abhik wrote:What about the 2-pulse motor and some other bits that the DRDO is supposed to have developed for the Barak-8? Or do the Israelis have their own version of the motor and have 0% reliance on us.
"Barak-8" was developed by Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI), in partnership with Elta Systems, Rafael and other companies.
So its marketed as a pure- Israeli product?
Karan M wrote:In an ideal world, yes. The TEL design including C4I there and the C4I trailer, the radar generator is all desi. But we don't know yet whether the one sold to Azerbaijan has it. Same as Brahmos is not equal to Yakhont, despite dumb yindoos paying for all the finetuning of everything on the system.
Joint Development can have
1. Inclusion of end user's specific requirements, like PAF's requirement for JF-17 or Indian requirements for Su-30MKI & Barak-8
2. Inclusion of end user specified third part equipment - like Israeli and French avionics for Su-30 MKI or CAe MAD for P-8I
3. Inclusion of end user developed equipment - like Indian SCAN seeker for BrahMos or dual pulse motor for Barak-8
None of it stops Russia or Israel or France from developing & selling Su-30SM, MiG-29K or Yakhont to Vietnam & Indonesia. Infact the French upgrade for its Mirage 2000 uses what was developed for IAFhttp://www.defenseworld.net/news/16727/ ... AF_Mirages
French Air Force Mirage 2000 Upgrade Nearly Similar To That Of IAF Mirages
Until the time critical technologies are developed, we need to go for JVs.
Karan M wrote:A purely political program foisted on DRDO by "Bundle" of the AF and UPA fraands with Akash induction reduced to 2 squadrons as an incentive.
John wrote:Why it's purely political program currently Navy or AF have a medium/Long range SAM that meets their requirements. Only other option is spending a lot of money to import more S300 or Patriot Pac2. Long range missile based on AAD is unlikely to see daylight any time before 2025 and AAD itself look to be in trouble.
Barak-8 and AAD ARE DESIGNED FOR VERY DIFFERENT & NON-INTERCHANGEABLE PURPOSES.
Karan M wrote:Even Barak-8 did not meet IN requirements fully, it too was a controversial decision at the time. Won't speak more on it. Thereafter the IN, DRDO worked hard to get it into shape, but the Israelis themselves focused on their own programs first. That too was a factor which wont show up in any weblink.As regards AAD you are mistaken, it has done exactly what it was meant to, and second it and many other programs had resources moved from them to the LRSAM/MRSAM which talk apart, have had no clear details to show for the investment India put in them in terms of actual technology transfer. Which is the fundamental issue about this & several other "JVs" which were proposed. The issue is not of adapting an AAD to the Barak-8 role, its more about how the MRSAM was conceived and pushed through, and what other alternatives were possible, with various carrots and sticks which had little to do with operational needs alone.
AAD is a high speed skid-to-turn
missile designed to target short & intermediate range ballistic missiles like Hatf-1/2/3, M-9, M-11, Ghauri, Shaheen etc. Because its design is highly optimised for ballistic missile interception, it is not capable of intercepting highly maneuverable aircraft with a high degree of authority provided by control surfaces.
For targeting such aircraft, one needs a bank-to-turn
missile with a greater number of control surfaces.
AAD has TVC, 4 moveable tailfins and wings
Barak-8 has TVC, 4 moveable tailfins and 4 moveable canards that impact greater turn capability to intercept highly maneuverable aircraft
We need both.
Now coming to allegations of political conspiracy.
LRSAM was signed when George Fernandes was Defence Minister and A P J Abdul Kalam was Scientific Advisor to Raksha Mantri and Head of DRDO.
LRSAM was required because the then existent long range missiles were heavy (Russian Rif, US Standard & French Aster) and IN wanted something lighter for its destroyers that have less displacement than US, Russian, UK & French destroyers.
Because nothing meeting our requirements existed, and the Israelis wanted something similar for their Sa’ar 5 corvettes, we went in for joint development.
When BJP signed LRSAM in 2000, Congress alleged there was corruption. When Congress signed MRSAM in 2006, BJP alleged there was corruption
Here is a DRDO interview stating why LRSAM/MRSAM is required.http://archive.indianexpress.com/news/i ... y/442501/0
Left, BJP have alleged corruption in the $1.665 bn contract for medium-range surface-to-air missiles that the Defence Research & Development Organisation signed with Israel Aircraft Industries on February 27. Defence Minister A K Antony told DRDO to answer questions
raised by the Opposition. Shishir Gupta explains:
•Why are the missiles needed?
DRDO-IAI joint venture will develop and equip Indian Air Force (IAF) with 18 combat management systems with 435 MRSAMs. Missiles will replace obsolete PECHORA missile systems. In December 2008, DRDO chief M Natarajan informed Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS) that the nation's air defence was under threat: IAF had reported that 17 out of 60 firing units of PECHORA had already been phased out.
