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.
Gyan
BRFite
Posts: 1183
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby Gyan » 20 Dec 2015 20:26

Israel deal is in USD, so it would have reached around Rs. 15,000 crore for 450 missiles by Now.

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

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby member_22733 » 20 Dec 2015 23:59

I realize this about every 6 months and then promptly forget about it:

There is something wrong with our priorities when we spend 15000 crores on imports while spending < 6000 crores on stuff like ISRO, and our university system.

Pardon my :(( :(( ing.

Nick_S
BRFite
Posts: 516
Joined: 23 Jul 2011 16:05
Location: Abbatabad

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby Nick_S » 21 Dec 2015 04:18

Karan M wrote:The S-400 deal comes to approximately 100 launchers, with 4 missiles each indicating at least 2-3K missiles using Akash as a proxy.


Perhaps 6 missiles per launcher?

Image

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18828
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby Karan M » 21 Dec 2015 04:37

^ Could be. However 4 are the usual advertised, above may have been a prototype.
https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-XVK4iUCq-AE/ ... -SAM-7.jpg

Which is why I was using missiles per launcher as a metric as versus reloads. Otherwise, gets really complicated..

there are 5 missiles available with the S-400, but typically some 3-4 are advertised.
https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-RDJ1z1Gc0dU/ ... -SAM-8.jpg

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18828
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby Karan M » 21 Dec 2015 05:38

From Pillai sir's presentation in January 2015

Image

Image

Source:https://www.quora.com/What-are-some-lesser-known-facts-about-DRDO

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18828
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby Karan M » 21 Dec 2015 06:22

The manouverable trajectory bit was taken further in Agni MARV, Shourya and Prahaar. Thanks to the ABM program, DRDO also knows how the shields work and can work on the sword too and vice versa. Its rare to have both contesting systems under the same house so to speak, which gives huge advantages in terms of tech development.

Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2991
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby Kanson » 22 Dec 2015 21:15

Source 1:
http://www.timesofisrael.com/watch-isra ... se-system/

Though the senior officer said he could not reveal the maximum range of the Barak 8 system, an executive vice president of Israel Aerospace Industries, which helped develop the defense system, revealed to Jane’s Defense News earlier this summer that some of the missiles being used can shoot down targets at a range of 150 kilometers (93 miles).



Source 2:
New missile adds teeth to Navy.

A senior defence ministry official described the test to Business Standard. As the pilotless target aircraft flew toward the Lahav, the corvette's MF-STAR radar, the heart of the LR-SAM system, quickly detected it. The MF-STAR (multi-function surveillance, tracking and acquisition radar) can detect targets up to 200 kilometres away, but the actual range at which this test was conducted remains secret.

How it unfolded
Strategic affairs website DefenseNews quoted an Israeli official telling reporters that the target was acquired "at a range of more than 20 kilometres but less than 120 kilometres."


Is that a gradual unveiling of the actual range of Barak-8 missile? from mere 70 km to 120/150 km?

Gyan
BRFite
Posts: 1183
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby Gyan » 22 Dec 2015 22:42

Let them demonstrate an engagement with an actual target at range of 120/150km in INDIA.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8118
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby brar_w » 22 Dec 2015 23:42

Range is dependent on a host of things from the type of target, to the probability of intercept required from the system. At maximum ranges you are essentially lofting and destroying a highly cooperative target (such as a drone). Therefore most operators test their missiles against threat representative targets as the test program advances and matures. Indian Navy should have a pretty good idea of what the range of the weapon is against what type of targets.

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5241
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby ShauryaT » 23 Dec 2015 00:13

Kanson: The way I read those reports a few weeks back on the Barrak 8 is, there is an ER missile for 150KM is planned for - not ready yet. Having said that there are some basic questions on the real capabilities of the S-400. Its ability to intercept cruise missiles in a terrain hugging profile under 150KM ranges? Also, it seems the 250 KM version of S-400 is primarily for ballistic trajectories? It claims a lot of anti-stealth capabilities, are they real?

Assuming the 250KM version is primarily an ABM, would there not be an overlap between Barrak 8 and other MR parts of the S-400? Why not invest in the ABM, Barrak 8 and maybe even a mid range solution based on the Astra in a SAM profile with a booster?

Hope by acquiring the S-400, which I am sure is quite capable in many aspects of air defense, we are not short changing on indigenous and collaboration ventures.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8118
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby brar_w » 23 Dec 2015 00:29

Its ability to intercept cruise missiles in a terrain hugging profile under 150KM ranges? Also, it seems the 250 KM version of S-400 is primarily for ballistic trajectories?


