Indian Missiles News & Discussions - 17 Dec 2018

Locked
Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 20773
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Indian Missiles News & Discussions - 17 Dec 2018

Post by Karan M »

Have to wonder about the accuracy of the report. We saw similar reports about Javelin but IA went for it. Quite possible the IA was given seperate info that the issue was resolved. Find it hard to imagine they'd accept anything so subpar.
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12195
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Indian Missiles News & Discussions - 17 Dec 2018

Post by Pratyush »

OT, but they accepted T90 without blow off armour panels. When insisting that Arjun must have them. For additional orders.

You never know.
Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 20773
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Indian Missiles News & Discussions - 17 Dec 2018

Post by Karan M »

T-90 was supposed to be a natural extension of the T-72 hence it was chosen. Its key issues were its thermal Imager failure and the engine getting overheated in extended ops. But the IGLA stuff is next level. Not stuff which will show up in extended trials. Would require phenomenal incompetence abs dereliction of duty from IA which I doubt.
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12195
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Indian Missiles News & Discussions - 17 Dec 2018

Post by Pratyush »

Fair enough.
Barath
BRFite
Posts: 474
Joined: 11 Feb 2019 19:06

Re: Indian Missiles News & Discussions - 17 Dec 2018

Post by Barath »

Karan M wrote:This makes for grim reading provided it is true. It claims the trials were a sham. Provided the details are true - most likely sourced from one of the competitors.
https://stratpost.com/indias-vshorad-pr ... ight-path/
It is the basis of the protests filed.

https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/ ... 591948.ece
. During re-trials in 2016, the compliance was changed from shooting down targets to only tracking and locking them. Another allegation is that Igla-S is no longer in production as Russia has started replacing it with a next generation variant called 9K333 Verba.
https://www.ajaishukla.com/2018/11/air- ... oiled.html
In summer trials conducted in 2012 in the blazing Rajasthan deserts, the Igla-S scored just one hit out of four missiles fired, say Saab and MBDA. In navy trials conducted in the Bay of Bengal that year, the Igla-S fired two missiles, out of which only one struck the target. That total of two hits out of six was well below the minimum required accuracy of four hits out of six.
Additionally, if a vendor doesn't turn up for the trials, per the DPP, it is grounds for disqualification, while russia was allowed to continue. The article also points out that Igla-S as an IR based missile would have trouble in the hot sands of peak rajasthan summer., while MBDA/SAAB are beam riders Russia attempted to change the offering to the verba (which was not ready/mature at time of RFP start) but was rejected.

When the basis of the protests is very clear, and the grounds on which the protests were rejected are completely opaque, it is hard to escape the notion that things are wrong. Possibly the best outcome might be to move on to the verba, but one is unlikely to get the same financial deal or start from scratch

Since then, the Army used emergency procurement to buy 12 launchers/250 missiles of Igla-S and another trial failure Spike Anti tank missiles

https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/ ... 984091.ece

To me, this implies that they wished to actually try it out.
Prem Kumar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4218
Joined: 31 Mar 2009 00:10

Re: Indian Missiles News & Discussions - 17 Dec 2018

Post by Prem Kumar »

Sounds fishy.

At any rate, why is the IA procuring a sub-par Igla-S when it has reached end of life? And that too, a 5000 Crore order? If budget is an issue, the SAAB's quotation was 2.6B against a budgeted 2B. Doesn't seem like a deal-breaker, if we get a far better system.

We can keep Putin happy with purchases of quality arms, not outdated ones.
Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 20773
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Indian Missiles News & Discussions - 17 Dec 2018

Post by Karan M »

Bharath, I read it differently - if it was a failure they wouldn't be going for emergency purchase. The Spike also reportedly cleared trials later. I suspect a lot of the public details regarding these trials are simply not known. One can't have the sane service display a lot of competence in running x trial and then suddenly show such huge incompetence in something else. What I suspect happened is that the Russians were given extra leeway in fixing their issues and they demonstrated it to the IA team without the knowledge of the other vendors. Time will tell though if my supposition is correct.
Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 20773
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Indian Missiles News & Discussions - 17 Dec 2018

Post by Karan M »

Prem Kumar wrote:Sounds fishy.

At any rate, why is the IA procuring a sub-par Igla-S when it has reached end of life? And that too, a 5000 Crore order? If budget is an issue, the SAAB's quotation was 2.6B against a budgeted 2B. Doesn't seem like a deal-breaker, if we get a far better system.

We can keep Putin happy with purchases of quality arms, not outdated ones.
We are running extremely short of budget and every bit counts. FYI, our committed liabilities across all three services are around 25-30% greater than the actual budget. TBH, MOD must be using all sorts of financial jugglery to meet the various payments. The DPSUs must be receiving funds in tranches. Not long ago you had the news the MOD owed HAL Rs 14,500 Crores which was released later.
YashG
BRFite
Posts: 939
Joined: 22 Apr 2017 00:10

Re: Indian Missiles News & Discussions - 17 Dec 2018

Post by YashG »

Karan M wrote:
Prem Kumar wrote:Sounds fishy.

At any rate, why is the IA procuring a sub-par Igla-S when it has reached end of life? And that too, a 5000 Crore order? If budget is an issue, the SAAB's quotation was 2.6B against a budgeted 2B. Doesn't seem like a deal-breaker, if we get a far better system.

