Indian Missiles News & Discussions - 17 Dec 2018

[Raveen]

I am most exited about coastal batteries of these Missile assisted Torps.

Get some in Andaman, Lakshadweep, and Kanyakumari and you are golden.

[JTull]

SMART on that TEL looks like a Shaurya clone. If the torpedo is 220kg then it tells you about the size of our petals that K-15 can carry.

[titash]

Point 1 - it was clearly mentioned in mod report 2018-19 that max range is 650 kms. One can argue it could be typo, but looking at min range of 50 kms I go with 650 kms than 65.
Point 2 - going by tweets of defense ministry and hemant Kumar rout , it is often been represented as cutting edge technology which wouldn't have been the case if range was limited to 65 kms.
Point 3 - base missile looks like shaurya and definitely supports 650 kms range.you don't need that size missile for short ranges.

Agreed that BRF members are not able to crack the puzzle, but why doubt the capabilities and often downplay out strength. This is one of its class missile in world which no country has developed for such ranges. So unless proved otherwise let's stop speculating and downplaying it's ranges.

Slightly different PoV here:

1) The MoD report was referring to engagements "far beyond torpedo range (50-650 km)"; I read that as a typical HWT torpedo ranges being 50-65 Km (650 being a typo because HWTs will only go so far)

2) It is cutting edge technology FOR US. We didn't have something like this before - no one has ever seen the ASW Klub being fired from Talwar/Shivalik. Only the AShM versions were ever test fired. This is our first ASROC like capability going beyond 50-65 Km HWT range. That is considered a stand-off weapon. Doesn't have to go to 650 Km to be considered stand-off

3) Looks like Shaurya doesn't mean it is Shaurya or weighs as much/travels as far as Shaurya. The payload is a very heavy Retarding Parachute/Gear + 300 Kg "lightweight" torpedo.

There is a good reason to doubt and introspect - specially when things don't make sense. Let's wait for DRDO to come out with official ranges and usage policies. Till then best to assume it's an ASROC class weapon rather than something that will negate the entire PLAN submarine fleet.

If it is indeed a 650 Km weapon, torpedo homing would be an issue even with hypersonic flight times. Are LWT seekers capable enough of searching (5 km x 5 km x 1 Km) volumetric kill boxes unless they drop right on top of a target i.e. like a helicopter would?

[pankajs]

Shaurya can deposit a payload of 1,000 kg to between 700 and 750 km. There must be other consideration/constrains in launching a torp but 650 km is easily possible on top of a Shaurya.

With a 200 kg payload Shaurya can strike 1500+ km (1900 km per wiki).

Looks like our Anti Access/Area Denial capability will be built around Shaurya with a likely Shaurya based AShM weapons fielded next.

[titash]

650 Km makes sense with an "area weapon" to prevent large kill boxes from overloading (relatively) low-capability LWT sensors. Nuclear depth bomb anyone?

[abhik]

I am most exited about coastal batteries of these Missile assisted Torps.

Get some in Andaman, Lakshadweep, and Kanyakumari and you are golden.

For your pleasure (Link in case the imgur hot link does not work anymore: https://imgur.com/a/ExvPbDX)

[Cain Marko]

We have to keep in mind that the missile has to decelerate to safe speed. I won't count on torpedo seeker to spot a submarine 10 min after it was spotted. Let alone of a light torpedo.

The platform that spots the target probly keeps tracking it until the the missile is close enough for seeker to acquire target.

[Cain Marko]

There is a separate ASBM (carrier killer) project in the works. SMART is not that. The whole SMART concept of slowing down before releasing a torp defeats the purpose of an ASBM. However, its possible that the ASBM might be based on, once again, Shaurya. If so, the UVLS comes into play once again.

Why not as a cbg killer? It's not like the missile is going to slow down so much that the ship(s) is going to disappear in the 10 minutes of time it has? During this time, a mpa could stay far away from the cbg air cover, and keep tracking it, providing mcu to the missile.

Even if carriers might be harder to pursue because of the air threat, I don't see why other surface assets like missile carrying ddgs can't be targeted?

[Kakarat]

We have to keep in mind that the missile has to decelerate to safe speed. I won't count on torpedo seeker to spot a submarine 10 min after it was spotted. Let alone of a light torpedo.