Physics still applies and this is true for every SAM ever made :). You can easily calculate the horizon for a ground based (or a ship based) radar. For a target flying at 10,000 feet, your radar horizon for a fire control radar mounted at 20 feet (ground based) is under 250 km (even with a 100 foot mast you will struggle to get to 250 km range but will loose some of your mobility) . For a cruise missile flying really low you get into double digit km's for detection hence a dispersed sensor network of smaller more mobile radars is paramount for cruise missile defense.(None of this takes into account terrain) 200-250 km ranged SAM for an air breathing threat is about the max you would ideally want unless you have other uses for the range (which could very much be a requirement). That number comes from the fact that around 15,000 feet you are within reasonable protection from MANPADS. Cruise missiles can go even lower as can sea skimming missiles which are pretty much kissing the surface of the water.

As far as trajectories etc, all missiles will seek to trade altitude for speed and range when it comes to long range intercepts. One quick way to look at design goals is to look at guidance. While multiple ways to guide a missile to target exist at times within the same missile you begin to loose some options at longer ranges. If you are relying on a Track via missile or a SARH then you range limited by the radar horizon of your fire control radar. One way to go around that is to give onboard options to bypass these modes in case they are lost but that impacts your probability of intercept numbers. Hence generally the closer you are to the edge of your envelope the lower the probability of intercept. Fully active missiles obviously don't have the problem of beaming up with the FCR for either command guidance or TVM or double up with SAG. But they still do have kinematic issues especially if they are lofted. It all depends on what you are trying to do at what range against what target. Also note that high lofts may not be possible for an anti-ballistic missile defense (hence reducing range) engagement and a lot depends upon how good your SA is, and how fast your missile and target are.

For those ridiculously large ranges (40N6 vs air-breathing threat) you fly a ballistic trajectory and carry an active seeker. But even then the acquisition and fire control radars would need the target to be cooperative at or above 30,000 feet for non stealthy targets.

It claims a lot of anti-stealth capabilities, are they real?


It has low frequency radars that are optional with the system. Those claim to have a ALO capability but the missiles themselves remain the same regardless of what target you are trying to shoot at.

Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2991
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby Kanson » 23 Dec 2015 04:31

ShauryaT wrote:Kanson: The way I read those reports a few weeks back on the Barrak 8 is, there is an ER missile for 150KM is planned for - not ready yet. Having said that there are some basic questions on the real capabilities of the S-400. Its ability to intercept cruise missiles in a terrain hugging profile under 150KM ranges? Also, it seems the 250 KM version of S-400 is primarily for ballistic trajectories? It claims a lot of anti-stealth capabilities, are they real?


Yes, ER missile was reported. But this is just Barak-8 recently tested from Sa'ar 5 corvette. Not sure of the real range as the paper further reports, "to develop a longer-range Barak that could counter anti-ship missiles of the future. New Delhi allocated Rs 2,606 crore to this project, which would enhance engagement ranges seven-fold, to 70 kilometres. Enemy fighter aircraft, which presented significantly larger targets than anti-ship missiles, could be detected and destroyed at longer ranges."

70 km is against anti-ship missile, whereas it could engage aircraft at longer range.


Further, THE HINDU

The DRDO played a key role in the joint programme by designing and developing dual pulse propulsion for the vertically-launched missile’s solid propulsion system which enhanced its range nearly 1.5 times besides expanding its flight envelope and target engagement capability, said Mr. Jayaraman.

Could this be taken as another confirmation?

=================================
Having said that there are some basic questions on the real capabilities of the S-400. Its ability to intercept cruise missiles in a terrain hugging profile under 150KM ranges? Also, it seems the 250 KM version of S-400 is primarily for ballistic trajectories? It claims a lot of anti-stealth capabilities, are they real?


Yes, real. Some of the anti-stealth capabilities are true and best as we get. But in terms of ranges those detection are made (at least as reported) dent its glossy image.

48N6 and 9M96 variants can engage ballistic targets.

Engaging cruise missile at long ranges, nowadays, becomes a basic criteria of modern SAM. As per our CMD plans, we were trying to do that @ 200 km. Engaging terrain hugging CM needs good sensors. Can't recall such a claim made for S400, but Possible @ 150KM.

