ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

The Military Issues & History Forum is a venue to discuss issues relating to the military aspects of the Indian Armed Forces, whether the past, present or future. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
John
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2508
Joined: 03 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Postby John » 17 Feb 2020 03:27

nam wrote:https://twitter.com/Conflicts/status/1228732502354931714

Iranians are fine tuning their kit in Yemen. A tornado is shot down. Proper shoot down.

SAM are going to create havoc in future conflict, specially standoff types. Unless you have Khan style wide range ECM capability, there will heavy losses.

Considering the amount of sorties they have flown over losing 1 jet is hardly anything and keep in mind F-15 was damaged by R-27 before couple years ago so this nothing new. Even this shoot down hasn’t been confirmed yet and both sides are known for their BS (Houthis and Iran even used video game footage as proof before),

Threat for SAMs always exist people especially if ACs are thrown at enemy air defenses idiotically remember Saddam lost over 2 dozen jets in 2 days when he attacked Kuwait with its obsolete SAM network.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9270
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Postby brar_w » 17 Feb 2020 03:31

The tornado shootdown has been identified via geo-location and via debris analysis. I believe it may have been confirmed as well by KSA. You are right, airpower has done reasonably well in this conflict from a survivability perspective (though KSA pilots don't get marks when it comes to TTPs and CONOPS). In actual conflict against a capable opponent you need a combination of stealth, EW, SEAD/DEAD, and ground fires to help neutralize air-defenses or just overwhelming numbers where things just don't matter.

nam wrote:SAM are going to create havoc in future conflict, specially standoff types. Unless you have Khan style wide range ECM capability, there will heavy losses.


Air/Missile Defenses serve to keep you in a war long enough to win it by other means. They aren't going to win a war for you by themselves and to expect them to be the be all end all of conventional deterrence is asking for trouble. Ultimately, a well resourced and determined adversary will find a way to break kill chains and penetrate and pin you down through stealth, stand-off, etc etc etc. If you don't have an Air-Force you won't go far with just Air-Defense systems.

And of course there is the interoperability, networking and SA limitations, and TTP considerations..like the last time the Iranians themselves used a SAM they ended up bringing down an airliner...and the fact that the Syrians targeted an Il-20 in 2018 with a S-200, and almost brought down another airliner just a few days ago. The way in which the IDF is able to operate with impunity and not only attack targets deep inside their adversaries borders, but repeatedly target the same targets over and over again (like Damascus airport) is a good example of a well crafted and executed utilization of air-power that essentially bypasses air-defenses (doesn't bother with SEAD) and accomplishes objectives despite of them being there. It also essentially means that whatever AD's they do have are essentially useless in creating a conventional deterrent. The USAF Air Chief describes this as a "Swiss-Cheese" approach where you identify holes (not just coverage gaps, but holes in their kill-chain) and exploit them and get out without any intention of establishing long term air superiority over a region.

nam
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4056
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

Re: ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Postby nam » 20 Feb 2020 02:30

Actually the sucess of DRDO in growing Indian MIC is now causing a problem to our babus in Mod and MFA. The constant bad press that targeted DRDO meant that a belief was created that DRDO is a timepass org.

Habit of buying friendship using defence purchase is now is serious danger. I am pretty sure there must a strong lobby in GoI who does want to forgo this option.

Example If ORCA is approved, we don't need to import any type of jets. What will Russia US or France do a big ticket sale to us? If we don't import jets. Our Mandarins fear we cannot buy friendship anymore..

We see that in random purchase of NASAM2..

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8228
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Postby Indranil » 20 Feb 2020 04:18

May I turn the table a little bit and ask which system in the Indian anti air systems is NASAM2 integrated with?

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5348
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Postby Kartik » 20 Feb 2020 05:38

agupta wrote:
nam wrote:Actually the sucess of DRDO in growing Indian MIC is now causing a problem to our babus in Mod and MFA.
....
We see that in random purchase of NASAM2..


I appreciate the desire to anoint some winners and some losers to vilify BUT...do you really think NASAM2 is "random" ?

Do you have a description of a better integrated system available to buy now - from ANY source ANYWHERE - if you wanted to protect say the Indian PMO from a non-traditional decapitation strike - recall AQ was able to get to the WTC and Pentagon BUT they didn't go after the WH in the 1st planes.

Perhaps some deeper thoughts and reflection ?


What does it have that the SpyDer doesn't? Of which we already have a substantial number, with Derby and Python missiles being assembled in India itself?

