to go through with the deal despite these concerns. The details of the actual deal have not been revealed, but reports in November indicated that China “had signed a $3 billion contract for at least six S-400 divisions, which have about eight missile launchers each.”
Three deployed against Pak, two against PRC.
Looks like cities will get dedicated ABM system and above S-400 will likely protect key AFB/C3I/Defence nodes.
Cheaper than brahmos? Perhaps.. cheaper than prahaar? Doubtful.John wrote:Brahmos M is supposed to be cheaper than brahmos as per last article i will link it if possible.
At higher cost.Brahmos had much higher terminal velocity than Prahar and packs far bigger punch.
As if Prahaar/Pragati haven't taken these factors into account. The missile system has capability of deployment in stand-alone mode or centralised mode. its effective and intelligent end trajectory maneuvreing, Pragati defeats detection by any weapon locating radar.Apart from the fact that it is guided and can preprogrammed to target different target mid course. Also Brahmos is much harder to shoot down, considering large number of SHORAD and S300 clone system chinese are fielding.
[/quote]I dont know how good short range ballistic missile will do in that theatre. We can all play arm general chairs but there is good reason why the army is not procuring it.
Brahmos is the proverbial silver bullet to be used by theater commanders for very high value targets. The price of the system will preclude mass deployment. Today, we have 1 x Brahmos Regiment per artillery division for a total of three. And that too, only with Strike Corps. I don't see Brahmos proliferating anytime soon to Pivot Corps. Prahaar will not only give additional fire-power and options for Strike Corps but also give a fairly accurate system to Pivot Corps.John wrote: Brahmos M is supposed to be cheaper than brahmos as per last article i will link it if possible.
Brahmos had much higher terminal velocity than Prahar and packs far bigger punch. Apart from the fact that it is guided and can preprogrammed to target different target mid course. Also Brahmos is much harder to shoot down, considering large number of SHORAD and S300 clone system chinese are fielding.
I dont know how good short range ballistic missile will do in that theatre. We can all play arm general chairs but there is good reason why the army is not procuring it.
Three batteries of 6 Pinaka launchers each for a total of 18 launchers/regiment.Bihanga wrote:In 2014, DRDO published intention to produce 5000 Pinaka rockets per year, however can somebody explain detailed break up of Pinaka regiment comprises of?
With respect to the bold part - can we not indulge in such grand standing arguments? How do you know what army does or does not in terms of strategy? An army uses artillery division as a 'maneuver arm' for 'maneuver by fire' needs lessons from arm chair generals on how to deploy Prahaar because it does 'not have doctrine' for it?srai wrote: it sounds like you are confusing a LR PGM in Brahmos for hitting a single high value target vs a LR MRBL Prahar, which is an area weapon launched in salvos. The reason why the IA hasn't bought any Prahar is because they don't have a doctrine that requires it as yet and associated sensors for targeting at those ranges in place. But that will change in the future as longer ranged systems become the norm. I would think 150km range MRBL is perfectly suited for the new Cold Start doctrine that envisages penetration of limited depth supported by massive firepower destroying areas of troop and logistics concentration in the rear. Also, at 150-200km ranges regular salvos of Prahar would keep PAF airbases in check like when air attacks or ground operations are planned within the protective coverage of those airbases.
We're two or three (most probably three) regiments operational with one per artillery division. And six more regiments on order now. For a total of 9 regiments so far. Plus, IA also has 5 BM-21 GRAD regiments soldiering on as well.Cybaru wrote:Sorry, I know google will help, but really how many pinaka on order so far in all.
UPA-2 has not been there for 18 months now. What's stopping Prahaar from being deployed? One can only guess that their remain a few operational issues that need to be ironed out before the missile is formally inducted and deployed.rohitvats wrote:Could it be that non-deployment of Prahaar (because it is very good) was a CBM for the pakees by the UPA-2?
We don't have any information, chaiwala or otherwise, and it would be better to not indulge in such statements.
By Ajai Shukla
Business Standard, 22nd July 11
India’s ability to win a quick, pre-emptive war against Pakistan has just been enhanced by a useful new set of teeth. This morning, at a missile test range in Balasore, Orissa, the Defence R&D Organisation (DRDO) launched its first-ever Prahaar missile, a mobile, truck-mounted rocket that can strike within 10 metres of a target that is 150 kilometres away.
