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.
shaun
BRFite
Posts: 988
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby shaun » 23 Jan 2016 09:19

NAMICA and NAG are both under threat , the issue is not with the range but with the weapon and platform itself.

About NAMICA
" The Indian Army’s bone of contention is with the NAMICA’s limited capabilities. The Indian Army has sought additional features such as a panoramic sight for two commanders, against the present system of having only one such facility for the gunner. Hence, an overhaul in the designing of the NAMICA is being suggested by the Indian Army. Also, an innovation in the chassis system and alteration in the pneumatic suspension can increase the mobility of the NAMICA."

"According to analysts, this last moment decision to redesign the NAMICA is a case of lack of foresight and planning by India. The NAMICA has been in existence for at least a decade. Although the Nag ATGM was not ready for this entire period, it reflects a lack of foresight to evaluate the NAMICA this late and go for redesigning at this stage. The evaluation of the NAMICA’s mobility and sensors could have been performed earlier, as the missile was being readied"

About NAG
"But the Nag’s weight is turning out to be a problem. The Army is unhappy that the missile has weighed in at 40 kilos, instead of the 30-35 kilos that the Army had specified. This, senior officers say, makes reloading difficult. The DRDO has been asked to make it lighter.

The DRDO, however, argues that weight should not be an issue since it the Nag is carried on, and fired from, a vehicle, the NAMICA. Says Avinash Chander, “I don’t see why an extra five kg should be an issue. If the Nag were a man-portable, shoulder-fired missile, weight would be crucial."

What left is the HELINA version , who know that might too get replaced by Hellfire !!

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53884
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby ramana » 23 Jan 2016 09:33

Would they like sliced bread too?

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8124
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby brar_w » 23 Jan 2016 09:39

uddu wrote:2500m is the claimed effective range. Beyond that no guarantee, if you hit, you hit. Even that how it works in extreme climatic conditions is subject to interpretations. Only Indian systems are designed to work all along its claimed range and hit the target in extreme temperatures. In a way when that Indigenous missiles crosses all that hurdles and finally the Army has to accept it, there will be no such missiles in the world which is comparable. Every aspect of such a missile will match or exceed each and every capability available with any other missile of its class in the world.


The maximum range for the javelin that is claimed in the literature is so because that was the range at which its operator, that operates it as a man-portable system tested it and that is where it has cleared its evaluation. The 2 OEM's working closely with Norway and a couple of other customers did successful demonstrations at both vehicle mounted and extended range applications. I believe the maximum range at which it successfully scored a series of kills was at 4700 or so meters. As far as the US army was concerned, they did way back (2002/3 or so) want to integrate a version of the Javelin with the stryker and their analysis of alternatives looked at both using the existing weapons and testing it out at expanded envelopes and making changes to the missile motor and warhead. Both had plusses and minuses..The former had less effectiveness at 4000+ meters compared to the latter while the latter was more expensive (and therefore fewer missiles for a fixed budget). The requirements never really advanced within the US Army for such a role as investments were directed towards the Hellfire and now the JAGM.

I could be wrong on this but didn't the IA choose the Spike as the man-portable weapon and the ER, and Nag as the vehicle mounted weapon?

shaun
BRFite
Posts: 988
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby shaun » 23 Jan 2016 09:51

although posted before ,http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/antitank-nag-missile-hits-the-bulls-eye-with-modified-seeker/article8108883.ece
what is interesting is the Thermal Target System (TTS) that mimicked / simulated as the target. So the thermal signature is similar to a operational tank . A target can be simulated what about its environment , that is the issue with the present seekers in hot desert .


brar saab , is their a weight difference between both the jevelin types you mentioned ??
Last edited by shaun on 23 Jan 2016 10:17, edited 1 time in total.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8124
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby brar_w » 23 Jan 2016 10:01

brar saab , is their a weight difference between both the jevelin types you mentioned ??