We can keep Putin happy with purchases of quality arms, not outdated ones.
We are running extremely short of budget and every bit counts. FYI, our committed liabilities across all three services are around 25-30% greater than the actual budget. TBH, MOD must be using all sorts of financial jugglery to meet the various payments. The DPSUs must be receiving funds in tranches. Not long ago you had the news the MOD owed HAL Rs 14,500 Crores which was released later.
Defence budget is always pegged at %age of GDP. Our GDP has been doing pretty badly since 3-4 years or so. Covid only came in as an additional blow, further straining government budgets. So there is little doubt that finances are strained. But then defence is far too important to be curtailed with enemy at the gates and I'd hope that govt finds ways to make reqd. procurements. There is a lot of money sloshing around in the capital markets in India; Indeed stock market/technology firms have seen huge foreign fund inflows inspite of slow economy. So fingers crossed, we will be able to find a creative ways out.
Barath
BRFite
Posts: 474
Joined: 11 Feb 2019 19:06

Re: Indian Missiles News & Discussions - 17 Dec 2018

Post by Barath »

Karan M wrote:Bharath, I read it differently - if it was a failure they wouldn't be going for emergency purchase. The Spike also reportedly cleared trials later.
The point is that fixing issues later, and demonstrating later are all against the spirit of RFP which is supposed to assure a level playing field and predictable rules.

The point I was making is the *number* of tubes/launchers purchased in emergency purchase. Good enough for trials, not for actual deployment/use. 12 Igla S VSHORAD is nothing. I don't think you need to come up with new doctrine etc using these 12; it's not like leasing a couple of drones. And of course, if everything had been fine with the trials before when the RFP concluded, one would assume that the Army would not need to go through trials post purchase (either of Spike or of Igla S). The IA could have then moved directly to try to get the entire purchase done via emergency needs (different category) under instead of just 12.

Also note - Igla-S was approved on single vendor basis back in 2004. (but the RFP was cancelled later).
Last edited by Barath on 18 Oct 2021 22:57, edited 4 times in total.
Barath
BRFite
Posts: 474
Joined: 11 Feb 2019 19:06

Re: Indian Missiles News & Discussions - 17 Dec 2018

Post by Barath »

YashG wrote:
Defence budget is always pegged at %age of GDP. Our GDP has been doing pretty badly since 3-4 years or
Salaries and Pensions (and OROP) have hurt the capital budget even more. Indian Army is now the most numerous in the world. That is not a good thing. You need to free money up for modernization, too.

https://www.idsa.in/policybrief/defence ... -uk-230420 Had a couple of suggestions - including the flexibility and schemes to have more soldiers retire without a pension (but with other compensation). And better accounting and distribution. To this I would add downsizing. And not just the tinkering which is being done with the movement to IBG. Heck, just addressing Kashmir issue would free up hundreds of thousands.
John
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3447
Joined: 03 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: Indian Missiles News & Discussions - 17 Dec 2018

Post by John »

Nothing really changed with Igla-s the main issue was it was more prone to decoy as it has only two channels, Verba addresses it to some extent by adding a third channel so it can cross check between them to identify targets and ignore decoys.
Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 20773
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Indian Missiles News & Discussions - 17 Dec 2018

Post by Karan M »

Barath wrote:
Karan M wrote:Bharath, I read it differently - if it was a failure they wouldn't be going for emergency purchase. The Spike also reportedly cleared trials later.
The point is that fixing issues later, and demonstrating later are all against the spirit of RFP which is supposed to assure a level playing field and predictable rules.


With a billion $ difference in pricing, spirit or no spirit, things will happen. We needed the SAMs.

The point I was making is the *number* of tubes/launchers purchased in emergency purchase. Good enough for trials, not for actual deployment/use. 12 Igla S VSHORAD is nothing. I don't think you need to come up with new doctrine etc using these 12; it's not like leasing a couple of drones. And of course, if everything had been fine with the trials before when the RFP concluded, one would assume that the Army would not need to go through trials post purchase (either of Spike or of Igla S). The IA could have then moved directly to try to get the entire purchase done via emergency needs (different category) under instead of just 12.
We don't have any firm details on the number of IGLAS purchased under emergency purchase do we?
Also note - Igla-S was approved on single vendor basis back in 2004. (but the RFP was cancelled later).
Precisely I suspect the other two were around to keep the tender going even though IA knew they were likely unaffordable.
Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 20773
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Indian Missiles News & Discussions - 17 Dec 2018

Post by Karan M »

Barath wrote:
YashG wrote:
Defence budget is always pegged at %age of GDP. Our GDP has been doing pretty badly since 3-4 years or
Salaries and Pensions (and OROP) have hurt the capital budget even more. Indian Army is now the most numerous in the world. That is not a good thing. You need to free money up for modernization, too.

https://www.idsa.in/policybrief/defence ... -uk-230420 Had a couple of suggestions - including the flexibility and schemes to have more soldiers retire without a pension (but with other compensation). And better accounting and distribution. To this I would add downsizing. And not just the tinkering which is being done with the movement to IBG. Heck, just addressing Kashmir issue would free up hundreds of thousands.
We cannot downsize easily because we can't lose territory. And China means infantry deployment. For maneuver you need to trade territory for flanking and then use firepower, with our population density we can't really give any territory to trade bar the deserts and nor can we afford to have it remain opponent hands at ceasefire. Ergo a large standing army to prevent territorial loss and to take the fight to the other side.
Barath
BRFite
Posts: 474
Joined: 11 Feb 2019 19:06

Re: Indian Missiles News & Discussions - 17 Dec 2018

Post by Barath »

Karan M wrote: We don't have any firm details on the number of IGLAS purchased under emergency purchase do we?


https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/ ... 984091.ece

Under the emergency route, the Army is looking to procure about 12 launchers and around 250 missiles for each system. Deliveries have to be completed in three months, but extendable to six months.


The emergency clause used had a financial expenditure cap of 300 crore expenditure at the time. So even if the above report is mistaken, you can't get a lot of Igla-S launchers.

To your other point on infantry patrols being necessary, yes but they aren't working very well now, are they ? (Eg incursion into barahoti, delayed discovery elsewhere..).infantry is susceptible to infiltration, but some of this goes beyond vanilla infiltration.