•What do Left and BJP say?
The Left, traditionally opposed to defence ties with Tel Aviv, wants the deal scrapped because IAI is under CBI scrutiny in the Barak missile deal. It also wants the Government to explain why 6% of the contract sum is being paid as business expenses to IAI. The BJP says the deal reeks of middlemen, and will scrap it if it comes to power.
•What is the background of the deal?
Defence Acquisition Council (DAC) of the Ministry of Defence took the decision to develop MRSAM with Israeli collaboration on June 19, 2006. On January 4, 2007, the Defence Minister approved the Price Negotiation Committee headed by DRDO's VK Saraswat
and IAI's Itzhak Nissan. On December 16, 2008, CCS cleared the deal. DRDO told CCS that MRSAM was the land derivative of an ongoing long-range surface-to-air missile project with Israel for the Navy. DRDO conceded that Akash, the indigenous missile system in development since 1984, had been a sub-optimal performer, following which it was decided that IAF would purchase only two squadrons, to be deployed in less-than-strategic airfields.
•What questions did Antony ask?
What DRDO did not explain was why it needed to develop a missile with a 70-km range with Israel when American (Standard Missile MK IV), French (Aster 15/30) and Russian (RIF) missile systems with longer ranges (up to 240 miles) and proven performance were already in service. A stickler for transparency, Antony asked DRDO to address the concerns expressed by opposition parties.
•India already possesses a more powerful missile in the same class: the advance air defence (AAD) missile, which is part of India's anti-ballistic missile shield.DRDO: MRSAM is four times more manoeuvrable than AAD. AAD performs sub-optimally while engaging aircraft in tail-chase mode, reducing the air defence engagement envelope.
•The deal could mean the death of the Akash missile system.DRDO: MRSAM can engage targets 70 km away; Akash has a range of just 25 km.
Deputy Chief of Air Staff has stated that PECHORA is obsolete and IAF needs a replacement urgently.
•No open tendering process was followed.
DRDO: Decisions on acquiring weapons systems are made by DAC. IAF had, after evaluating the ongoing long-range surface-to-air missile (LRSAM) project, concluded the missile met operational requirements for an MRSAM system as well. IAF proposed a joint development programme between DRDO and IAI to move quickly on an urgent need. DAC approved "make" decision and thus, no tenders were floated.
•Missile seeker technology has not been transferred.DRDO: Significant share of work in seeker technology has been awarded to Indian industry. For more than 80% of missiles, seeker sub-assemblies will be manufactured, assembled, tested in India with complete production drawings and assembly/test procedures.
tsarkar wrote:The BDL manufacturing factory is Ibrahimpatnam near Hyderabad has started work
•Six per cent business charges are being paid.
DRDO: Business expenses are costs towards warranty, bank guarantees, financing, insurance, transportation etc. These are included in the cost of the product. The 6% figure was not mentioned in IAI quote and is not in the contract. It was mentioned only in the report of the price negotiation committee, which brought it down from 13%, to demonstrate its approach in arriving at the reasonability of the negotiated price.
•Bribes were paid as part of business expenses.
DRDO: Not true. IAI signed an integrity pact before price negotiations began. Final contract (article 30.1) is very stringent about integrity. Contract can be scrapped in case of an irregularity.
•Contract was not examined from the legal angle.
DRDO: CBI has filed FIRs in connection with deals for Barak and 200 missiles with IAI and Rafael of Israel, but is yet to submit charge-sheet. Additional Solicitor General had opined it would be appropriate to wait for the charge-sheet before deciding to bar the firms. The Law Ministry felt an embargo only on the basis of an FIR may not be justified, and asked The Defence Ministry to first assess urgency of the national security need. Central Vigilance Commission felt results from CBI's probe lent credibility to allegations of involvement of middlemen, but asked the Defence Ministry to make the final decision after consulting the Law Ministry.
The Law Minister said the decision should be made at the highest levels. The entire matter was referred to Air Headquarters, which, with concurrence of the Air Chief, reiterated the immediate need to induct LLQRM (low level radars from Rafael), MRSAM and additional Aerostat radars. It was only due to this urgency, strategic implications of delay, IAI's integrity commitment, and the ASG's view, that CCS cleared the MRSAM project.
From the same report is the following graphic explaining the difference between the three missiles. It is self explanatory. Coming from DRDO, it has internal layouts of all missiles, including the only publicly released layout of AAD
And there is no information that Barak-8/LRSAM/MRSAM has not met requirements. It will fit 4 Project 15B and 7 Project 17A ships in future.
Nor is there any information that AAD has not met requirements. It too is in the process of completing development.
Lastly, I would very humbly request for some maturity and honesty in this forum.If Product A is good, then to prove its good, one doesnt have to disparage Product B. Both can be equally good on their own merits.<POOF>