The analysis of alternatives usually is based on a very rough analysis involving the OEM's so I doubt they did a lot of design work prior to going through that process. What i vaguely remember was that they wanted to make significant changes to the warhead, and also the motor. It was probably more of increasing the speed to maintain the lethality at extended ranges. I think the Extended range variant was still a dual use system as opposed to just a vehicle mounted one, but I could be wrong on that..While the US army never pursued the variant beyond a study, the JJV still has it in its roadmap under the Javelin-G initiative with a target availability date of around 2020. The Javelin-G apparently aims at a 40% CLU weight reduction (Lightweight CLU initiative which is already funded and being pursued), and also upgrades to include a new uncooled seeker.
Last edited by brar_w on 23 Jan 2016 10:18, edited 3 times in total.

uddu
BRFite
Posts: 1857
Joined: 15 Aug 2004 17:09

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby uddu » 23 Jan 2016 10:04

In reality those threats came and went. It was there till last year or so. Now the indigenous platform is doing well and is very close to induction. The mindset change in the Army is also a very welcome move. Army seems to have decided to follow the Navy's way of doing things. And from last year onwards things are better there. Next is IAF's turn.

shaun
BRFite
Posts: 988
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby shaun » 23 Jan 2016 10:16

^^^^@ uddu , seeing is believing !
in the mean time ,we have Spikes in its different configurations being cleared by DAC , which will take up the role of both man and jeep portable. What left is the BMP version , that is under threat from javelin with NAG system in prep production user trials.

Prem Kumar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2385
Joined: 31 Mar 2009 00:10

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby Prem Kumar » 23 Jan 2016 10:20

The Army has had a "Who ordered it?" approach towards Nag:
1) Firstly, it was the "minimum range" requirement
2) Followed by complaints about seeker performance out to 4 Km in extreme heat
3) Followed by last minute complaints about Namica
4) After each of the above steps, there was a Vivaldi Four Seasons trial in altitudes ranging from Mariana trench to Mt. Everest
5) If all else fails, there is always the "we don't know where it will fit in the Orbat" card (similar to the refrain: "Our bridges, unlike Draupadi, cannot handle the weight of Arjun")

deejay
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3891
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby deejay » 23 Jan 2016 10:38

uddu wrote:In reality those threats came and went. It was there till last year or so. Now the indigenous platform is doing well and is very close to induction. The mindset change in the Army is also a very welcome move. Army seems to have decided to follow the Navy's way of doing things. And from last year onwards things are better there. Next is IAF's turn.


The mindset change in IA will be evident the day they order the Arjun in larger numbers. Like when IA decides to make it their main tank in terms of numbers. Till then IA is as unhinged from Made in India and Trust Indian as IAF. For IAF the critical benchmarks are giving equal if not greater priority to LCA, IJT, HTT, LUH, Astra, etc as they are giving to Rafale.

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7713
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby rohitvats » 23 Jan 2016 14:42

deejay wrote: The mindset change in IA will be evident the day they order the Arjun in larger numbers. Like when IA decides to make it their main tank in terms of numbers. Till then IA is as unhinged from Made in India and Trust Indian as IAF. For IAF the critical benchmarks are giving equal if not greater priority to LCA, IJT, HTT, LUH, Astra, etc as they are giving to Rafale.


While IA might not be the brightest crayon in the box when it comes to working with domestic R&D establishment, to say that IA is 'unhinged' from Make in India is an absolute ignorant statement. And symptomatic of group-think which happens on BRF - posters take one line of argument and than paint the whole organization with a broad brush. It is BRF's equivalent of what DDM does to R&D establishment.

General Dalbir Singh in recent Army Day conference said that IA the following:

...73% of procurement contracts in the past few years with Indian companies. In fact, in the last one year, this has risen to 87%. In terms of value, 55% of our modernization budget has been spent on the Indian industry,...


You think the above has happened overnight?

Unlike IAF and IN, which are platform centric organizations, IA literally has tens of thousands of stuff required from Infantry to Army Medical Corps. Who do the whole gamut of OFB factories supply stuff to? IAF or IN?

Even in case of more expensive equipment, can you or others tell me where IA has opted for a foreign product when domestic solution existed? More and more indigenous systems are being inducted - take Pinaka, Brahmos, ALH, Radars, Akash, communication systems, EW systems. And then you've the competition for FICV, not to forget IA has already signed up for LCH as well.

Arjun stands out as a sore thumb, no doubt. But please don't use this one example to cry murder!

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7713
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby rohitvats » 23 Jan 2016 14:51

Shaun wrote:^^^^@ uddu , seeing is believing !
in the mean time ,we have Spikes in its different configurations being cleared by DAC , which will take up the role of both man and jeep portable. What left is the BMP version , that is under threat from javelin with NAG system in prep production user trials.


Nag was never meant to be a man-portable version. It was designed from ground-up as vehicle mounted ATGM. And that too, with a dedicated carrier.