==================================

Assuming the 250KM version is primarily an ABM, would there not be an overlap between Barrak 8 and other MR parts of the S-400? Why not invest in the ABM, Barrak 8 and maybe even a mid range solution based on the Astra in a SAM profile with a booster?


We still not have clear picture of the deal. Only then we can comment on such decision. There is a concept of layered defence. Such as 2-tier, 3-tier or multi-tier network. Where more than one system is deployed to neutralize threats which comes in various forms. Israel is developing such systems, Iron Dome, Barak-8, Stunner etc.

If we do such purchase, it will be deployed in layered fashion. Our ABM protecting the city while others providing ring-guard defence.

Hope by acquiring the S-400, which I am sure is quite capable in many aspects of air defense, we are not short changing on indigenous and collaboration ventures.
Expressed same anxiety when such news came. But by limiting to only 5 systems as apposed to 12 initially reported, I believe there is no room for such anxiety.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8118
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby brar_w » 23 Dec 2015 05:27

The best way to target evading cruise missiles (low RCS + Terrain hugging tactics) is not to rely on the radar complex, or your large SAM's but develop a sensor and shooter net (like a picket). One way is to use much smaller (for mobility) netted ground sensors, and more dispersed and numerous shorter ranged interceptors that can be cued by multiple sensors (ideally active). Another way to deal with this is to create a persistent netted airborne sensor coverage. Multiple ways to do this. One way is to use AWACS (E-2D's sensor choice was dictated by the need to detect low flying cruise missiles at stand off ranges) or JSTARS like netted sensors that can pick up low flying objects. Another way is to use persistent netted radars. The JLENS uses an (when its not vacationing in Pennsylvania) airborne VHF AESA (perhaps the only one of its kind) accompanied by an X band radar to mount an anti cruise missile defense when it is deployed at 10,000 feet altitude (where radar horizon for something cruising at 1000 feet is nearly 300 km). No matter which surface to air engagement big radar you get, and no matter how high you mast mount it you aren't going to be using it to shoot down a low flying cruise missile at 150 km. Even with a 100 ft. mount mast, the horizon (for 1000 ft altitude target) is at less than 100 km and targeting is compounded further by low RCS targets of cruise missiles.

No matter what approach you choose cruise missile defense presents a very complex challenge that is significantly different from ballistic missile threats and something that stresses the depth of an air-defense system rather than its strongest node. A simple way to distinguish between the most hardest 2 missions in missile defense is to think of a BMD approach as creating sensors with the size, and power to detect and discriminate ballistic missiles as soon as they enter the horizon which can be in four digit km's depending how far the area you are defending is from the threat. With cruise missile defense, it is different. It isn't about brute radar range at horizon for a sensor that is essentially staring at space - but about having no gaps in your coverage at all altitudes be it for a terrain hugging target or a fast target crisscrossing fringes of your air-defenses. This stresses networks differently and therefore requires a system of systems approach.

Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2991
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby Kanson » 23 Dec 2015 07:48

Usually when such scenarios depicting CMD are posted, people often assume that both CM and SAM are more or less at the same height above sea level. Nope. \

It depends on terrain profile and 100 ft mast can detect CM @ 150 km depends upon such terrain.

Take a case as in India surrounded by mountain ranges in N and NE. A cruise missile may be flying close to the ground and terrain hugging. Due to terrain variations, it may be visible to 100 ft mast placed at lower alt but at vantage point, even at long range.

When sensor placed at high vantage point as in AWACS or tethered balloon networks, due to slant, RCS of CM will be different and greater than detection through ground level sensor.

When you detect at greater range, what you do? CM is nothing but armed drone. It can very easily move from terrain to terrain masking itself from detection and engagement further getting harder. So you try to take it at best opportunity available. If you get a sure shot @ longer ranges you go for a kill than waiting for CM to come closer.

If a CM can be detected at say 150 km, I don't know whether any commander will plan or develop doctrine to engage it @ 20 km even if he has the means to do that.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8118
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby brar_w » 23 Dec 2015 07:57

Usually when such scenarios depicting CMD are posted, people often assume that both CM and SAM are more or less at the same height above sea level. Nope.
It depends on terrain profile and 100 ft mast can detect CM depends upon such terrain.


I thought I had made that quite clear?

brar_w wrote:None of this takes into account terrain


If you are dealing with terrain than you are also dealing with more variables in terrain masking. Terrain challenges compound the problem of sensor gaps and make filling seams harder not easier. Its also quite hard to get a really massive radar, along with a really massive mast to an area that lacks the best of accessibility. It would be great if all terrain had mountains strategically located where all your radars could go on these mountains and everything you need to protect is below and in FOV. However, outside of certain specific circumstances that is not the case. Plenty of flat terrain to defend as well, in the north west.