The Prahaar gives a huge boost to India’s military doctrine of “Cold Start”. This method of war would be adopted as retaliation for any grave Pakistani provocation, such as another 26/11 Mumbai-style terror attack. Cold Start involves multiple, simultaneous invasions of Pakistani territory with quickly assembled Indian Army battle groups, well before Pakistani forces can reach the border and occupy defensive positions. The Prahaar would provide the army’s invading battle groups with lethal fire support, striking Pakistani headquarters far behind the frontlines, and destroying roads, railways, bridges and other communications infrastructure that are essential for rushing Pakistani forces to the border.
Unlike the DRDO’s Prithvi missile, which was introduced into service as a 150-kilometre range, nuclear-capable ballistic missile, the Prahaar is categorized as a “battlefield tactical missile”. Its maximum payload of 200 kg does not allow the Prahaar to carry a nuclear weapon (which are seldom under 500 kg). But while nuclear capable ballistic missiles are useful only in the nightmarish eventuality of nuclear war, the Prahaar can be useful at every stage of a Cold Start campaign. Being a solid-fuel missile, it can swing into action quickly in response to rapidly evolving situations; and its short flight time --- just 250 seconds, or just over four minutes --- allows it to engage fleeting targets that would disappear in the time that it would take to scramble and fly in fighter aircraft.
Furthermore, the Prahaar’s range of warheads, which the DRDO has developed, gives the Indian Army multiple options. It could carry a cargo warhead containing bomblets that disperse over a wide area, killing any exposed troops. Alternatively, it could carry air-delivered mines, which spread across a piece of terrain, denying passage to enemy infantry or tanks. Or the Prahaar could carry a single, high explosive warhead that can demolish even the best-protected target or critical infrastructure.
So far, many of these targets have fallen to the lot of the Indian Air Force. But in a Cold War situation the emphasis of the IAF, especially during the initial crucial days, would focus on attacking the Pakistan Air Force to prevent it from causing casualties in the Indian Army’s attacking battle groups, or stopping their advance. By using the Prahaar against enemy entities that are beyond the range of artillery guns or rockets (30-40 kilometres); or for interdicting enemy reserves and logistic columns far behind the lines, IAF fighters would be freed up for “counter-air operations” against the PAF.
If, as is more than likely, the IAF buys the Prahaar in numbers, the missile could be effectively launched against forward Pakistani air bases, destroying fighters on the ground and damaging runways, air defence radars and air control networks. Currently, manned fighter aircraft perform these tasks, often at the cost of pilots’ lives and shot down fighters.
Pakistan has no battlefield missile similar to the Prahaar. Over recent years, its scientists have focused on developing the Hatf-9 (or Nasr) short range, ballistic missile, which seeks to deter a Cold Start campaign with its ability to deliver a nuclear warhead to a maximum distance of 60 kilometres. Since most Indian cities are farther than that, strategists believe that the Hatf-9 is intended for counter-force targeting, i.e. against one or more of the Indian Army’s integrated battle groups inside Pakistani territory. This would serve notice of Pakistani resolve to carry out a counter-value strike, which would take the form of a longer-range missile, carrying a nuclear warhead to one or more large Indian cities.
According to the DRDO, the Prahaar is comparable to the US Army’s Advanced Tactical Missile System (ATACMS), which was extensively used during the invasion of Iraq in 2003. The Prahaar is launched from a Road Mobile System developed by Larsen & Toubro, which can carry six missiles. All six can be fired in a salvo, each of them against a different target.
According to the DRDO, the Prahaar was developed in a period of just two years.
6000 missiles for 96 launchers looks quite strange bit of mix to me.Karan M wrote:BrarW
http://www.hindustantimes.com/india/cen ... euDVK.html
Although the military had earlier projected a requirement of a dozen S-400 systems, the defence ministry is clear that only five systems are sufficient to take care of the future airborne threat from across India’s borders. The S-400 is a proven antiaircraft system, and is widely considered the most advanced of its kind in the world, with the capability of engaging missiles as well as aircraft. It comes with a mobile launcher and a threat detection radar-cum-command centre. The deal includes purchase of some 6,000 missiles from Russia.
maybe one zero too many !!brar_w wrote:6000 missiles for 96 launchers looks quite strange bit of mix to me.Karan M wrote:BrarW
http://www.hindustantimes.com/india/cen ... euDVK.html
Although the military had earlier projected a requirement of a dozen S-400 systems, the defence ministry is clear that only five systems are sufficient to take care of the future airborne threat from across India’s borders. The S-400 is a proven antiaircraft system, and is widely considered the most advanced of its kind in the world, with the capability of engaging missiles as well as aircraft. It comes with a mobile launcher and a threat detection radar-cum-command centre. The deal includes purchase of some 6,000 missiles from Russia.