And IA has not 'Jeep portable' ATGM - the man-portable Milan/Milan-2T are the ones which you see mounted on jeeps, as shown in previous page. Spike is replacement for Milan/Milan-2T.

As for BMP-2 mounted ATGM, that is Konkur-M. Again, Nag was never meant as replacement for Konkurs. It weighs in the same class as Milan/Milan-2T. Even Kornet, which is expected to replace Konkur in upgraded BMPs weighs 27 kg. Nag weighs 42 Kg.

Always good to look beyond discussions about weapons and technology and see how the armies actually use and operate stuff.

deejay
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3891
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby deejay » 23 Jan 2016 16:33

No RV, I will politely disagree with your BRF group think idea. Not why I wrote this and with a small correction - Made in India (not that it matters here).

Each programme has a value in % terms on the overall inventory and 87% is good, but this has happened in last one year. Before that 73% inventory was from Indian industry which was also good. And nothing has happened overnight. However, what is the most visible big ticket acquisition for IA? - Arjun (IMHO). Unless this happens all the rest is not doing enough. The day that IA hinges itself to Made in India banner it will buy in to the Arjun tank, its development and sustain the future tanks programme. It will instinctly know that for all indigenous effort to be encouraged, supporting a successful flagship programme is most important. Till then, IA will avoid, by pass, confuse, delay and fail to execute for Arjun.

An organisation hinged on to a cause will not avoid Arjun given its comparative performances wrt the T90.

As for the FICV and all such tenders which have come after Jun 2014, I will reserve my judgements on whom to credit more - IA or Defence Minister.

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7713
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby rohitvats » 23 Jan 2016 18:56

deejay wrote:No RV, I will politely disagree with your BRF group think idea. Not why I wrote this and with a small correction - Made in India (not that it matters here).

Each programme has a value in % terms on the overall inventory and 87% is good, but this has happened in last one year. Before that 73% inventory was from Indian industry which was also good. And nothing has happened overnight. However, what is the most visible big ticket acquisition for IA? - Arjun (IMHO). Unless this happens all the rest is not doing enough. The day that IA hinges itself to Made in India banner it will buy in to the Arjun tank, its development and sustain the future tanks programme. It will instinctly know that for all indigenous effort to be encouraged, supporting a successful flagship programme is most important. Till then, IA will avoid, by pass, confuse, delay and fail to execute for Arjun.

An organisation hinged on to a cause will not avoid Arjun given its comparative performances wrt the T90.

As for the FICV and all such tenders which have come after Jun 2014, I will reserve my judgements on whom to credit more - IA or Defence Minister.


Arjun is not about made in India.

Arjun is about organizational inertial and biases which dovetail perfectly with interest of import lobby. Reams have been written about why IA does not want Arjun and 'Made in India' is not the reason for it. To cut long story short - a generation of IA Armored Corps officers had been brought up on T-72 and the three-man tank concept weighing under 50 tons was a thought which got ingrained in the system. This bias had ingrained in the Armored Corps even before Arjun entered into 43rd Armored Regiment sometime in early 90s. General SR Chowdhury mentions this very clearly in his autobiography.

Not to mention that with T-90 import, IA got an opportunity to break the modernization logjam in a double quick manner - import a ready made system which will can be inducted quickly w/o IA being at the mercy of production agency. Remember, all this happened after modernization of armed forces had been in doldrums for 15+ years. Not to mention that performance of Avadi is for all to see even when it comes to production schedule and quality of T-90 tanks.

Another very important point - with T-90, IA could use almost all of the existing allied infrastructure from workshops to bridges laying tanks to manpower. T-90 came at a very critical phase - armed forces were just about breaking out towards much required modernization and people took whatever they could grab. Inducting Arjun meant additional budget required beyond tanks for allied infrastructure. The surety of which was never given. Just check when MLC 70 bridges started entering service with IA.

Into all this entered the import lobby which found a perfect case to make money.

Had Arjun been about 'Made in India', no ALH would've entered service. Or Pinaka, of which IA will now have 8 regiments after latest orders. Or hundreds of radars ordered across the range. Or Akash Missile Groups.

I've been dead against induction of T-90 beyond the first two lots which gave breathing space to IA - it could augment its Strike Corps with new tanks and work with DRDO on Arjun. There is no justification for more T-90. Even now, the situation is salvageable if we concentrate T-90 in few formations for logistics and make other formations pure Arjun tank based ones.