Freeing up manpower elsewhere would help (improve tooth to tail ratio. I already mentioned 1.7 lakh army just in Kashmir plus BSF/CRPF etc paramilitary to boot. Plus army elsewhere) , as well as using technology and infrastructure (sensors and drones) to act as force multipliers, aid in movement (roads, vehicles for patrol and reinforcement) and so on. For maneuver - mountains aren't great for maneuver, but roads help - and the altitudes of the LoAC are deserts in many places and thinly populated besides. Also air cavalry was an answer to vertical maneuver, (though limited in use at the actual LoAC as sensitive, they are viable for distances behind), they can be used for reinforcement. Similarly firepower. It's not an easy problem to solve (eg acclimatization takes time), but if you had the will, I believe you could get improvements.

Besides, these kind of changes cannot happen overnight. It takes strong will and clear vision and some actual prep and plan to go beyond an initial tinkering step or two.

This is getting a bit off track for missiles thread, so let me stop here.
Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 20773
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Indian Missiles News & Discussions - 17 Dec 2018

Post by Karan M »

Barath wrote:
Karan M wrote: We don't have any firm details on the number of IGLAS purchased under emergency purchase do we?


https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/ ... 984091.ece

Under the emergency route, the Army is looking to procure about 12 launchers and around 250 missiles for each system. Deliveries have to be completed in three months, but extendable to six months.

The emergency clause used had a financial expenditure cap of 300 crore expenditure at the time. So even if the above report is mistaken, you can't get a lot of Igla-S launchers.


You can strike multiple deals. Each deal in itself is subject to the 300 Crore cap.

But the report itself is dubious. I sincerely doubt we are buying 250 missiles per launcher. Its more likely we sought to procure 250 missiles and 12 launchers. You aren't going to get 3000 missiles for Rs300 Crore either.

Right now given the pressing need, we'd be deploying whatever we purchase to the frontline troops, not using it for trials etc. And what we trial in the NE wouldn't address any issues with its performance in the Thar area anyhow.
To your other point on infantry patrols being necessary, yes but they aren't working very well now, are they ? (Eg incursion into barahoti, delayed discovery elsewhere..).infantry is susceptible to infiltration, but some of this goes beyond vanilla infiltration.
You aren't getting the point I was seeking to make. We are talking wartime. Not peacetime. In peacetime this is why salami slicing is attempted. Because in wartime or at alert status, there are are multiple pickets, troop outposts everywhere holding the line while (pivot), while the strike formations get ready to go deeper into enemy territory.

This is why manpower isn't easily available to give up. No politician can end a conflict due to escalation with territory in opponent hands. Ergo the talk of agile armies while attractive, is not going to fly in the Indian context. Never mind mountain Warfare eats up troops. But even against Pakistan the political operative to not lose territory matters. The military's mandate to cross deep into the OpFor and "win" is lost due to nukes though we do train for it. We currently plan for shallow incursions and territory grab, attrition on opponent. Can't afford to lose our own territory in the bargain.
Freeing up manpower elsewhere would help (improve tooth to tail ratio. I already mentioned 1.7 lakh army just in Kashmir plus BSF/CRPF etc paramilitary to boot. Plus army elsewhere) , as well as using technology and infrastructure (sensors and drones) to act as force multipliers, aid in movement (roads, vehicles for patrol and reinforcement) and so on. For maneuver - mountains aren't great for maneuver, but roads help - and the altitudes of the LoAC are deserts in many places and thinly populated besides. Also air cavalry was an answer to vertical maneuver, (though limited in use at the actual LoAC as sensitive, they are viable for distances behind), they can be used for reinforcement. Similarly firepower. It's not an easy problem to solve (eg acclimatization takes time), but if you had the will, I believe you could get improvements.
The basic issue is what I've already written above. We simply cannot and will not risk drastic changes in force reduction for the fear of losing territory. The Army in Kashmir is not just sitting there for COIN, it has an offensive role too. We can't just reduce formations there or elsewhere. We need boots on the ground for things like road opening parties, 24/7 area domination etc. All in all, the chances of taking risks to risk loss of territory/ space for maneuver /assault are very less in our milieu.
Besides, these kind of changes cannot happen overnight. It takes strong will and clear vision and some actual prep and plan to go beyond an initial tinkering step or two.

This is getting a bit off track for missiles thread, so let me stop here.
There is very little chance of India being able to reduce manpower to pay for technology, in the short term. In fact, we are planning for 10K more ITBP, and we may even raise more IA divisions if IA insists on it.

Overall, we just have to figure out a way to pay for our modernisation without counting on any massive reduction in manpower in the short term.
Barath
BRFite
Posts: 474
Joined: 11 Feb 2019 19:06

Re: Indian Missiles News & Discussions - 17 Dec 2018

Post by Barath »

<Duplicate Deleted>
Last edited by Barath on 19 Oct 2021 14:39, edited 2 times in total.
Barath
BRFite
Posts: 474
Joined: 11 Feb 2019 19:06

Re: Indian Missiles News & Discussions - 17 Dec 2018

Post by Barath »

Karan M wrote: You can strike multiple deals. Each deal in itself is subject to the 300 Crore cap.

But the report itself is dubious. I sincerely doubt we are buying 250 missiles per launcher. Its more likely we sought to procure 250 missiles and 12 launchers. You aren't going to get 3000 missiles for Rs300 Crore either.
No. I read that report as saying 250 missile total for Vshorad and 12 launchers total for Vshorad . And ditto for Spike. (Spike and Igla-S being the two systems involved. This each system). That's why I was saying this is most appropriate for post RFP trials.

And there are no reports of subsequent/repeat deals (there are for other things like Russian ATGM by iaf).

The 2010 RFP was 800 launchers and 5,500 to 6,000 missiles and it is still pending. Repeat emergency orders to procure 3000 missiles is nonsensical and gaming of DPP like that would be pulled up by CAG even if you managed to break up the RFP and spam such orders.
Karan M wrote: You aren't getting the point I was seeking to make. We are talking wartime.
Even more important for wartime. You just assumed these things are only good for peacetime ? Or somehow only short term ?