It depends on terrain profile and 100 ft mast can detect CM depends upon such terrain.


Who said that it couldn't? Even on flat terrain, the radar horizon for a sensor mounted at 100 feet has significant range between 75-90 km for a target flying at 1000 ft. However the lower you go the harder it becomes. Mounting on huge mountain tops helps all sensors provided you are protecting something that is when the field of view of the sensor.

When sensor placed at high vantage point as in AWACS or tethered balloon networks, due to slant, RCS of CM will be different and greater than detection through ground level sensor.

When you detect at greater range, what you do? CM is nothing but armed drone. It can very easily move from terrain to terrain masking itself from detection and engagement further getting harder. So you try to take it at best opportunity available. If you get a sure shot @ longer ranges you go for a kill than waiting for CM to come closer.


The operative word being 'IF'.

If a CM can be detected at say 150 km, I don't know whether any commander will plan or develop doctrine to engage it @ 20 km even if he has the means to do that.


Who is advocating a doctrine that calls for NOT shooting it off at 150 km? Sure, if you see it and can target it from 150 KM then by all means fire away. That situation will come when you have terrain on your side for example, or your opponent has an extremely unfavorable deploying envelope. However that will not always be the case. The challenge is detecting it at 150 KM and finding the right weapon and putting it on target. Lets look at a longer/medium ranged TVM missiles (S300/400). What if a smaller forward deployed Indian made sensor picks up a cruise missile 100 km out flying low. How do you get an S400 150 KM TVM missile onto it if its own engagement radar can't find it? In such a case most advocate an approach of using interceptors that can get you that targeting and with huge land masses to protect a net centered approach is preferred bringing in different assets. Large phased array radars are great for a lot many things. They are great for fending off ballistic missiles because provided they have the ability they generally have high power modes. They are also usually accompanied with plenty of power and computing and command and control is generally close by. However, for low flying targets you need breadth and depth of coverage so that you cover your gaps, particularly when these missiles have the ability to fly low. Your interceptor of choice will be one that works for that solution. Some will (Barak 8 provided its integrated with cues from other sensors like NATO has done) while others won't (such as those that rely on command guidance, or TVM-SAG with a particular combination. The other aspect to this is that of shot-doctrine. What targets get prioritized for the more expensive interceptors and what get handed over to more numerous, and widespread interceptors (like AKASH SAM). A 300 km radar is useless since for such a threat since they fly really low. More numerous 75-100 km radars would be far better if they can be made small enough and more mobile to be dispersed to plug these gaps that cruise missiles exploit (fprtunately india already has indigenous radars for such roles). Same with interceptors, that are cued by these radars. They need not be super expensive, or medium to long range but they can be kept short-medium range and made smaller and cheaper so as to produce a lot of them for dispersal.

If you could target, command and control and afford to the best place to shoot a cruise missile down would be right as it came off the rails of an aircraft (or preferably while its still there) however in reality, you look at the best , most effective and affordable way to defend large land masses from cruise missiles, ballistic missiles and from aircraft. A system designed for air-and missile defense will have certain strengths and they all have certain weaknesses be it S300, S400, Patriot, Iron Dome or whatever else there may be. You look at the trades and what the strengths and weaknesses are. The interceptors are designed for a specific mission and perform a specific way for a reason.

This somewhat gets into the challenges of defending against cruise missiles.

http://www.ausairpower.net/Analysis-Cru ... siles.html

When sensor placed at high vantage point as in AWACS or tethered balloon networks, due to slant, RCS of CM will be different and greater than detection through ground level sensor.