The platform that spots the target probly keeps tracking it until the the missile is close enough for seeker to acquire target.

You should also consider the fact that the target sub does not know that the missile is coming and also that submerged subs are generally slow at around 50km/hr best with the tracking platform also knowing the direction it is heading.

[Kakarat]

Why not as a cbg killer? It's not like the missile is going to slow down so much that the ship(s) is going to disappear in the 10 minutes of time it has? During this time, a mpa could stay far away from the cbg air cover, and keep tracking it, providing mcu to the missile.

Even if carriers might be harder to pursue because of the air threat, I don't see why other surface assets like missile carrying ddgs can't be targeted?

The reason for not being a CBG killer is that after release the torpedo will be too slow for the CBG's air defense to pickup and shoot down

[Cain Marko]

Why not as a cbg killer? It's not like the missile is going to slow down so much that the ship(s) is going to disappear in the 10 minutes of time it has? During this time, a mpa could stay far away from the cbg air cover, and keep tracking it, providing mcu to the missile.

Even if carriers might be harder to pursue because of the air threat, I don't see why other surface assets like missile carrying ddgs can't be targeted?

The reason for not being a CBG killer is that after release the torpedo will be too slow for the CBG's air defense to pickup and shoot down

Hmm... Fair point. To clarify, are you saying that the air defence system will shoot down the torpedos in midair as they descend? How long doe the descent take? And at what range does the torpedo acquire the target with it's own seeker? Can the ads get into action during that time and at the range required?

[brar_w]

Why not as a cbg killer? It's not like the missile is going to slow down so much that the ship(s) is going to disappear in the 10 minutes of time it has? During this time, a mpa could stay far away from the cbg air cover, and keep tracking it, providing mcu to the missile.

Even if carriers might be harder to pursue because of the air threat, I don't see why other surface assets like missile carrying ddgs can't be targeted?

The reason for not being a CBG killer is that after release the torpedo will be too slow for the CBG's air defense to pickup and shoot down

Yes not really a very likely CBG killer for several reasons. For one, as a coastal system, the CBG can avoid being 650 km from the launch sites. This they have to do anyways to avoid the 500-1000 km anti-ship missiles which exist around the world. CBG's measure their "reach" by a combination of their fixed winged fighter and weapon reach. So even the shortest ranged naval fighters can deliver effects at at least a 1,000 km from the carrier with many capable of doing so at 2x or more of that. Secondly, given the SA and defense the CBG should have available you really want a high probability that a single shot does substantial damage to a carrier. This because your long range ISR, your networks etc can all be threatened by the CBG given its supporting ships, helicopters and fighters (and other fixed winged aircraft if applicable). So a lightweight torpedo is probably not the optimal weapon for this role. For the heavier DDG's and large carriers you are probably looking at a heavier torpedo which could weigh 5-10 times what lightweight torpedoes weigh which would impact range.

[sudeepj]

1. Networked LRMP aircraft.
2. Ships organic ASW choppers.

If the ship has this missile+torp combination, the chopper doesnt need to carry the torpedos. That should increase range, sensor capability, loiter time.

Doesnt a P-8I carry 5 Mk54 torpedoes?
Doesnt the Seaking & Seahawk carry own twin torpedoes?
Doesnt the submarine move during information transmission, missile launch and missile flight time?
Why does P-8I or Seaking/Seahawk wait instead of using its own torpedoes?

The 650 km is either a typo or nonsense.

This is an entirely new system and can be used in innovative ways to develop entirely new tactics and platforms. For example, we used to have some corvettes for anti submarine warfare and usually they would be deployed in own air cover. The idea was these would be used to persecute any submarines that sneak in close to our own harbors and protect our own coastlines. Now instead of corvettes with their manpower requirement, you can deploy, say dorniers, with the appropriate communication and sona-buoy equipment and a shore based battery of these missile torps and this can obviate the need for this class/role of corvette.

Seahawk does carry its own torps, but they do incur a cost in payload. 4 torpedos mean a payload of more than 1 tonne. Without them, your sensor has either longer range or longer loiter time. We are also acquiring new drone platforms in addition to the Herons that are extremely long endurance (48 hours!) but dont have the same kind of payload capability as say a P8i. So these sensors will now have a potent shooter in the loop as well.