If IA are content to sit back conservatively without seeking for change, there will be no real impetus for change. If the entire idea is lets do the same thing and just plug in whatever acquisition as bolt on and trust that the GoI will give us money ... sure.

If the idea is that more aggressive restructuring, use of technology, infrastructure etc could result in better capabilities - out of 10, 4 will fail even concept, 3 will fail more calculations, 2 may make it to trial and 1 to wider deployment of which 1 or even 0 may actually reduce force. But IA also start your organization thinking differently on doctrine and operations. The default for decades has been to throw manpower and bolt on acquisition at it (+ IBG now). And China will outdo IA on modernization, infrastructure, equipment and so on. and catch up on acclimatization etc.

Eh. Going off track and likely into rant mode. I'm going to stop here. Agree to Disagree.
VinodTK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2982
Joined: 18 Jun 2000 11:31

Re: Indian Missiles News & Discussions - 17 Dec 2018

Post by VinodTK »



DRDO Successfully Test-Fires Abhyas High Speed Expendable Target Missile
Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 20773
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Indian Missiles News & Discussions - 17 Dec 2018

Post by Karan M »

Barath wrote: You can strike multiple deals. Each deal in itself is subject to the 300 Crore cap.

But the report itself is dubious. I sincerely doubt we are buying 250 missiles per launcher. Its more likely we sought to procure 250 missiles and 12 launchers. You aren't going to get 3000 missiles for Rs300 Crore either.
No. I read that report as saying 250 missile total for Vshorad and 12 launchers total for Vshorad . And ditto for Spike. (Spike and Igla-S being the two systems involved. This each system). That's why I was saying this is most appropriate for post RFP trials.

And there are no reports of subsequent/repeat deals (there are for other things like Russian ATGM by iaf).
Really? You quoted this.
Barath wrote:Under the emergency route, the Army is looking to procure about 12 launchers and around 250 missiles for each system.


And chose to bold that specific portion. So now, you are concurring with me, that it's 250 missiles for 12 launchers. OK.

Let's address the other point then since that's done and dusted. If we were planning post RFP trials as you surmise then we wouldn't be rushing to sign a new deal by Jan.

It just doesn't add up. If you do post RFP trials, you'd wait and if the results were sub-optimal, you'd give yourself more time to launch a new tender, and not negotiate a mega deal for the system you are in the process of trialing. For better or worse it does seem Igla has been already selected. The 250 missile deal was just to rush the capability into service, not wait for it to be tested etc. I'd actually prefer your method as I am somewhat skeptical of the Igla-S and think our procurement system is broken that we couldn't drop the Igla-S and introduce the Verba instead, but it doesn't seem to be the way it's happening.

Second, there won't be reports of all deals in the press. At best we get some leaks etc. We have to extrapolate from multiple sources but the actual data is only with the MOD, services, vendor agencies. We ordered Rs 20,076 Crores worth of items from various sources. Do we have a detailed breakdown of what's included, line by line? Is it even in public domain?
https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-ne ... 6-amp.html
The 2010 RFP was 800 launchers and 5,500 to 6,000 missiles and it is still pending. Repeat emergency orders to procure 3000 missiles is nonsensical and gaming of DPP like that would be pulled up by CAG even if you managed to break up the RFP and spam such orders.
This is your assumption I am afraid that the AF would do something as nonsensical as this or that anyone even said that they would do so. Can you point out where I have said that they are repeating emergency orders to acquire 3000 missiles? I pointed out that you can however acquire amounts beyond 250, using repeat orders if the GOI approves it because the main deal is stuck. In case you are unaware we have already done it for several other items in the IA, IAF.

Adds to existing stocks, no CAG audit or complaints of repeat orders.

https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/spice-2 ... ai-rum=off

IAF signs a deal for Aks pending the main deal coming through, so a new deal this time, not some option.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.aninew ... 04%3famp=1

Spike repeat order pending MPATGM decision
https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/ ... 7.ece/amp/

At the end of the day its up to the GOIs discretion, and the services choice. The limit has even been extended to Rs 500Cr for revenue procurement and Rs 200Cr for new items ie Capex.

https://theprint.in/defence/rajnath-sin ... 626/%3famp
A second source said there has been a greater emphasis on spending to enable modernisation, especially in cases that can be dealt directly by the service headquarters and the commands.

There are certain projects that take their own time because they are larger expenditure and go through a process… the three services have been encouraged to spend as much as they need from through their financial powers,” the second source said.
In short, if its a large procurement put it through the process, but for smaller amounts use the shortcut as necessary. And as the above examples show the AF have used repeat orders when the large procurement deal is stuck.
The government has since taken a number of steps this year to decentralise the financial powers given to the forces. On 17 February, it approved enhanced financial powers of up to Rs 200 crore for senior officers of the three services to make capital procurement.

This was the first time that regular financial powers, as opposed to special financial powers, devolved below the office of the vice-chief for capital procurement, which deals with buying of new equipment.

Earlier this month, the defence ministry also approved expansion of financial powers to the armed forces for revenue procurement so that the process of making purchases for operational preparedness could be hastened up.
In short, the GOI can clear a couple more Igla procurements if the main deal remains stuck. Obviously, the GOI won't have it at the 3000 level, but it could be significantly more than the current numbers.


Even more important for wartime. You just assumed these things are only good for peacetime ? Or somehow only short term ?


Since you can't seem to understand the point being made, let me make it even more straightforward. At wartime, most of the concerns you raised will be addressed by forward deployment, and the existing force structure, ergo there is no huge impetus for change. If you were less focused on snark, you'd realize that I was actually one of those who wanted the above model to be changed but I have also understood there are systemic issues with how we regard conflict that prevent the IA from doing so.
If IA are content to sit back conservatively without seeking for change, there will be no real impetus for change. If the entire idea is lets do the same thing and just plug in whatever acquisition as bolt on and trust that the GoI will give us money ... sure.