What does it do that a few additional batteries of S-400 couldn't?

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9270
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Postby brar_w » 20 Feb 2020 06:23

nam wrote:
We see that in random purchase of NASAM2..



Say what you may for the IADWS (not same as NASAMS2) request, and subsequent FMS approval, but it has been something that has been in the works for a number of years in terms of the request from the MOD that eventually led to a formal approval to offer. It is most definitely not something that has just popped up on the radar (pun intended) just recently given the Trump visit to India.

Kartik wrote:What does it have that the SpyDer doesn't?


It is more optimized for urban environments than the Spyder S or MR.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9270
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Postby brar_w » 22 Feb 2020 23:31

Sentinel is a pocket X band radar designed to be light and expeditionary short ranged sensor with clutter and jamming in mind. With the A4 variant that is currently in the works, it will become a Medium ranged sensor while still retaining its small form factor and the ability to be quickly emplaced on built up infrastructure like rooftops etc where the bigger radars cannot go. The MOD request back in 2017 was not for NASAMS II. It was for the IADWS which is a system that is far more capable (and specific), and purpose designed for an urban environment with elevated sensors and shooters that can leverage civilian infrastructure if need be. NASAMS II in its pure form is similar to a Spyder MR (but with more flexibility) but in an urban environment you have different needs and of course you have less flexibility in how you design an overlapping architecture.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8228
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Postby Indranil » 23 Feb 2020 00:57

Agupta saheb, you have lost me.

Justifying a purchase by saying everything that India has procured or is about to procure should be integrated into NASAMS II because of a perception of superiority is beyond me. It is a solution looking for a problem.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5348
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Postby Kartik » 25 Feb 2020 01:41

Indranil wrote:Agupta saheb, you have lost me.

Justifying a purchase by saying everything that India has procured or is about to procure should be integrated into NASAMS II because of a perception of superiority is beyond me. It is a solution looking for a problem.


We know the real reason for NASAMS II. It is to give Trump a reason to visit and to allow the S-400 waiver. Trump loves a deal and this is his chunk of hte pie.

The MH-60Rs made a LOT of sense, but this is just unnecessarily complicating the already complicated logistics by adding another type. More SpyDer batteries would have done the same job and likely at a lower cost. Certainly commonality with existing SpyDer batteries and having Derby and Python V missiles assembled in India made it the most sensible solution for putting a ring around New Delhi, but geopolitics decided that this needed to go through

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5348
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Postby Kartik » 25 Feb 2020 05:57

I'm still awaiting actual comparison between SpyDer and NASAMS II, to see what this perceived advantage of NASAMS II is. So far all I've seen are very vague posts that seem to imply it is MUCH more sophisticated.

SpyDer batteries are already integrated with the IACCS, which provides a single picture of the air situation across India's airspace. IACCS is the Command and Control system that designates a target as 'red' or 'blue' and the same air picture is then made available to all SAM batteries. So basically all of the radars across India contribute to providing a single air picture. So how does NASAMS II bring something that the IACCS doesn't already provide?

link

"The live firing helped the Indian Air Force in validating the Air Defence philosophy by integrating both legacy and modern Surface-to-Air Guided Weapon Systems and the Integrated Air Command and Control System (IACCS).


As for cost effectiveness, India bought 18 SpyDer systems, and an estimated 750 Python V and 750 Derby missiles with the SpyDer order as per this source. That is a substantial number and these missiles will have a shelf life and need periodic testing and inspection. Why would it make sense to order a completely new type of missile with 0% commonality with these existing 1500 Israeli missiles in stock?

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 9807
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Postby Rakesh » 25 Feb 2020 06:56

Please continue discussion on NASAMS in this thread. Moved all the relevant posts from the MRCA thread. Thank you.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9270
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Postby brar_w » 25 Feb 2020 06:59

I wonder why the insistence in the media on calling it the NASAMS or NASAMS II when what the MOD requested back a few years ago was the IADWS and not the Kongsberg NASAMS.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=7675&start=2520#p2413175

mody
BRFite
Posts: 770
Joined: 18 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Mumbai, India

Re: ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Postby mody » 25 Feb 2020 14:33

The choice of stringer missiles is puzzling. We had the choice of Stringer missiles for Rudra and LCH helis and they were reportedly cheaper as well, yet we opted for the French Mistral. Now, we are opting for the stingers in place sidewinder. Also, Raytheon did no participate in the Indian tender for MANPADS and only Russia and Sweden offered their missiles.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9270
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Postby brar_w » 25 Feb 2020 17:14

mody wrote:The choice of stringer missiles is puzzling. We had the choice of Stringer missiles for Rudra and LCH helis and they were reportedly cheaper as well, yet we opted for the French Mistral. Now, we are opting for the stingers in place sidewinder. Also, Raytheon did no participate in the Indian tender for MANPADS and only Russia and Sweden offered their missiles.