Again, you are essentially repeating what I said. You have to take a systems of system approach and link up assets such as AE and other netted sensors (such as balloons) with a string of numerous ground sensors. However, targeting still becomes an issue and the interceptor of choice needs to be able to cue from all these various sensors. That is the challenge of integrating your force structure. NATO is trying it but they aren't there yet. US is not there yet either but they are getting close (may 5-8 years out). In case of India, there would be certain systems more suited for this. Looking at the S300, and S400 systems some would be naturally mated to the organic system. A TVM for of engagement is ill-suited for this decentralized targeting so naturally certain interceptors would not be the best approaches for such net-centricity. Not to say those interceptors are useless but that they serve a different purpose and do not contribute to cruise missile defense as much as some other interceptors. In the US for example the PAC-2 is ill-suited for long range cruise missile defense, because even if a JLENS picks up a threat 100 km out flying low, a PAC-2 is a TVM system that relies on the big radar for fire-control. Here they will launch an active missile that can take cues from a JLENS X-band fire control radar, or a smaller forward positioned (closer to the cruise missile) AN/MPQ-64 provided the launch missiles are cleared to be cued by each of these sensors (that is the headache of integrating different systems so that they can support of each other and in the case of India it will be a different challenge since the systems come from different sources - However all INDIAN made systems can be integrated for starters and it would be a GIANT leap in netted capability).
Last edited by brar_w on 23 Dec 2015 20:50, edited 1 time in total.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20316
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby Philip » 23 Dec 2015 16:50

Will (pardon the pun) Modi's Moscow visit be a "Triumph"?
http://in.rbth.com/economics/cooperatio ... mph_553471
Indian garland

“This visit promises to be the most productive in the last decade. We are talking here about the work on deepening of the privileged strategic partnership between the two countries in the most sensitive fields – in particular, the nuclear sector and the military-technical sphere. The manifestations of ‘personal chemistry’ between these two leaders, as well as preparations for the signing of an agreement, should once and for all refute the recently circulating thesis – that India has allegedly been moving further away from Russia, and reorienting itself towards the United States,” Alexander Kadakin, the Russian Ambassador to India, told Kommersant, while explaining the significance of the upcoming meeting.

One of the main sensations is expected to be Narendra Modi’s announcement of India’s readiness to allocate land in the south Indian state of Andhra Pradesh for construction of a new, Russian-designed nuclear power plant, comprising six power units.

Another outcome of the summit should be the signing of a technical agreement on construction of the 5th and 6th power units at Kudankulam NPP. This will eventually increase the number of Russian nuclear reactors operating in India to 12. In addition, of special importance to Delhi, is the possibility of organizing joint production with Russia of fuel for its nuclear power plants.

In the air, at sea, and on the land

Breakthrough agreements are also expected in another traditionally priority area of bilateral cooperation between the two countries; the military-technical sphere. The total package of contracts to be signed is estimated at over $7 billion. On the eve of Prime Minister Modi’s trip to Moscow, the Defence Acquisitions Committee of the Indian government has approved the allocation of funds for the purchase of Russian S-400 ‘Triumph’ air-defence missile systems (ADMS). India may buy at least five batteries of the S-400s, becoming the second foreign customer of these systems after China.

However, Kommersant’s source in one of the enterprises of the Russian military-industrial sector said that negotiations on the S-400s will not be easy – the Russian asking price for the five batteries of S-400s, of approximately $2.5 billion, does not suit India. “Ultimately, everything will depend on the negotiations between the two heads of state,” Kommersant’s source noted.

They will also discuss with India a purchase agreement for two diesel-electric submarines of the Project 636 – the ‘Varshavyanka’ class, three frigates of Project 11356, and 48 Mi-17V5 military transport helicopters. “Negotiations are already underway on the purchase of 150 BMP-2K armoured vehicles, as well as the modernization of Indian Air Force’s fleet of IL-78s and IL-76s,” Kommersant learned from it source in the military-technical cooperation sphere. “We are also waiting for the decision on leasing of a second Project 971 nuclear submarine.”


Another widely discussed topic was the preparations for signing of an intergovernmental agreement on joint production in India of 200 multi-role Ka-226T helicopters.

Although the foundation of Russian-Indian cooperation continues to be in the nuclear and defence industries, the two countries are determined to diversify their mutual trade and economic ties. Unlike in the nuclear and defence sectors, the overall picture of trade and economic ties between the two countries has not been very impressive, and thus not much optimism exists here. In 2014, bilateral trade reached a rather modest $9.51 billion, and for the first six months of this year, total trade amounted to only $3.15 billion.