But all the above not happening is not because of apathy for 'Made in India' system. It is more to do with thought processes of armored corps decision makers.

BTW - FICV competition is not because of NM Government; it happened much before that. All the Services are very keen to work with private sector given the performance, or lack thereof, of the OFB. Pinaka has been a success because private sector worked with R&D establishment and IA received a product seamlessly.

John
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2229
Joined: 03 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby John » 24 Jan 2016 00:18

rohitvats wrote:Always good to look beyond discussions about weapons and technology and see how the armies actually use and operate stuff.

Problem is how long it took for Nag to come into trials and induction the landscape has completely changed. With availability of Spike-LR which already offers fire and forget capability at mere 14 kg one can't fault Army for asking for something smaller. Nag is about the size of 155 mm shell not easy to reload or handle on battlefield. Considering how quickly Rafael has developed diff variants of Spike, why does it take DRDO so long to develop and improve on Nag.

We have seen the same issue with Akash as well, in spite of all $$ that has poured in we have yet to see any progress with Akash-II once again missing another golden opportunity. And with new government things have gotten even worse..

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18837
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby Karan M » 24 Jan 2016 00:37

It takes DRDO so long because DRDO does not have a domestic ecosystem for the core item of the seeker assembly, the IIR detector which is a near sanctioned item available to India only via 2 sources, Israel and France both of whom don't share crucial details to optimize the usage of the detector (see the DRDL tender about IIR seeker characteristics analysis). The UPA Govt refused to fund an IIR facility in India and the costs kept going up. The new GOI has reportedly agreed to it. Till this ramps up our weakness remains. BEL has a tieup with Photonis for passive IIT tubes, but similar facilities for CCD & IIR detectors remain to be started or funded. There is a lot of focus on RF seekers so we will have some success on the front in the next few years but the optronics core detector facilities need to be ramped up if we wish to eliminate dependence on foreign suppliers who are asked to optimize for conditions wherein an Indian product can compete against their own product.

Is it really a surprise then, that India moved from sourcing IIR detectors from Israel to France? It was clearly not in Israels interest to offer us the tech for an ATGM. They are however supplying us tech for the BMD's KV, but again, with zero support for the analysis of its profile and how it may be best used (they'd prefer we bought an integrated packaged from them).

The IA has kept strict requirements on Nag - were the same employed for Spike? We don't know. The Arjun vs T-90 offers a cautionary tale.

The Spike program has been derailed because Israel has asked us for a lot of money, next, the TOT will be limited. Spike is also a man in the loop system.

Next, what $$ have we poured in for Akash-2? Where is the evidence or the detail that an Akash 2 program has even been formally funded? At best, we have a remark DRDO has been asked to "go ahead" in late 2014. So, till then, there was no formally sanctioned program and whatever progress was done, was basically initial exploration using left over funds from Akash program.

The QRSAM program has been funded, but again, there is zero publicity. Rs 476 Crores translating to all of $79 Million for an entire SAM system.

With new Govt things have got worse? That's at best subjective based on their mishandling of the Chander episode, true which did cause bad blood and Parrikar shooting his mouth off at the time.

However, where it counts DRDO's budget has been finally increased. The organization has been severely underfunded per Std Committee reports with far less than optimal number of scientists and admin personnel (former getting deployed for latter, further worsening situation), funding repeatedly at much lower than required for tactical mission mode programs (which meant fund diversion to higher priority strategic programs) and lack of clearance for core infra (e.g. Kaveri program getting stalled because of insufficient funds for fuel to even run the prototypes).

Economic mismanagement and a loot-mar mentality has affected all branches of the military-R&D establishment, so per se, it was par for the course under UPA. BEL, HAL for instance making notional allocations for Capex and returning money as dividends to MOD to cover up the deficit. Revenue budget for all 3 services being cut and so forth.