The choice of Stingers is not puzzling at all (which the IAF acquired with its AH-64 E's). It is a core component of the IADWS as an integrated solution along with the Sentinel Radar, and the Multi-Spectral passive targeting suite. There are two deployment options, both of which the MOD has chosen to ask for. One is the dual pack stinger launcher which is ground based system and can be quickly deployed to protect a given area. The second is the Rapid Ranger which can be slaved to the active and passive sensors on the IADWS grid and can be either vehicle mounted, or removed from its vehicle and mounted as a stand alone system on top of civilian infrastructure.

With the IADWS, the AMRAAM or the AMRAAM-ER provider outer ring protection given their range, while the inner ring, particularly in highly urban settings will be provided by integrated stinger systems slaved to the same network and using each other's sensors. This is how the inner corridor of Washington DC is defended during heightened alerts. RR, is a part of IADWS and integrated into the network. Also, given the Unmanned Systems threat, the Stinger variant likely to be chosen is the new variant specifically designed against that threat and including the Proximity Fuse. With the PF, the Stinger gets a high first shot probability of kill against even Group 1/2 UAS. These are also all booster less missiles so you can place them differently because now you don't need to worry about an ejected boosters being tossed around over civilian infra.

Image

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9270
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Postby brar_w » 25 Feb 2020 23:34

The lower frequency radars are better surveillance sensors given their more efficient nature and the wavelengths. But they are large. A good compromise is S band where you get a bit of both. The reason the US Army prefers X band for its short to medium ranged radars is because they can be packaged into very small footprints allowing them to be deployed much easily and be emplaced on infrastructure not designed specifically for military applications. The sentinel can be configured as per user needs. It can be mounted on a light tactical vehicle, towed by a light tactical vehicle, towed by a truck mated to a larger integrated trailer, or mounted on top of buildings, towers, rooftops etc. etc. Image below captures some of the ways the sensor can be deployed. It can also be sling loaded on a helicopter in its light trailer configuration. Higher frequency sensors get you better interceptor to target performance because they can help reduce PIP errors or otherwise more accurately guide you to target. Where they will suffer is range and overall surveillance performance but then this is not their role... For very small target point defenses, like Group 1 Drones, or for guiding high energy lasers, the US Army actually uses Ku band radars. The real advantage is size and footprint especially when you are looking for a short or short to medium ranged sensor.

IADWS uses the Kongsberg Fire Distribution Centers and C2 system with a US specific layer adopted on top of that. It is designed as open as systems can be so that it local sensors and shooters can be more easily, and cheaply integrated. That said, IADWS is a solution for defending fixed infrastructure when you are challenged by the urban nature of the landscape. Its sensor and shooter grid and the ability to place both RF / EO/IR sensors and shooters on built up infra allows you to connect these nodes in a far more efficient manner opposed to a standard NASAMS battery. It can then be packed up, mounted on movers and then moved to a different location. I see the MOD request for IADWS as an indication that they were looking for a specific solution to a specific fixed target (or majority fixed) defense like say NCR and high profile parts of the capital. This is the same way the system is employed around DC..with it standing back and other elements being brought out when there is a higher alert or during important events when the threat is elevated..

Image

mody
BRFite
Posts: 770
Joined: 18 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Mumbai, India

Re: ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Postby mody » 26 Feb 2020 14:57

brar_w wrote:
mody wrote:The choice of stringer missiles is puzzling. We had the choice of Stringer missiles for Rudra and LCH helis and they were reportedly cheaper as well, yet we opted for the French Mistral. Now, we are opting for the stingers in place sidewinder. Also, Raytheon did no participate in the Indian tender for MANPADS and only Russia and Sweden offered their missiles.



The choice of Stingers is not puzzling at all (which the IAF acquired with its AH-64 E's). It is a core component of the IADWS as an integrated solution along with the Sentinel Radar, and the Multi-Spectral passive targeting suite. There are two deployment options, both of which the MOD has chosen to ask for. One is the dual pack stinger launcher which is ground based system and can be quickly deployed to protect a given area. The second is the Rapid Ranger which can be slaved to the active and passive sensors on the IADWS grid and can be either vehicle mounted, or removed from its vehicle and mounted as a stand alone system on top of civilian infrastructure.