The sub will move, but the missile has mid-course guidance update form the platform. Even if there is no guidance update, what are the quiet speeds of a DE sub? Even if moving at 20knots, and a 10 minute flight time, the sub can move a max distance of 4-5 miles. You can sort this possibility by sending out a spread of 4 missiles.

The Heron drone platform that the IN already operates can be fitted with sonabuoy and Magnetic Anomaly Detector.

Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI) is upgrading its capabilities for the maritime arena with anti-submarine capabilities in its marine unmanned aerial systems (UAS). The new capabilities respond to the need arising from the discontinuation of the "Shahaf" manned Sea Scan maritime jet by the Israeli Navy and the growing use of IAI Heron UAS for maritime patrol missions, which created a need in anti-submarine capabilities launched directly from the UAS. The maritime UAS, which carries a range of dedicated payloads, now has two new payloads for submarine detection: the Sonobuoy (acoustic detector) and the MAD (Magnetic Detector).
The Sonobuoy is a small, lightweight innovative sonar float which is hurled out of the UAS with a parachute. Part of the Sonobuoy submerges in the water and part of it remains above water, emitting and receiving acoustics signals in high seas. The findings are transmitted in real-time to the UAS's control post. The MAD is a UAS-mounted device that detects and alerts on submarines through identification of changes in the magnetic flow (metal objects detection). The two detectors complement one another: the Sonobuoy is used for searching a broad areas while the MAD is used to verify that the object is a submarine, including an up-to-date location. The UAS carries several Sonobuoys, which it hurls accurately into the sea whenever the presence of a submarine is suspected.
The use of UAS-mounted anti-submarine means offers significant advantages, including longer stay time (dozens of hours on air), back-transmission of the sonar for many hours, operators who are located on land and can monitor the situation over multiple shift, and most importantly, the absence of risk to human life.

https://www.iai.co.il/iai-presents-new- ... lities-uas

A similar capability is being planned for the MQ9 as well.
https://defense-update.com/20171114_mq9_asw.html

The remote detection and tracking of submerged contacts, such as submarines, was demonstrated using an MQ-9 Predator B Remotely Piloted Aircraft (RPA) during a U.S. Naval exercise on October 12th. The flight test was conducted over the Southern California Offshore Range (SCORE) west of San Clemente Island. General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, Inc. (GA-ASI) participated in this successful demonstration of new maritime patrol capabilities that included anti-submarine warfare. The test demonstrated the ability of medium altitude, long endurance drones such as the MQ-9 Reaper to detect submarines and provide persistent tracking of submerged targets.

On this demonstration, sonobuoys were deployed by U.S. Navy helicopters and acoustic data gathered from the sonobuoys were used to track underwater targets. The data was transmitted to the MQ-9 and processed onboard, then relayed to the MQ-9’s Ground Control Station (GCS) several hundred miles away from the target area.

[kit]

deleted

[kit]

Why not as a cbg killer? It's not like the missile is going to slow down so much that the ship(s) is going to disappear in the 10 minutes of time it has? During this time, a mpa could stay far away from the cbg air cover, and keep tracking it, providing mcu to the missile.

Even if carriers might be harder to pursue because of the air threat, I don't see why other surface assets like missile carrying ddgs can't be targeted?

Why not shoot of a couple of Brahmos along with a couple of SMARTS at the super duper chinky ACarrier ?!.. dudes probably would wonder what hit first !

[brar_w]

Yes not really a very likely CBG killer for several reasons. For one, as a coastal system, the CBG can avoid being 650 km from the launch sites. This they have to do anyways to avoid the 500-1000 km anti-ship missiles which exist around the world. CBG's measure their "reach" by a combination of their fixed winged fighter and weapon reach. So even the shortest ranged naval fighters can deliver effects at at least a 1,000 km from the carrier with many capable of doing so at 2x or more of that. Secondly, given the SA and defense the CBG should have available you really want a high probability that a single shot does substantial damage to a carrier. This because your long range ISR, your networks etc can all be threatened by the CBG given its supporting ships, helicopters and fighters (and other fixed winged aircraft if applicable). So a lightweight torpedo is probably not the optimal weapon for this role. For the heavier DDG's and large carriers you are probably looking at a heavier torpedo which could weigh 5-10 times what lightweight torpedoes weigh which would impact range.

or ji., just pop in a sub kiloton depth charge for a Chinese aircraft carrier group , just a couple should do nicely I guess ., just in case push comes to shove in IOR !