If the idea is that more aggressive restructuring, use of technology, infrastructure etc could result in better capabilities - out of 10, 4 will fail even concept, 3 will fail more calculations, 2 may make it to trial and 1 to wider deployment of which 1 or even 0 may actually reduce force. But IA also start your organization thinking differently on doctrine and operations. The default for decades has been to throw manpower and bolt on acquisition at it (+ IBG now). And China will outdo IA on modernization, infrastructure, equipment and so on. and catch up on acclimatization etc.

Eh. Going off track and likely into rant mode. I'm going to stop here. Agree to Disagree.
In mountains, the PLAs aggressive mechanisation has limited gains and they too will be forced to reconsider their ORBAT at a certain point. Plus, the political mandate to take more risks needs to be given, and the funding to aggressively change from a lower risk, conservative deployment structure to one which is as you want. Then asking for it to change is OK. Otherwise, it's unlikely to happen. That's the fundamental point I was alluding to.
Ashokk
BRFite
Posts: 1118
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Missiles News & Discussions - 17 Dec 2018

Post by Ashokk »

Fresh NOTAM for 27 - 28 October 2021
#Areawarning #India issues a notification for the launch of an experimental flight vehicle over the #Bayofbengal
Image
Barath
BRFite
Posts: 474
Joined: 11 Feb 2019 19:06

Re: Indian Missiles News & Discussions - 17 Dec 2018

Post by Barath »

Karan M wrote:. So now, you are concurring with me, that it's 250 missiles for 12 launchers. OK.
Not *now* - always. The natural reading since day of the report is that the army procured a limited number of missiles after RFP selection. That through an emergency basis. Why ?

Will 250 missiles and 12 launchers materially affect the defence of the country ? These are V-shorad, in effect, MANPADS.

Is there such a critical target that 12 launchers and 250 missiles makes such a material difference ? Or did the army make virtue of the RFP selection and jump at a chance with an emergency procurement and see for themselves what they presumably had been told. (assuming the Russians talked about issues being fixed etc to avoid getting chucked out of the RFP).

[Yes, your theory is that there were additional purchases which were not publicized ; it's possible. But for moment let's assume that this is the only/main purchase]
Karan M wrote:.. If we were planning post RFP trials as you surmise then we wouldn't be rushing to sign a new deal by Jan.


Karan - look at the dates. The emergency contract is in April 2019. On a clause that ensures deliveries must be completed in 3 months. ie. By July 2019. Even if you extend it to 6 months, the deliveries are over by Q2/Q3 2019, the army has likely tried it out since informally or formally and got results back/feedback. Heck , you could even have passed it on to the any critical areas that needed it afterwards.
Karan M wrote:. It just doesn't add up. If you do post RFP trials, you'd wait and if the results were sub-optimal, you'd give yourself more time to launch a new tender, and not negotiate a mega deal for the system you are in the process of trialing. For better or worse it does seem Igla has been already selected. The 250 missile deal was just to rush the capability into service, not wait for it to be tested etc. I'd actually prefer your method as I am somewhat skeptical of the Igla-S and think our procurement system is broken that we couldn't drop the Igla-S and introduce the Verba instead, but it doesn't seem to be the way it's happening.
Remember - Emergency procurement was done at a much lower level of authorization - by service chief.

In 2019, before Ladakh crisis, but after RFP selection done with many other stakeholders involved. A new tender would be a very big process, especially since it means you have to scrap the old tender. Having results in hand about continued issues would help. (though a face saving public rationale could be concocted) . Or since it was already selected and the processes, the Army wanted to make sure that they were ok with it. Or even, if you had such a critical target (hypothetical - New Delhi area around PM office, you could pass it on after trying it out)
https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-ne ... 6-amp.html

This is your assumption I am afraid that the AF would do something as nonsensical as this or that anyone even said that they would do so. Can you point out where I have said that they are repeating emergency orders to acquire 3000 missiles?
Actually, this is never my assumption at all ... You had read that as 250 missiles for each launcher = 3000, before going on to debunk it and I was giving a different piece of logic than yours as to why that reading/interpretation was nonsense. Forget it as irrelevant sideshow.

I pointed out that you can however acquire amounts beyond 250, using repeat orders if the GOI approves it because the main deal is stuck. In case you are unaware we have already done it for several other items in the IA, IAF.
However this is usually not in situation of having already had a RFP concluded with selection, a lower price quote and so on. And even if you do, numbers won't be comparable to RFP numbers - at that point it would be easier to expedite the RFP order instead.

I grant you that it is possible that there were additional repeat orders, (and the logic of using post rfp try outs would be hit), but Spike also was in a similar situation and shown to be successful later IIRC. So maybe I am wrong, but maybe I am right

If you think there were sufficient repeat orders to cover 'all the critical areas', then maybe drop the RFP and go for Verba.

Like you, I am not very comfortable with Igla-S and think our procurement system is broken.

I understand that dropping the Igla for Verba woul have had repercussions, but can't help hoping it had been managed.

My hope is that after conclusion of the IglaS negotiations, there would be an offer to upgrade to Verba, that hopefully will not be too expensive or draw objections. The alternative is to abandon and re-start the process (shudder) , or live with Igla-S (in which case, anything that shows it in a better light than the RFP trial failures would be good news)

It's just that the processes of RFP and procurement, are distasteful in this example. Thus my reading (hopeful) of subversion of these processes to better effect

If you were less focused on snark,
I was painstakingly in not having snark. And continually getting misinterpreted. I think I'm not going to discuss much more right now. It's wearying to have all discussions go sideways. Even when there is so much commonality.
Plus, the political mandate to take more risks needs to be given, and the funding to aggressively change from a lower risk, conservative deployment structure to one which is as you want. Then asking for it to change is OK. Otherwise, it's unlikely to happen. That's the fundamental point I was alluding to.
Acknowledge. I think you are describing the situation rather than advocating.