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 » 24 Jan 2016 08:05

imo DRDO should have long ago take a leaf out of the Tor book and come up with a 8 pack VL nag box that could be mounted on any vehicle or shall ship. a javelin derivative is in tests for coastal patrol vessels now. its even being launched out of tubes from cargo a/c.

this would go anything from IFVs with the infantry compartment vacated to 4x4 to trucks.

it would execute one tilt move after the launch. the launch platform anyway cues it before firing.

instead we have this never ending drama of namica. trying to improve a feature phone when smartphones are the norm.

its necessary to make this project succeed at scale in the 1st model ATGM to generate resources for the follow ons. later they will pay of imports of all the other spike variants because "no domestic equivalent exists" - israel will surely follow the griffin route. MBDA has also come up with Sea Spear naval missile from the Brimstone A2g which itself was from hellfire base

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-176_Griffin

The munition now comes in two versions. Griffin A is an unpowered precision munition that can be dropped from a rear cargo door or a door-mounted launcher that can drop while the cabin is pressurized.[5] Weighing 15 kg and measuring 1.1 meters in length, it is launched from a 10-tube "Gunslinger" launcher that fits on the rear ramp of a Marine KC-130 tanker/transport or the USAF AC-130W Stinger II.[6]

Griffin Block II B is a short-range, rocket-powered air-to-surface or surface-to-surface missile that can be fired from UAVs as well as helicopters, attack aircraft, U.S. Air Force AC-130W gunships,[6] and USMC KC-130J tankers.[7]

The missile's folding fins allow it to be launched from a 140mm tube. It can be set to engage the target with height of burst, point detonation or fuze delay. The U.S. Navy has tested the Griffin as a shipboard missile guided by laser at fast-moving small boats; they planned to use it on the Littoral Combat Ships.[8] The missile version is less than half the weight of a Hellfire round and includes a 5.9 kg warhead. It has a range of 15 km when air-launched, or 5.5 km when launched from the surface. It has been fired from the U.S. Army Remote weapon station, multi-round Wedge Launcher, Smart Launcher and Kiowa Warrior manned helicopters.

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

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby Sid » 24 Jan 2016 09:08

Singh, isn't that similar to LAM/PAM missile concept?

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7713
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby rohitvats » 24 Jan 2016 20:29

Sharing an image from RD Parade rehearsal. Let's see how many get the importance of this picture:

Image

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53884
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby ramana » 24 Jan 2016 20:34

#332.

member_28108
BRFite
Posts: 1852
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby member_28108 » 24 Jan 2016 20:36

Reconfirms the deployment by the Army in Jammu. Effect on other SAM orders will cascade.

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

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby Viv S » 24 Jan 2016 20:54

Should be further north. Under XV Corps, I think.

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7713
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby rohitvats » 24 Jan 2016 21:42

From what I can gather, the vehicles are carrying formation sign (red-white-red patch) of Jalandhar based XI Corps. Which means that first Akash SAM Group has been raised outside of Strike Corps in a Pivot Corps. Now, to this, add an old news from Sainik Samachar about existing SAM Group having been moved from Strike Corps to 12 Corps in Jodhpur.

Your Pivot Corps are being strengthened!

Aditya G
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3409
Joined: 19 Feb 2002 12:31
Contact:

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby Aditya G » 24 Jan 2016 22:29

How come these new units are on Tatra chassis? Also, I thought Army has gone for tracked TELAR based on T-72

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

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby Kanson » 25 Jan 2016 04:14

uddu wrote:2500m is the claimed effective range. Beyond that no guarantee, if you hit, you hit. Even that how it works in extreme climatic conditions is subject to interpretations. Only Indian systems are designed to work all along its claimed range and hit the target in extreme temperatures. In a way when that Indigenous missiles crosses all that hurdles and finally the Army has to accept it, there will be no such missiles in the world which is comparable. Every aspect of such a missile will match or exceed each and every capability available with any other missile of its class in the world.


Javelin was upgraded from block 0 to block 1 with enhanced motor a decade back. ~2000m range by default is for block 0.
http://www.rocket.com/javelin-block-0-and-1
The Block 1 adds additional length to the flight motor to achieve additional range.


uddu wrote:Only Indian systems are designed to work all along its claimed range and hit the target in extreme temperatures. In a way when that Indigenous missiles crosses all that hurdles and finally the Army has to accept it, there will be no such missiles in the world which is comparable.

In a way, yes.
Nag currently achieves what is expected out of Javelin-G, still in development.

During the U.S. Army tests, the Javelin system acquired and engaged targets up to 4,750 meters.
“These tests prove that, under favorable conditions, Javelin can have reliable, solid performance as a close-combat weapon system well beyond the current maximum range requirement of 2,500 meters,” said Duane Gooden, Javelin Joint Venture president and Raytheon Javelin program director.