Yes of course whole host of other options can be looked at but if either was 100% useful all the time then you wouldn't need this or multiple options. A Chinese CBG is unlikely to wander deep into the IOR. I'd be surprised if they chose to employ the carrier in such a way in any wartime scenario. They are unlikely to come within 1500 or so km of any shore based capabilities. In the US-China confrontation, the USN needs to plan for fighting a carrier battle outside of 2,000 km from Chinese land based capability so China is likely to also mimic that once they have their CVN's in operational service a decade or so from now.

[kit]

650 Km makes sense with an "area weapon" to prevent large kill boxes from overloading (relatively) low-capability LWT sensors. Nuclear depth bomb anyone?

[/img]

SMART ly delivered nuclear depth charges could prematurely end any sort of Chinese naval adventure in IOR

[kit]

or ji., just pop in a sub kiloton depth charge for a Chinese aircraft carrier group , just a couple should do nicely I guess ., just in case push comes to shove in IOR !

Yes of course whole host of other options can be looked at but if either was 100% useful all the time then you wouldn't need this or multiple options. A Chinese CBG is unlikely to wander deep into the IOR. I'd be surprised if they chose to employ the carrier in such a way in any wartime scenario. They are unlikely to come within 1500 or so km of any shore based capabilities. In the US-China confrontation, the USN needs to plan for fighting a carrier battle outside of 2,000 km from Chinese land based capability so China is likely to also mimic that once they have their CVN's in operational service a decade or so from now.

1500 km off shore based weapons ? .. well consider 1500 km east and west of the andaman islands ..there is not much sea left for china then

[Kanson]

For those questioning the 650 Km range, its clearly mentioned in the MoD 2018-2019 annual report. Thanks to "The Week"'s article that Swarajya republished, that had this reference

https://www.mod.gov.in/sites/default/fi ... AR2018.pdf

Check page 105

Supersonic Missile Assisted Release of Torpedo (SMART): DRDO has taken up a project to develop and demonstrate a missile assisted release of light weight anti-submarine torpedo system for ASW operations far beyond torpedo range (50-650 km). During August, 2018, pneumatic ejection test of TAL dummy torpedo from canister was carried out at 150 bar which established the design of safe shear pin failure. Ejection speed of torpedo was also estimated during the trials.

Here the range of the TAL torpedo mentioned is around 20 km ONLY.

"far beyond torpedo range (50-650 km)" : obviously 50-650 km is beyond the range of TAL light weight torpedo.

Any ASROC type solution involves light weight torpedoes only.

So torpedo under discussion is LWT.

If anyone could recall, the booster/first stage of k-15/shaurya range is mentioned to be around 60 km .

So 50 - 650 km data suits the min & max range of the carrier missile.

In the recent test, Shaurya is flown at 40 km high alt. Earlier Shaurya was tested at various hi lo altitudes.

To release the torpedo, the missile must fly closer to sea surface at lower altitude. At lower alt due to high air density speed is reduced to supersonic.

Thanks for the article.

[V_Raman]

This is 007 tech This is effective sea denial from the unsinkable carrier of IOR - India

[brar_w]

Yes of course whole host of other options can be looked at but if either was 100% useful all the time then you wouldn't need this or multiple options. A Chinese CBG is unlikely to wander deep into the IOR. I'd be surprised if they chose to employ the carrier in such a way in any wartime scenario. They are unlikely to come within 1500 or so km of any shore based capabilities. In the US-China confrontation, the USN needs to plan for fighting a carrier battle outside of 2,000 km from Chinese land based capability so China is likely to also mimic that once they have their CVN's in operational service a decade or so from now.