BTW, immediately after my point on better leveraging technology, infrastructure, firepower, etc was this report several days ago.

https://theprint.in/defence/army-bets-o ... na/752788/

In other words this is already happening to an extent. Tech, infra, etc as substitute for more troops. Calling for it to be taken further - less troops and more of these other force multipliers is a logical point of view.

One can identify individual initiatives try it out and then move forward in calibrated fashion. What it needs is a mindset change - that the conservative approach of asking for more may lead into issues. (resources especially money, force etc). If you have the will, and the discipline to look for alternatives, you may find them (and then you can choose). If you don't, you assuredly won't

Funding increases overall are not that unpredictable , and reducing manpower frees up funding in the long run as does re-allocating manpower for more effectiveness and force.
Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 20773
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Indian Missiles News & Discussions - 17 Dec 2018

Post by Karan M »

Barath wrote:Not *now* - always. The natural reading since day of the report is that the army procured a limited number of missiles after RFP selection. That through an emergency basis. Why ?

Will 250 missiles and 12 launchers materially affect the defence of the country ? These are V-shorad, in effect, MANPADS.

Is there such a critical target that 12 launchers and 250 missiles makes such a material difference ? Or did the army make virtue of the RFP selection and jump at a chance with an emergency procurement and see for themselves what they presumably had been told. (assuming the Russians talked about issues being fixed etc to avoid getting chucked out of the RFP).

[Yes, your theory is that there were additional purchases which were not publicized ; it's possible. But for moment let's assume that this is the only/main purchase]
The issue IMO is very simple - we have glaring gaps in our defence preparedness and V-SHORADS are one of them. Igla stocks are old, and despite BDL maintenance/refurbishment (as I recall), we have many troops sitting on/in the heights, crags and valleys without adequate protection against PLA/PLAAF drones, choppers and fixed wing aircraft if they operate at low level, and manage to avoid our radar grid (line of sight restrictions).
Each of these launchers will be rushed into service, these were originally flagged as far back as post Pulwama, though the requirement exists from earlier.

https://www.ajaishukla.com/2019/04/afte ... turns.html
India’s emergency requests on Russia include launchers and missiles for the Igla-S “very short range air defence system” (VSHORADS), rockets for SMERCH multi-barrel, surface-to-surface rocket launchers and Mango armour-piercing ammunition for India’s fleet of T-90 tanks, say sources in New Delhi and Moscow.
However, with the Igla-S now meeting emergency Indian requirements, the larger VSHORADS tender seems settled in ROE’s favour.
Moscow is obtaining further goodwill by offering to refurbish the army’s obsolescent Igla-M launchers to enable them to launch the far more capable Igla-S missiles.
Do remember we deployed OSA-AKM to Ladakh. This is how stretched our eqpt resources are at a budgetary level. Things will improve only as more Akash, MRSAM come in, but right now we need every squadron, every flight, every piece of eqpt.
Karan M wrote:.. If we were planning post RFP trials as you surmise then we wouldn't be rushing to sign a new deal by Jan.

Karan - look at the dates. The emergency contract is in April 2019. On a clause that ensures deliveries must be completed in 3 months. ie. By July 2019. Even if you extend it to 6 months, the deliveries are over by Q2/Q3 2019, the army has likely tried it out since informally or formally and got results back/feedback. Heck , you could even have passed it on to the any critical areas that needed it afterwards.
I suspect CAATSA and other factors were a problem for us in signing stuff with Russia. Plus here you are yourself surmising that there could be more deals than the primary one. Its really hard to pin down. For instance, here during Rajnath Singhs visit in June 2020.

https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/ne ... s?from=mdr
It is learnt that India has requested in particular for Igla S anti air missiles, assault rifles and ammunition for various Russian origin systems – things that would be needed if the border conflict with China is extended over the coming weeks.
These could be the original deal items, or an entirely new entry by themselves.
Remember - Emergency procurement was done at a much lower level of authorization - by service chief.

In 2019, before Ladakh crisis, but after RFP selection done with many other stakeholders involved. A new tender would be a very big process, especially since it means you have to scrap the old tender. Having results in hand about continued issues would help. (though a face saving public rationale could be concocted) . Or since it was already selected and the processes, the Army wanted to make sure that they were ok with it. Or even, if you had such a critical target (hypothetical - New Delhi area around PM office, you could pass it on after trying it out)
https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-ne ... 6-amp.html
Yes, I posted this link before, but more to point out the fact we simply dont know what all was included in the extra amount. Its not service chiefs who signed off on the procurement, but at Vice Chief level, but sort of irrelevant to the debate at hand.

Regarding the tender cancellation - that's a fair point, but to be honest the original issue remains, you simply don't test after procuring something, you test before its procured. And even if we did test a few rounds, you don't buy 250 missiles to "test". You buy them to rush them into service. I'd have bought into the test argument more if we had procured something like a couple dozen missiles. 250 by our standards is a significant number.
This is your assumption I am afraid that the AF would do something as nonsensical as this or that anyone even said that they would do so. Can you point out where I have said that they are repeating emergency orders to acquire 3000 missiles?
Actually, this is never my assumption at all ... You had read that as 250 missiles for each launcher = 3000, before going on to debunk it and I was giving a different piece of logic than yours as to why that reading/interpretation was nonsense. Forget it as irrelevant sideshow.
No, actually that was what the author wrote. It was not *my* interpretation. He clearly mentioned each system was to have that many missiles! So look towards that primary source.

I pointed out that you can however acquire amounts beyond 250, using repeat orders if the GOI approves it because the main deal is stuck. In case you are unaware we have already done it for several other items in the IA, IAF.

barath wrote:However this is usually not in situation of having already had a RFP concluded with selection, a lower price quote and so on. And even if you do, numbers won't be comparable to RFP numbers - at that point it would be easier to expedite the RFP order instead.