To resolve the serious trade imbalance, and increase the volume of trade and economic cooperation, Prime Minister Modi is taking with him to Moscow a large delegation of top executives of leading Indian companies. The cream of Indian business circles are travelling to the Russian capital; among them, Mukesh Ambani (Reliance Industries), Anil Ambani (Reliance Group), Cyrus Mistry (Tata), Baba Kalyani (Bharat Forge) and Shashi Ruia (Essar).
Last edited by ramana on 23 Dec 2015 20:46, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Added more bolding. ramana

Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21100
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby Prem » 24 Dec 2015 11:23

CNBC-TV18 ‏@CNBCTV18Live 8m8 minutes ago
just In: Rel Defence & AlmazAntey To Manufacture Missiles & Radars: Pipavav Defence 100.25 +19.99%

Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11432
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby Aditya_V » 24 Dec 2015 11:57

2- 636 Kilo's- Philip must be a happy man. Will maintence for these be different from the 877 EKM ones.

manjgu
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2197
Joined: 11 Aug 2006 10:33

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby manjgu » 24 Dec 2015 12:04

will someone clear the fog around air defence systems? S 400, Akash, slew of french and israeli radars with missiles, guns ...whats going on?

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8118
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby brar_w » 24 Dec 2015 14:03

Nick_S wrote:
Karan M wrote:The S-400 deal comes to approximately 100 launchers, with 4 missiles each indicating at least 2-3K missiles using Akash as a proxy.


Perhaps 6 missiles per launcher?

Image


Those (the smaller 3) were prototype launchers for the 96M6E family (similar to PAC-3 concept) that do not yet exist (operationally) in the wild to the best of my knowledge.

vonkabra
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 62
Joined: 09 Oct 2003 11:31

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby vonkabra » 24 Dec 2015 14:42

Jhujar wrote:CNBC-TV18 ‏@CNBCTV18Live 8m8 minutes ago
just In: Rel Defence & AlmazAntey To Manufacture Missiles & Radars: Pipavav Defence 100.25 +19.99%


Newscast mentions its for manufacture of TOR-1M missiles. Didn't know India had a requirement for this missile. Unless the plan is to export it from India, which seems doubtful to me.

tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2884
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby tsarkar » 24 Dec 2015 20:14

Karan M wrote:Truly a moneyspinner for Israel, if we don't make the radars locally. We'll have to sign follow on orders for reloads as well.
The plan was for every LRSAM for India to be built locally at the brand new BDL plant at Sheriguda near Hyderabad that should start manufacturing in 2016.

Sid
BRFite
Posts: 1640
Joined: 19 Mar 2006 13:26

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby Sid » 24 Dec 2015 21:51

brar_w wrote:
Nick_S wrote:Perhaps 6 missiles per launcher?
Image


Those (the smaller 3) were prototype launchers for the 96M6E family (similar to PAC-3 concept) that do not yet exist (operationally) in the wild to the best of my knowledge.


That's a very old picture from defense expo held way back in 1999-2000 period in Russia. There were few more pictures of this particular example in JDW.

That was the only time this unit was displayed, have not seen any more pictures since then.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18828
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby Karan M » 25 Dec 2015 06:19

Looks like the Tor M1 may be headed to India - as I noted before, it is the only system out there apparently (glad to be corrected), which can fire on the move. However, I hope the IA rather goes for the QRSAM, even if it is track on move and fire from short stop, because simply put our record with the serviceability of Russian systems has been abysmal.

http://www.rinfra.com/pdf/pressreleases ... 4Dec15.pdf

MEDIA RELEASE
RELIANCE DEFENCE AND RUSSIA’S ‘ALM
AZANTEY’ TO PARTNER FOR AD MISSILE
SYSTEMS AND RADAR REQUIREMENTS
OF INDIAN DEFENCE FORCES
COOPERATION TO EXTEND TO ‘DEEP UP
GRADES’ MODERNIZATION, REPAIRS,
EXECUTION OF OFFSETS, SUPPLY OF SPA
RES, AS WELL AS R&D PROJECTS

DAC APPROVAL FOR ACQUISITION OF
S-400 AIR DEFENCE MISSILE SYSTEMS
CREATES BUSINESS OPPORTUNITY OF ABO
UT USD 6 BILLION (RS.40,000 CRORE)
Mumbai, December 24, 2015 :

India’s Reliance Defence Limited and Russia’s Leading Developer
and Manufacturer of Air Defence Missile Systems “AlmazAntey”, have decided to work jointly on the
entire range of AD Missile and Radar Systems that are required for Indian Defence Forces.
The two sides identified the Air Defence Missile Systems including the TOR-1M Missile Program,
Radars and Automated Control Systems as areas of partnership under the ‘Make in India’ as well as
Offset Policies of the Indian Ministry of Defence.