1500 km off shore based weapons ? .. well consider 1500 km east and west of the andaman islands ..there is not much sea left for china then

Yes they will not get the CBG to venture in to make their ACs useful in any potential fight (to bolster their naval capability). Not until they can get access. This is same for no matter who operates the CBG's. Your offensive capability has to deal with anti-access capability and get you closer. Otherwise you fight from outside in and keep your floating air-base away from where your ASW, ASuW, and VLS cells can't deal with a given threat. So what escort they have, what offensive and defensive capability they develop and what sub-surface force they embed with their CBG's (and how they utilize their bomber force) will shape how they employ their CBG's in a hypothetical scenario. Medium to Long range fighters combined with medium to long range weapons will get you the effect you are looking for without the need to get the carrier in there physically.

[Cain Marko]

Why not as a cbg killer? It's not like the missile is going to slow down so much that the ship(s) is going to disappear in the 10 minutes of time it has? During this time, a mpa could stay far away from the cbg air cover, and keep tracking it, providing mcu to the missile.

Even if carriers might be harder to pursue because of the air threat, I don't see why other surface assets like missile carrying ddgs can't be targeted?

Why not shoot of a couple of Brahmos along with a couple of SMARTS at the super duper chinky ACarrier ?!.. dudes probably would wonder what hit first !

That's a helluva thought.... Made me laugh. nasty surprise.

[Kanson]

The only logical way I can make sense of the 650 km number is having underwater SOSUS arrays far away and using land based SMART to destroy targets detected by SOSUS. However SOSUS is expensive to develop, deploy and super maintenance intensive. Also I havent read about any Indian Development of SOSUS arrays.

Having said that, a SOSUS array along with a land based long range missile can create permanent submarine chokepoints in Middle East and Straits of Malacca/East Indian Oceans from Indian territory.

Have you not heard of India developing such arrays? I vaguely recall such topic that came to surface during Parrikar days.
(and before too)

Recently, weeks/months back, in military commanders conf , Anti Access/Area Denial (A2/AD) was discussed & wanted such capability..

So seeing that, testing of SMART is too quick.

[ramana]

Get some in Andaman, Lakshadweep, and Kanyakumari and you are golden.

For your pleasure (Link in case the imgur hot link does not work anymore: https://imgur.com/a/ExvPbDX)

This graphic was created our Prasanna Simha and posted on Twitter.

[Philip]

Upto now most stand-off ASW weaponry like ASROC,etc.,consisted of delivering a torpedo by a rocket/ missile or as in the case of the Klub, even launched into the sea from TTs first,taking off like a missile carrying a torpedo.Ranges were not excessive as in real time they are reqd. to identify, locate and attack the enemy target before it can escape from detection and tracking,I think around 40 to 100KM was/is the max range.This new SMART weapon system requires a number of sensor carriers who can pinpoint the target in real time.Aircraft with sonobuoys, warships,subs,UUVs,long-endurance USVs like the USN Orca,perhaps sats too, keeping the enemy sub tracked and targeted while supersonic speed gets the missile-torpedo faster to the target's last located coordinates. The torpedo should have a parachute system to slow down its descent.Torpedoes launched from P-8s at high alt. have special wing kits,not needed if the missile launches the LWT closer to the sea surface as mentioned.

Here comes the problem in that the torpedo is lighweight.Its endurance in prosecuting the contact will be limited.We are told that it has a 20km range? What depths can it descend to? F'rinstance,Ru and some US subs can dive beyond 450M depth,some even claim 600M! and have speeds in excess of 30kts. Preventing the enemy contact from escaping is the job of the hunters.Heavyweight torpedoes like the latest French ones,can stay on track for a few hours of endurance,making repeated attacks.It is going to be how " smart" the lightweight torpedo is and the damage capability of the warhead .PLAN nuclear subs and some of its conventional subs too have double hulls which can withstand some attacks. Like the US and Ru, a small N-warhead option should be available to do the trick. This would be fair game when prosecuting a PLAN SSBN.

Finally,how " smart" is it to defeat a sub's array of decoys and in some cases hard kill anti-torpedoes? Nevertheless, it gives the attacker a good element of surprise and the ability to attack the sub out of range of the sub's anti-ship,anti-sub's missiles,a v.important factor. We haven't been told what platforms will carry this new weapon. We eagerly await more info.