That was the first thing that came to my mind as well. That many missiles for 96 launchers would mean 15X replenishment per launcher which would be very very strange. Most S300/400 TEL's pack 4 missiles per so 96 will give you 384 missiles deployed. For 6000 missiles to be useful you'd need a lot many more TEL's, to be supported by a lot lot many more radars and command and control units (if even a fourth of them are to be deployed). 600 missiles would mean 216 missiles for replenishment which would be a far more realistic acquisition and deployment strategy.maybe one zero too many !!
Radars, Command and control, TEL's and other support equipment comes at a cost. These aren't small radars we are talking about. Missiles are generally not the most expensive component of any modern missile defense deal even if you are looking at purely space mid-course or assent phase intercept of ICBM's.Then Each Missile, I know we are paying for Radars, Vehicles, Launchers etc comes to $100 million a copy, 10 times the cost of a Brahmos. This is for many reloads required in wartime. You wont get resupply easily from Russia in wartime.
That is meaningless unless context is provided as to what elements of the S400 were procured by China. What radars, what missiles, and what missile mixes. India could simply be buying more sensor coverage etc. There is too little known about the Chinese deal to make a valid comparison. But from the wantchinatimes article we know that a conventional battalion has 8 TEL's, a radar and 16 spare missiles for a total of 48 missiles. They bought (as per WCT) 6 such units giving them 48 TEL's and 288 Missiles in total for $3 Billion (apparently) since the same article said a cost of one such unit was $500 Million. If you simply double this you get 96 TEL's ( I think this is what Karan used), double the radars, double the missiles and double the cost i.e. $6 Billion for 12 'units' with 96 launchers and nearly 600 missiles. Or you could simply see a situation in which India is getting wider sensor coverage, multiple radars for discrimination and early warning and more of a Ballistic Missile Defense like setup that would warrant longer ranged coverage.China supposedly bought 6 S400 "systems" for $3 billion. And India is buying 5 for $6 billion? India will not pay double what China has unless:
That assumes that India has bought an off the shelf S400 setup rather than create a more customized version with wider sensor coverage and perhaps more TEL's as well. I would also not take the number of units (and what each unit contains) to be rock solid until more details emerge as the discussions conclude and a deal is about to be signed.
BRFite
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31
Posts: 1019
^^^
At various sites on the internet it has been stated that a S400 set/system/battalion will be exported by Russia for $500 million presumably with the standard components (including 48 missiles) as mentioned by you. The $6 billion i.e. Rs 40,000 crores figure mentioned in news articles indicates a purchase of $500x12 battalions = $6 billion. But the news articles also states that Indian MOD reduced the number of systems to 5 down from the 12 that were proposed by the armed forces.
Lots of confusion regarding actual numbers/costs.
It should fill the same role as ATACMS in US army, although not having the same punch.srai wrote: it sounds like you are confusing a LR PGM in Brahmos for hitting a single high value target vs a LR MRBL Prahar, which is an area weapon launched in salvos. The reason why the IA hasn't bought any Prahar is because they don't have a doctrine that requires it as yet and associated sensors for targeting at those ranges in place. But that will change in the future as longer ranged systems become the norm. I would think 150km range MRBL is perfectly suited for the new Cold Start doctrine that envisages penetration of limited depth supported by massive firepower destroying areas of troop and logistics concentration in the rear. Also, at 150-200km ranges regular salvos of Prahar would keep PAF airbases in check like when air attacks or ground operations are planned within the protective coverage of those airbases.
There is no evidence to state that IA is interested in Prahaar it is dead project let's move on rather than repeatedly bringing it up. There are numerous article clearly stating IA has no interest in Prahaar what so ever, you can make hundred different claims every year about how that will change but it is not.Karan M wrote:
In fact, we have been over this before. You repeat the same statements again and again, despite evidence to the contrary.
viewtopic.php?p=1612846
viewtopic.php?p=1613386#p1613386
Evidence states IA is placing orders methodically per its funding availability. First Pinaka, now there will be Pinaka Mk2 and Prahaar as well. You have no certain evidence in any form to state Prahaar won't be ordered either.