I grant you that it is possible that there were additional repeat orders, (and the logic of using post rfp try outs would be hit), but Spike also was in a similar situation and shown to be successful later IIRC. So maybe I am wrong, but maybe I am right
The additional repeat orders point is actually exactly what was done with the Spike which was my point. We've done the same in multiple cases. There is nothing which says we cant and wont test an item before ordering more of it. But this is done for batch-wise orders (piecemeal) not one where a mass induction is to be done via RFP and at best we'd test a few of the original batch. In the case of the Spike, the main deal was cancelled. So we have ordered it twice (confirmed). We've ordered multiple Spice as well.

But here you have a huge order already on the verge of being signed.

What the above means is the RFP process validated the particular product, and you are taking more of it, because the main deal is going too slow. Obviously, the key issue here is budgetary, with a very tight budget, you have to minimize the extra orders so you don't overspend on excess capacity.
If you think there were sufficient repeat orders to cover 'all the critical areas', then maybe drop the RFP and go for Verba.

Like you, I am not very comfortable with Igla-S and think our procurement system is broken.
The whole issue is the procurement system does not allow for a re-tender which will go quickly and fast. The services clearly felt they'd rather stick with the Igla (which was what they could afford) with its warts and all, as versus re-launching the process to get a superior system in.

I do hope though you are right, and they did test it and found it ok. One hopes so.

Even otherwise the existing process is a broken, stupid process. Designed to protect the evaluators from allegations of favoritism and corruption by preventing the introduction of a new system into the trials, as versus outcome (getting India the best bang for the buck).
I understand that dropping the Igla for Verba woul have had repercussions, but can't help hoping it had been managed.
The process simply does not allow for it.
My hope is that after conclusion of the IglaS negotiations, there would be an offer to upgrade to Verba, that hopefully will not be too expensive or draw objections. The alternative is to abandon and re-start the process (shudder) , or live with Igla-S (in which case, anything that shows it in a better light than the RFP trial failures would be good news)
I don't think its a drop in upgrade AFAIK. Its a new missile, new launcher, new test equipment. All we can hope is the Igla-S issues were fixed.
It's just that the processes of RFP and procurement, are distasteful in this example. Thus my reading (hopeful) of subversion of these processes to better effect
They aren't subverted, they are extremely rigid and run contrary to the outcome of having the best technologically capable system.
If you were less focused on snark,
I was painstakingly in not having snark. And continually getting misinterpreted. I think I'm not going to discuss much more right now. It's wearying to have all discussions go sideways. Even when there is so much commonality.
Fair enough.
Plus, the political mandate to take more risks needs to be given, and the funding to aggressively change from a lower risk, conservative deployment structure to one which is as you want. Then asking for it to change is OK. Otherwise, it's unlikely to happen. That's the fundamental point I was alluding to.
Acknowledge. I think you are describing the situation rather than advocating.
Precisely. I was and am one of those who want a less manpower heavy Army with a heavy reliance on firepower and technology. However given our political, geographical and other constraints, I have come to the conclusion its not going to happen.

To which point, my question is now -what can we do to add tech and firepower to the IA wherever possible? To my understanding, we have reached a point which can only be addressed by adding more funds.
BTW, immediately after my point on better leveraging technology, infrastructure, firepower, etc was this report several days ago.

https://theprint.in/defence/army-bets-o ... na/752788/

In other words this is already happening to an extent. Tech, infra, etc as substitute for more troops. Calling for it to be taken further - less troops and more of these other force multipliers is a logical point of view.
Yes, I read this, but its a feel good report which doesn't address the fact that we are still manpower heavy in the sectors and we will continue to be (mountains need troops). The tech they are mentioning above is part of the standard TOE that would anyhow be part and parcel of a modern IA. However, what we would ideally want is far more tech and firepower than the above report addresses.
One can identify individual initiatives try it out and then move forward in calibrated fashion. What it needs is a mindset change - that the conservative approach of asking for more may lead into issues. (resources especially money, force etc). If you have the will, and the discipline to look for alternatives, you may find them (and then you can choose). If you don't, you assuredly won't

Funding increases overall are not that unpredictable , and reducing manpower frees up funding in the long run as does re-allocating manpower for more effectiveness and force.
We raided our WWR to raise the new mountain strike corps. Hopefully the focus on WWR later, reduced that to an extent. Problem is not just the mindset - issue is we can't de-induct troops *and* we need technology. So the resources have been allocated over the past seven years, in a staggered fashion. But they are limited - which is why we are still behind vs our own plans on things like tube arty numbers, CIWS, soldier upgrades etc.

Part of it has been MODs inefficiency too. Reforming OFB was something which needed to be done years ago, but at least its somewhat done now and being a DPSU they will have to compete with pvt sector and cant hold the AF hostage anymore.
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18274
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Indian Missiles News & Discussions - 17 Dec 2018

Post by Rakesh »

https://twitter.com/TheWolfpackIN/statu ... 58578?s=20 ---> Agni-V ICBM successfully test fired.

https://twitter.com/VishnuNDTV/status/1 ... 57827?s=20 ----> AGNI 5 BALLISTIC MISSILE WITH A RANGE OF 5000 KMS SUCCESSFULLY TEST FIRED.

https://twitter.com/manupubby/status/14 ... 10567?s=20 ---> India conducts a successful test of its nuclear capable Agni 5 missile today. The surface to surface ballistic missile has a range of over 5,000 km, India’s longest range strategic missile.

https://twitter.com/livefist/status/145 ... 03432?s=20 ---> BREAKING: India tests Agni-V nuclear capable ballistic missile. The 5,000 km range missile was launched at 7.50pm from the east coast. (File photo).