[ks_sachin]

Upto now most stand-off ASW weaponry like ASROC,etc.,consisted of delivering a torpedo by a rocket/ missile or as in the case of the Klub, even launched into the sea from TTs first,taking off like a missile carrying a torpedo.Ranges were not excessive as in real time they are reqd. to identify, locate and attack the enemy target before it can escape from detection and tracking,I think around 40 to 100KM was/is the max range.This new SMART weapon system requires a number of sensor carriers who can pinpoint the target in real time.Aircraft with sonobuoys, warships,subs,UUVs,long-endurance USVs like the USN Orca,perhaps sats too, keeping the enemy sub tracked and targeted while supersonic speed gets the missile-torpedo faster to the target's last located coordinates.

Here comes the problem in that the torpedo is lighweight.Its endurance in prosecuting the contact will be limited.We are told that it has a 20km range? What depths can it descend to? F'rinstance,Ru and some US subs can dive beyond 450M depth,some even claim 600M! and have speeds in excess of 30kts. Preventing the enemy contact from escaping is the job of the hunters.Heavyweight torpedoes like the latest French ones,can stay on track for a few hours of endurance,making repeated attacks.It is going to be how " smart" the lightweight torpedo is and the damage capability of the warhead .PLAN nuclear subs and some of its conventional subs too have double hulls which can withstand some attacks. Like the US and Ru, a small N-warhead option should be available to do the trick. This would be fair game when prosecuting a PLAN SSBN.

Mate rather than asking rhetorical questions can you research and find out and educate us?
If a capability is being developed then don't you think our researchers and the IN have thought through the pros and cons?

[Philip]

ASW weapon systems and warfare are the most heavily classified because of the SSBN leg of the triad,the most survivable. This is only the first report. Let's wait and see whether what I've mentioned has been factored in. Mere speed and range do not a sub sink.

Just saw earlier posts,Indranil,TSarkar,etc. depth 540M. Detection range 7km,warhead 50kg. So it has to enter water within a 7km radius of the target and can hunt it down to 500+ M depths .These are public specs,the actual capability will be much more.Great to see the emphasis on ASW warfare emerging,to combat the huge PLAN numbers.

[basant]

SMART certainly brings a new capability in attacking submerged subs at harbors or in shallow waters. For the same purpose, it may now prove to be a stepping stone to a larger platform (Agni-2/K-4) for a heavy torpedo. However, given the cost, these can only see limited numbers.

[ManuJ]

SMART, when launched from warship or a truck-based coastal battery, takes off like a regular supersonic missile.

It covers most of its flight in the air at lower altitudes with two-way data link from the warship or an airborne submarine target detection system and provides the exact location of the hostile submarine to correct its flight path midway, it said.

Just when it approaches close enough to the submerged submarine, the missile will eject the torpedo system into the water and the autonomous torpedo will start moving towards its target to take out the submarine, it added.

https://theprint.in/defence/india-succe ... re/517354/

[Cain Marko]

SMART, when launched from warship or a truck-based coastal battery, takes off like a regular supersonic missile.

It covers most of its flight in the air at lower altitudes with two-way data link from the warship or an airborne submarine target detection system and provides the exact location of the hostile submarine to correct its flight path midway, it said.

Just when it approaches close enough to the submerged submarine, the missile will eject the torpedo system into the water and the autonomous torpedo will start moving towards its target to take out the submarine, it added.

https://theprint.in/defence/india-succe ... re/517354/

Very interesting - that it can be carried by ships. Super news....extends range of these SMART ASS (anti sub system) things considerably. Submarines in the entire IOR will be put on notice.

[abhik]

For your pleasure (Link in case the imgur hot link does not work anymore: https://imgur.com/a/ExvPbDX)

This graphic was created our Prasanna Simha and posted on Twitter.

Sorry, did not get you, who is Prasanna Simha?

[Pratyush]

I would guess that the system would be compatible with the new universal VLS being developed by L&T.

[Aditya_V]

Next will be smart with MIRV/MARV, 2 -3 torpedos attacking the sub from different angles will give neat 100% kill box.

[SSridhar]

There is a possibility of BMs carrying such torpedoes being misconstrued and inadvertently leading to escalation. Of course, launch sites, trajectories etc are taken into consideration in identifying the threat level but there are possibilities for misjudgement. So, I think India will be careful to choose the platform. China's dual-use theater ballistic missiles as well as their IRBMs like DF-26 pose the same challenge.