The two sides also discussed the joint implementation of Modernization, Repair and Deep Overhauls
of ‘AlmazAntey’ Systems already in service with the Indian Armed Forces.
They also discussed R&D cooperation for developing new products in the defence sector.

member_28756
BRFite
Posts: 240
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby member_28756 » 25 Dec 2015 10:24

So any confirm deal on the S 400 ?

vishvak
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5639
Joined: 12 Aug 2011 21:19

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby vishvak » 25 Dec 2015 13:10

MANNY K wrote:So any confirm deal on the S 400 ?

Approved for acquisitions per message above, along with deep upgrade/repair of AD missile systems.

member_28756
BRFite
Posts: 240
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby member_28756 » 25 Dec 2015 13:44

vishvak wrote:
MANNY K wrote:So any confirm deal on the S 400 ?

Approved for acquisitions per message above, along with deep upgrade/repair of AD missile systems.

But any signed deal yet with Modi and Putin visit ? Approved for acquisitions can mean waiting for years or whatever like the MMRCA deal.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby shiv » 25 Dec 2015 15:48

Sounds like the S-400 speculation was fake news - like so many reports in our media who want to fill column inches when nothing is there to report

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18828
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby Karan M » 25 Dec 2015 16:43

^^ DAC has cleared it, so its not fake. But a long way from final purchase.

member_22539
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2022
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby member_22539 » 25 Dec 2015 16:46

^I think the Make in India part is the sticking point. It could also be some other quid pro quo (technology wise) is stuck up.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18828
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby Karan M » 25 Dec 2015 17:26

I think the Make in India part is where Reliance has got involved. They are willing to invest in JVs, local assembly plants etc so foreign firms will be willing to join with them. Our other desi brands, are more capable than Reliance but won't put capex up front at the level of Reliance. That's basically the issue apparently.
Even so, Tata has tieups for airframes and radar offsets. L&T has MOU for radars. Now Reliance has tie up for frigates and SAMs. Hopefully at least MRO will be local. Also, Reliance and pvt sector are more aggressive in dealing with recalcitrant partners then our by the rules, send a letter, PSUs.

member_22539
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2022
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby member_22539 » 25 Dec 2015 17:30

^Yep. By the way, someone was mentioning a Russian tie up with Tata for FGFA. In that case, Reliance won't be getting it all.

But I have to say, if Reliance is willing to take the risk, they must get the reward, no matter what their image and history is.

member_28756
BRFite
Posts: 240
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby member_28756 » 25 Dec 2015 19:43

http://www.firstpost.com/world/modi-put ... 59146.html



Modi, Putin hail partnership but silent on S-400

Dec 25, 2015 00:50 IST

Moscow: Russian President Vladimir Putin and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi hailed Thursday the "partnership" between their two nations as they oversaw the

However no progress was announced on an anticipated purchase of S-400 missiles, Russia's top-of-the-line anti-aircraft defence systems.

"I see in Russia a prominent partner in India's economic transformation," Modi said after the two leaders agreed to ease the visa requirements between the two nations that are part of the BRICS group of leading emerging market countries.

They also oversaw the signing of several agreements involving Russia's state nuclear corporation Rosatom and railway monopoly Russian Railways, among others.

India wants Moscow to take part in infrastructure projects as the Modi government seeks to overhaul the country's railway network and build nuclear energy plants to meet the growing electricity needs for its fast-growing economy.

The two countries agreed on the location of a new Russian nuclear energy plant in the southern Indian state of Andhra Pradesh, with Moscow already building a nuclear plant in the state of Tamil Nadu.

Modi is seeking to ramp up the country's nuclear energy use to meet the rising energy needs, with a programme for at least 12 new reactors, as well as reduce its heavy dependency on coal, the worst greenhouse gas producing fuel.

Modi said that Moscow and Delhi would also jointly produce Kamov-226 military helicopters as part of the Make in India initiative to have foreign companies manufacture their products in India.

Putin for his part called Russia's ties with India a "privileged strategic partnership", praising the two nations' energy and defence cooperation.

"There are plans to send large-scale supplies of oil and oil products to Indian refineries in the amount of 10 million tonnes annually over the next 10 years," Putin said after the talks.

- S-400 deal close?

However the two leaders were silent about the S-400, although India's top acquisition body was reported to have cleared the purchase of the air defence system ahead of Modi's trip.

On Thursday, Indian firm Reliance Defence said it would work with the Russian manufacturer of the S-400 "on the entire range of air defence missile and radar systems" that India needs.

But it was not immediately clear whether the two companies were close to a final deal on the missiles and the two leaders did not take any questions from reporters in Moscow.