Image
dkhare
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 79
Joined: 10 Feb 2009 03:30

Re: Indian Missiles News & Discussions - 17 Dec 2018

Post by dkhare »

Jai Hind!
RKumar

Re: Indian Missiles News & Discussions - 17 Dec 2018

Post by RKumar »

Jai hind!
Varoon Shekhar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2178
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 23:26

Re: Indian Missiles News & Discussions - 17 Dec 2018

Post by Varoon Shekhar »

Congrats to DRDO! Now waiting for a possible announcement that this test had a MIRV with 6-8,( or4-6) payloads released. Of course, even if it didn't, it's still a very good and timely launch.
morem
BRFite
Posts: 227
Joined: 26 Jul 2009 15:52

Re: Indian Missiles News & Discussions - 17 Dec 2018

Post by morem »

over 5000 KM , wink wink
kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6278
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: Indian Missiles News & Discussions - 17 Dec 2018

Post by kit »

wonder if it was this one they tested ?!

In May 2012, reports confirmed the development of another ICBM in the Agni series, a three-stage Agni VI missile. It was purposed that the missile will be developed in 2014 or so and will have an even longer range, up to 8,000 km to 10,000 km. The Agni VI will be sleeker than the Agni-V and capable of carrying at least 10 nuclear warheads, capable of targeting multiple targets at the same time. In January 2013, DRDO chief V K Saraswat said that after the development of Agni V, DRDO will develop Agni VI which will have Multiple Independently Targetable Re-entry Vehicle (MIRV) capability. He said that the missile design has been completed and DRDO is in the hardware realisation phase. In September 2013, DRDO chief said that India can achieve a missile with a range of 10,000 km within "two and a half years", adding that increasing the range of a missile is the least challenging task.
kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6278
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: Indian Missiles News & Discussions - 17 Dec 2018

Post by kit »

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 25087
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Indian Missiles News & Discussions - 17 Dec 2018

Post by SSridhar »

Is INS Dhruv already somewhere?
Prem Kumar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4218
Joined: 31 Mar 2009 00:10

Re: Indian Missiles News & Discussions - 17 Dec 2018

Post by Prem Kumar »

The NOTAM warning was for an "experimental vehicle" - interesting. Though, considering this was an induction trial, I doubt if MIRVs were tested.

Like the way this test happened: no leaks, no fuss
kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6278
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: Indian Missiles News & Discussions - 17 Dec 2018

Post by kit »

I think whoever had to get the message must have got it !!

Saying a lot by not saying it has become something of a fashion with DRDO ! Doers rather than sayers.
Vips
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4699
Joined: 14 Apr 2017 18:23

Re: Indian Missiles News & Discussions - 17 Dec 2018

Post by Vips »

Wow for a change a missile test did take place after its scheduling.

I hope with all earnestness it was a MIRV test or we are being chanakian in not disclosing the full details about it and if it is neither then a big yawn.
ArjunPandit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4056
Joined: 29 Mar 2017 06:37

Re: Indian Missiles News & Discussions - 17 Dec 2018

Post by ArjunPandit »

Usa analyses noko tests and it's trajectory quite well... Do they also do it with India and keep quite or they don't consider it worth doing it for Indian missiles
williams
BRFite
Posts: 875
Joined: 21 Jun 2006 20:55

Re: Indian Missiles News & Discussions - 17 Dec 2018

Post by williams »

It was an operational night test from whatever I can glean from the DDM titbits. But our DM tweets a daytime picture of the launch here:

https://twitter.com/DefenceMinIndia/sta ... 75424?s=20

TOI proudly proclaims that we will test a MIRV in two years. I am as confused as the DDM reporter who is reporting it :rotfl: If you are giving a message to China shouldn't it be more TFTA than this?
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Missiles News & Discussions - 17 Dec 2018

Post by ramana »

williams wrote:It was an operational night test from whatever I can glean from the DDM titbits. But our DM tweets a daytime picture of the launch here:

https://twitter.com/DefenceMinIndia/sta ... 75424?s=20

TOI proudly proclaims that we will test a MIRV in two years. I am as confused as the DDM reporter who is reporting it :rotfl: If you are giving a message to China shouldn't it be more TFTA than this?

This is scarier as it's an operational test. A MIRV would be operational in the future.
For authoritarian regimes, deterrence is when the leaders are held accountable.

So don't worry.
Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 20773
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Indian Missiles News & Discussions - 17 Dec 2018

Post by Karan M »

williams wrote:It was an operational night test from whatever I can glean from the DDM titbits. But our DM tweets a daytime picture of the launch here:

https://twitter.com/DefenceMinIndia/sta ... 75424?s=20

TOI proudly proclaims that we will test a MIRV in two years. I am as confused as the DDM reporter who is reporting it :rotfl: If you are giving a message to China shouldn't it be more TFTA than this?
Why would the DDM reporter know the exact status of the MIRV? He knows what he has been told.
Prem Kumar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4218
Joined: 31 Mar 2009 00:10

Re: Indian Missiles News & Discussions - 17 Dec 2018

Post by Prem Kumar »

The important things are:

1) Its from a user-batch and tested by the SFC. It means induction has already happened and the missile is robust
2) Night time test
3) Tested to full range with repeated emphasis on high accuracy
4) Tested in operational configuration: canisterized, road mobile launcher
5) Done at a time when things are heating up again at the LAC

Regarding MIRV, after the last month leaks & counter-leaks, Rajat Pandit has been maintaining a stance of "MIRV in 2 years". Hemant Rout said we are MIRV ready.

I doubt this test was MIRV, considering that its a user test. But lets wait & see when MIRV test happens. I don't think its far off. The important thing with all these leaks is that the Indian public & foreign watchers are sensitized that MIRV is coming
Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 20773
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Indian Missiles News & Discussions - 17 Dec 2018

Post by Karan M »

Schrodingers MIRV. Let it remain as such.
Locked