Therefore, that Print aricle statement, "It covers most of its flight in the air at lower altitudes" makes sense. MIRVing can destroy an entire CBG.

[abhik]

I doubt a light torpedo with a 50kg will be enough to sink or even disable a CGB, if I'm not wrong these are targeted more towards subs that are more vulnerable.
BTW our immediate threat is PLAN subs in the IOR, weapons and tactics for area denial of CBGs will be different but in the development pipeline.

[Kakarat]

[Prem Kumar]

Slightly different PoV here:

1) The MoD report was referring to engagements "far beyond torpedo range (50-650 km)"; I read that as a typical HWT torpedo ranges being 50-65 Km (650 being a typo because HWTs will only go so far)

2) It is cutting edge technology FOR US. We didn't have something like this before - no one has ever seen the ASW Klub being fired from Talwar/Shivalik. Only the AShM versions were ever test fired. This is our first ASROC like capability going beyond 50-65 Km HWT range. That is considered a stand-off weapon. Doesn't have to go to 650 Km to be considered stand-off

1) Firstly, you are assuming that the MOD's report has a typo. The onus is on you to prove it. I interpret the MOD's statement very differently.

far beyond torpedo range (50-650 km) means that a typical HWT has a range of upto 50 Km. But SMART provides ability to attack a sub beyond the 50Km range and upto 650 Km range.

2) The "FOR US" part sounds very condescending. SMART is not ASROC. There is no comparable weapon in the world. Maybe its hard for you to accept that we can be the first at developing something

You can assume whatever you want, but I'd go by what the MOD said

[kit]

There is a possibility of BMs carrying such torpedoes being misconstrued and inadvertently leading to escalation. Of course, launch sites, trajectories etc are taken into consideration in identifying the threat level but there are possibilities for misjudgement. So, I think India will be careful to choose the platform. China's dual-use theater ballistic missiles as well as their IRBMs like DF-26 pose the same challenge.

Therefore, that Print aricle statement, "It covers most of its flight in the air at lower altitudes" makes sense. MIRVing can destroy an entire CBG.

Why would a ballistic missile directed towards the Indian Ocean or even indo china sea be misconstrued?

[Igorr]

Hi Igorr, happy to see you. You know, we are not party to any such groupings. We are not allies. Neither we want to be a poodle, to enjoy the benefits bypassing MTCR restriction.
So we wainted to be formally recognized before enhancing the missile range.
As the tech matuers, you will be see much more improvements within the same volume. Perhaps without exceeding the weight.

Hi, Kanson. Me too... As regards to MTCR, its restrictions are on the exporters, not on an importer. In addition, according to the MTCR, if the other parties do not object to the deal, then anything can be delivered to India. And I don’t think that the United States or Europe would dare to object to Russia's sale of extended-range missiles to India, given the strategic situation, and China is outside the MTCR.

Regarding India's non-alignment with the blocs, this is Russia's goal, I think, to contribute to the formation of objective prerequisites for India's international position to be independent of any major players, including, of course, the United States, EU and China. The formation of a strategic triad in India, I think, helps to achieve this target. Without India as a world power, the World can remain to be only bipolar, not multi-.

Comparisons with brahmos are not correct IMHO. Better comparison would be with iskander iirc
Unlike brahmos, Shaurya is quasi ballistic, much heavier, and does not have any low level skimming capability.

Accepted. Now another question arises: how well does Shaurya fit with the standard VLS created under BRAHMOS? As we can see, its relative dimensions (length vs width) are very close to those of the BRAHMOS. I don't think this is an accident. Also, the new Indian missile-torpedo tested yesterday is very similar in relative size to BRAHMOS too. If so, then we can talk about the development by India of a whole class of universal sub-strategic missile weapons with the additional ability to use conventional warheads. And the first customer, it seems to me, may be the Indian navy. How many surface ships are there now, BRAHMOS carriers?

Here, by the way, is a video with the last test of the new rocket-torpedo:

[kvraghav]

Actually if a p8i can drop torpedoes, why can't a missile drop it? There will always be a detecting and tracking platform nearby to provide the information to the torpedo once it is dropped. This I think is just seperating the detecting and dropping platform. A 600km travel by a mach5 missile takes 5 minutes. I don't think submarines travel a lot in 5 minutes.