You see, this is achieved only under favorable conditions. But Nag has to do ~4 km at extreme conditions both high and low. Previous seeker could only achieve ~3km at extreme condition, this new seeker is of higher array size. Satheesh Reddy, scientific adviser to RM, noted the same seeker will be used for Helina of 7km range, meaning seeker detection range can be more in normal condition. So once successfully demonstrated, it can be exploited further.

Nag and Javelin's development started around same time. But it suffered 'Arjun-itis'.

Kashi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3622
Joined: 06 May 2011 13:53

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby Kashi » 25 Jan 2016 05:02

Aditya G wrote:How come these new units are on Tatra chassis? Also, I thought Army has gone for tracked TELAR based on T-72


More importantly, why are they are left-hand drives, when the traffic in India drives on the left?

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53884
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby ramana » 25 Jan 2016 05:54

Kanson, Is low rate production for Nag in process if IA gives order?

John
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2229
Joined: 03 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby John » 25 Jan 2016 06:04

Karan M wrote:Next, what $$ have we poured in for Akash-2? Where is the evidence or the detail that an Akash 2 program has even been formally funded? At best, we have a remark DRDO has been asked to "go ahead" in late 2014. So, till then, there was no formally sanctioned program and whatever progress was done, was basically initial exploration using left over funds from Akash program.

The QRSAM program has been funded, but again, there is zero publicity. Rs 476 Crores translating to all of $79 Million for an entire SAM system.


From what i have read from report last year Akash-2 design is complete but DRDO is simply waiting for government approval before moving ahead not sure why that is necessary. Why not just move ahead with development of a prototype like they have done with Prahaar.

As you mentioned there QRSAM is troubling, Britain funded 500 million pound for CAMM (includes both variants and launcher) about year or two earlier and the missile is close to induction. I have a feeling if QRSAM is delayed navy will likely go for improved Barak-1 missiles or even CAMM. There needs to be more transparency and accountability.

My comment regarding the government and DRDO is in relation to slew of delays and lack of information/progress from various project in past year or so: AAD, Agni, QRSAM, Nirbhay, Shaurya etc. I have feeling IAF is already seeking alternatives for AAD with S-400.

Thakur_B
BRFite
Posts: 1552
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby Thakur_B » 25 Jan 2016 08:20

John wrote:
rohitvats wrote:Always good to look beyond discussions about weapons and technology and see how the armies actually use and operate stuff.

Problem is how long it took for Nag to come into trials and induction the landscape has completely changed. With availability of Spike-LR which already offers fire and forget capability at mere 14 kg one can't fault Army for asking for something smaller. Nag is about the size of 155 mm shell not easy to reload or handle on battlefield. Considering how quickly Rafael has developed diff variants of Spike, why does it take DRDO so long to develop and improve on Nag.

We have seen the same issue with Akash as well, in spite of all $$ that has poured in we have yet to see any progress with Akash-II once again missing another golden opportunity. And with new government things have gotten even worse..


NAG is comparable to Spike-ER not Spike-LR. Akash-II has not been funded yet and can't be developed in-house because it is a several hundred crore project.

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 Jan 2016 08:41

Kashi wrote:
Aditya G wrote:How come these new units are on Tatra chassis? Also, I thought Army has gone for tracked TELAR based on T-72


More importantly, why are they are left-hand drives, when the traffic in India drives on the left?

LOL Good observation. Looks like an urgent purchase?

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7878
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby Indranil » 25 Jan 2016 09:04

The level of ToT was so deep that the none of the BEML Tatra 8X8s were built as right-hand drives. Army decided to go with the wheeled versions for mountainous and forest regions. They started emerging in posters since 2013, and showcased since late 2014 onwards. I would love to see them moved to Tata or Ashok Leyland 8X8s.

Hobbes
BRFite
Posts: 219
Joined: 14 Mar 2011 02:59

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby Hobbes » 25 Jan 2016 09:38

From Saurav Jha on Twitter:

First of all Nag is not a 45 kg missile. And not even a 42 kg missile as has been reported. It's weight is lower than that.