Dipankar Banerjee, a defence analyst at Delhi-based think tank Forum for Strategic Initiatives, said India was "vulnerable to Pakistan and China both in terms of missile attacks and air strikes" and that the S-400 systems were "very desirable" despite a hefty price tag.

Russian business daily Kommersant said this week that Putin's one-on-one talks with Modi would decide the fate of the deal as the two still needed to sort out pricing disagreements.

India could be in the market for as many as five systems, the paper said, quoting defence sources, with deals on Russian frigates also on the cards.

The Moscow trip is Modi's first state visit to Russia since he became prime minister in 2014, but he and Putin have met several times at international events and even discussed the merits of yoga at a summit in the Russian city of Ufa last July.

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 23772
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby SSridhar » 26 Dec 2015 08:49

Astra missile proves anti-jamming capability - Y.Mallikarjun, The Hindu
A crucial capability of the air-to-air Astra missile —its resistance to jamming — was successfully validated in recent trials conducted by missile scientists of the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO), which indigenously developed the compact missile.

After carrying out some more trials, including air launch trial with a warhead, the Beyond-Visual Range missile is set to be inducted into the Air Force next year, DRDO sources told The Hindu here on Friday.

During the recent ground and air trials conducted near Pune, the missile’s RF seeker and other electronic components were sought to be jammed to see how it performs in such a scenario at the time of war when the enemy tries to jam its operation. The ECCM (electronic counter-counter measure) features of the missile to overcome any jamming were evaluated. “The trials were vigorous. But the state-of-the-art missile did very well,” said the sources.

While several developmental trials, including captive flight mode, were already completed, next month’s tests would evaluate its performance in different scenarios and cover the entire air launch envelope required before its induction.

The all-weather, radar homing missile has high manoeuvrability and capability to engage and destroy aerial targets at supersonic speeds. The 60-km plus range missile possesses [Single] Shot Kill Probability (SSKP) making it one of the most reliable in its class of weapon systems.

The missile could be launched at different altitudes from sea level to 20 km for engaging aerial targets at various ranges.

Integration


Apart from integrating the missile with Su-30, it is planned to be mounted on other fighter aircraft including Tejas Light Combat Aircraft, Mirage-2000 and MIG-29.

The missile complex at Hyderabad and several DRDO laboratories in partnership with the Hindustan Aeronautics Limited and the Indian Air Force developed Astra.

The sources said the DRDO was planning to develop different versions of longer range air-launch missiles as the missile scientists now got a handle on air-to-air missile technology.

member_28990
BRFite
Posts: 171
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby member_28990 » 26 Dec 2015 15:09

Amazing good news.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8118
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby brar_w » 27 Dec 2015 05:19

Karan M wrote:Looks like the Tor M1 may be headed to India - as I noted before, it is the only system out there apparently (glad to be corrected), which can fire on the move. However, I hope the IA rather goes for the QRSAM, even if it is track on move and fire from short stop, because simply put our record with the serviceability of Russian systems has been abysmal.



The AN/TWQ-1 could as well (not sure if the latest ones can or cannot). They TWQ-1 was not tracked but there was the Bradley/Stinger combination that could also fire on the move and was tracked with significantly more protection than the AN/TWQ-1 . The TOR is most likely more up to date since the US army hasn't really invested much into the system other than patch work as and when needed in Iraq.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1bjU3-9AYC8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iaB8PAp6VvQ

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18828
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby Karan M » 27 Dec 2015 05:23

So the TOR remains the only proper SAM system that can fire on the move. The Bradley/Stinger is more VSHORADS than SHORADS..
Of course being Russian, serviceability will be missing. Best we go for our own QRSAM based off of the Astra!

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8118
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby brar_w » 27 Dec 2015 05:50

Yup, you'll defiantly get better range and survivability with the TOR. ASTRA based system should be even better.

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 » 27 Dec 2015 06:35

in a ideal world a bunch of generic looking VL box launchers on trucks would house all our smaller SAMs like astra and network with the bigger ones like Akash and s400(if it comes). just like writing code that works generically, these uvls things are time consuming but worth the effort for future platform insertions.

cheen has already fielded at sea their version of naval uvls.

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 » 27 Dec 2015 06:38

the spyders we got seem to use same tubes to house both python and derby, with a little nose cap to accomodate the derby.

https://coffeenbullets.files.wordpress. ... 9-9087.jpg


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 29 guests