With the IADWS, the AMRAAM or the AMRAAM-ER provider outer ring protection given their range, while the inner ring, particularly in highly urban settings will be provided by integrated stinger systems slaved to the same network and using each other's sensors. This is how the inner corridor of Washington DC is defended during heightened alerts. RR, is a part of IADWS and integrated into the network. Also, given the Unmanned Systems threat, the Stinger variant likely to be chosen is the new variant specifically designed against that threat and including the Proximity Fuse. With the PF, the Stinger gets a high first shot probability of kill against even Group 1/2 UAS. These are also all booster less missiles so you can place them differently because now you don't need to worry about an ejected boosters being tossed around over civilian infra.



The choice of stringers is puzzling because though they are part of the Ah-64E Apache, we went for the Mistral instead for the LCH!! The Stinger was also on offer and was maybe cheaper as well. The way the Indian defence procurement works, is truly mind boggling. Maybe the puzzling part should be our choice of Mistral missiles for the LCH instead of the Stinger, given that they are part of the Apache acquisition.
Also, for our MANPAD tender, Raytheon didnot respond and di not offer the stinger. Only the Russian Igla-S and Swedish RBS-70 were part of the tender. Personally would prefer the Stringer to both of these options. Its a much more tried and tested missile. However, the price of the Igla-S was very low. Maybe the russians trying to get rid of, all the old stock.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9270
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Postby brar_w » 26 Feb 2020 17:08

It isn't puzzling at all. No Mistral is integrated with this system, while the Stinger with its RR is and it is an integral part of it especially for its urban defense concept with it and its weapon system being slaved to EO/IR and RF sensors. It is like saying they should have bought the IADWS with Phython missile instead. I don't think the Stinger PF with its enhanced C-UAS capability was on offer to India. It was a developmental project until just a few months ago when it cleared its qualifications. I'm willing to bet that if and when the MOD signs up for this that is the stinger variant they'll select as that is the only variant the US Army is itself buying for this mission. Again, the choice of interceptors here is limited. The Stinger, AMRAAM, AIM-9, AMRAAM-ER and the ESSM are integrated into this system so it isn't surprising at all that the MOD chose from these.

basant
BRFite
Posts: 335
Joined: 20 Mar 2020 20:58

Re: ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Postby basant » 20 Jul 2020 19:59

Not Keen On NASAMS-II, IAF Wants Indian Missile Defence

It’s official: The Indian Air Force doesn’t want the American NASAMS-II networked air defence system and has communicated this to the government. Pitched to India since 2017 in the wake of India’s decision to procure the Russian S-400 Triumf, Livefist has learnt that the Indian Air Force has informed the government that it would rather spend resources on the indigenous multi-tiered Ballistic Missile Defence (BMD) program that includes medium and long range surface-to-air missile elements. The latter system has completed the first phase of its development and is currently part of plans for operational deployment by 2022.
...

MeshaVishwas
BRFite
Posts: 564
Joined: 16 Feb 2019 17:20

Re: ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Postby MeshaVishwas » 19 Sep 2020 22:39


Very informative discussion. Please watch share and subscribe.
The young DRDO hakim's presentation was just brilliant.

tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3263
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

Re: ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Postby tsarkar » 20 Sep 2020 06:49

basant wrote:Not Keen On NASAMS-II, IAF Wants Indian Missile Defence
Livefist has learnt that the Indian Air Force has informed the government that it would rather spend resources on the indigenous multi-tiered Ballistic Missile Defence (BMD) program that includes medium and long range surface-to-air missile elements. The latter system has completed the first phase of its development and is currently part of plans for operational deployment by 2022.

Are LRTR, MRTR, PAD & AAD part of the first phase of development and 2022 operational deployment?

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 9807
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Postby Rakesh » 21 Sep 2020 20:52


pankajs
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14734
Joined: 13 Aug 2009 20:56

Re: ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Postby pankajs » 23 Sep 2020 00:32

Has this been posted before?

https://twitter.com/strategic_front/sta ... 0996068352
AD-1 & AD-2 missiles from the Phase-2 of the Indian Ballistic Missile Defence program which is under development. Capability wise both are comparable to Aster-30 & SM-3 missiles respectively.

Slide is from this presentation: https://buff.ly/32Nk9kz

Image


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: kvraghav, Yagnasri and 84 guests