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

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby Singha » 25 Jan 2016 10:12

i thought the akash was on trucks only for IAF and only tracked for IA. logical choice for the army...every darn thing is going on wheels these days except MBTs. the old russian philosophy of having everything on tracked for pushing through deep mud and snow no longer applies to india.
the kind of obstacles the tatra can cross would put a lot of tracked vehicles to shame

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7713
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby rohitvats » 25 Jan 2016 10:49

Singha wrote:i thought the akash was on trucks only for IAF and only tracked for IA. logical choice for the army...every darn thing is going on wheels these days except MBTs. the old russian philosophy of having everything on tracked for pushing through deep mud and snow no longer applies to india. The kind of obstacles the tatra can cross would put a lot of tracked vehicles to shame


The thing to watch out is whether IA opts for tracked system when Akash is inducted in Strike Corps or Desert Corps (12 Corps). For all other purposes, wheeled version should do.

And frankly, even if we achieve 1 x Akash Group for each of the Corps on western front, we'd have come a long long way from having SAM cover only for Strike Corps. We're talking about 7-8 missiles groups at minimum here.

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7713
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby rohitvats » 25 Jan 2016 11:02

Hobbes wrote:From Saurav Jha on Twitter:

First of all Nag is not a 45 kg missile. And not even a 42 kg missile as has been reported. It's weight is lower than that.


How much lower? The next in line is the American TOW which as per Wikipedia goes up to 22.5 Kg. Is NAG in that territory? Or mid-30 kg? Even if it is lower, it not a man-portable missile. There cannot be any doubt about that.

Ideally, for a country like India which such a vast ATGM requirement, we should have a family of missiles based on NAG. From infantry to BMP/FICV to specialist vehicle mounted one to Helicopters.

I hope MOD/IA do a serious audit of technology we have in this field, identify what is required, how it will be acquired (local R&D/JV/direct import) along with timelines and work out a road-map.

Even if the man-portable version has to be imported, we should ensure that FICV and Indian attack helicopter fleet flies with Indian missile.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18837
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby Karan M » 25 Jan 2016 11:08

John wrote:From what i have read from report last year Akash-2 design is complete but DRDO is simply waiting for government approval before moving ahead not sure why that is necessary. Why not just move ahead with development of a prototype like they have done with Prahaar.


AFAIK, Akash Mk2 design is still under work. The priority was to get MRSAM/LRSAM program to the finish line. Plus QRSAM work, and then the AAD/PAD variants and the umpteen programs at DRDL for various AF/IA programs.. there are only so many people to go around.

As you mentioned there QRSAM is troubling, Britain funded 500 million pound for CAMM (includes both variants and launcher) about year or two earlier and the missile is close to induction. I have a feeling if QRSAM is delayed navy will likely go for improved Barak-1 missiles or even CAMM. There needs to be more transparency and accountability.


QRSAM won't go for the Navy, its primarily for the IA & IAF secondly. Its primary "capability" is the track on move capability and lighter weight which is meant to meet IA's requirements for a SHORAD to accompany strike corps. QRSAM is most likely Astra airframe based.

My comment regarding the government and DRDO is in relation to slew of delays and lack of information/progress from various project in past year or so: AAD, Agni, QRSAM, Nirbhay, Shaurya etc. I have feeling IAF is already seeking alternatives for AAD with S-400.


DRDO is simply not releasing info & PR because clearly, there is a mandate to close existing programs and keep cards close to chest. I had mentioned this under before. UPA was like a court of vested interests so much so that even GOI departments were being forced to reveal details to justify their existence beyond classified reports to GOI, and actually fight vested MSM on their own. Current GOI gives two hoots for MSM claims and perception and editorial wheeler dealers, so DRDO et al can "run silent, run deep" on critical programs. That is a good thing.

PratikDas
BRFite
Posts: 1924
Joined: 06 Feb 2009 07:46
Contact:

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby PratikDas » 26 Jan 2016 03:34

LED-fied model of Akash at Bahrain International Airshow 2016 taken from photo gallery at the DRDO website.

Image

sudeepj
BRFite
Posts: 1708
Joined: 27 Nov 2008 11:25

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby sudeepj » 26 Jan 2016 21:05

If AD systems are being transferred from Strike corps to pivot, are the Strike corps now AD nude? What replaced the strike corps AD systems? Or is the tasking of these systems 'flexible'.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53884
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby ramana » 26 Jan 2016 23:00

No Cold Start being enabled.

sudeepj
BRFite
Posts: 1708
Joined: 27 Nov 2008 11:25

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby sudeepj » 26 Jan 2016 23:39

So do the strike corps have any organic Air Defense? Will they take over the AD component of the pivot corps in Pakistan territory?

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 » 27 Jan 2016 02:29

Edited


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 36 guests