Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 02 Nov 2011 21:13

India made significant progress recently in using Hydrogen source as fuel - for missile application.

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 02 Nov 2011 22:16

no names.

Craig Alpert · Post by **Craig Alpert** » 03 Nov 2011 01:25

Self-Delete

Apologies, wanted to comment on the UAV thread but somehow ended up posting it on this thread!

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 03 Nov 2011 01:56

Craig, Its a very different class of vehicles that is being talked about.

ramdas · Post by **ramdas** » 03 Nov 2011 04:16

Kanson,

Is this hydrogen breakthrough for cruise missiles or for ballistic missiles ? The USSR had developed solid rocket fuels with Aluminium hydride that were of much higher performance than conventional HTPB based propellants. Is our breakthrough something along such lines ?

P.S: If information is sensitive, keep it to yourself.

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 03 Nov 2011 13:14

geeth wrote:
tsarkar wrote
Something lobbed at 45 deg with baseline energy will reach faster than something lobbed at 22.5 deg, that will consume more energy it it has to cover the same distance.

May be you meant that at 45 Deg it reaches FARTHEST (not fastest). At 22.5 Deg, it will reach FASTER.

tsarkar wrote
I believe Shourya uses flex nozzles + gas control (similar to the Brahmos tipping mechanism) for imparting a depressed trajectory that consumes more energy than a pure ballistic flight path. Shourya doesnt have any lift generating surfaces.

Shourya uses flex nozzles to get a proper angle of attack, in order that its body produces the necessary lift. To prevent the body from heating up. the cylindrical body is rotated about its longitudinal axis.

I do not know if the missile uses the extreme limits of atmosphere to bounce back and forth (richochet) to be energy efficient and thus increase its range.

Thanks for correcting that glaring error, Geeth. From what I heard, it can be deployed ballistically as well as in a depressed trajectory mode. And range in the ballistic mode is higher than the depressed trajectory mode.

Brahmos - Anti Ship - Target data gathered via Tu142/Il38/Do228/Ka31/Seaking/Heron/Searcher radars and sent via datalink to Brahmos FCS. Missile is launched in a lo-hi-lo profile and before it descends, briefly switches its radar to do a sector search. This will give a delta distance of target movement from initial detection/tracking to current position. Thereafter during final homing, radar is finally switched on. Details here http://granit.air.spb.ru/products/complex/yahont_head/

Land Attack - Missile radar operates in SAR mode, initial cueing using satellite/Elta SAR Pod/UAV radar data. Since land targets are fixed, they are not time sensetive like sea targets. On launch, it executes waypoints, using INS refreshed by GPS. On final approach, radar is switched on and operates in SAR mode picking up target radar image. It does not use GPS for terminal homing and it does not have a datalink. GPS is used for the INS that takes the missile to the general vicinity of the target where the radar can be used. IN in 1971 had fired Koral missiles on radar reflections of Keamari Oil Tanks at Karachi. Brahmos Block 2 & 3 refines this concept.

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 03 Nov 2011 13:35

Regarding http://www.hindu.com/op/2007/05/06/stor ... 021600.htm

Firstly, why is this expensive missile required? Because of special targets - like M9/11/Abdali etc launchers that can launch nuclear weapons at formations. One cannot have a 24x7 air cover, and those aircraft may be under threat of SAMs protecting M9/11s.

So when a UAV radar or an aircraft carrying Elta RTP detects a launcher, and sends back coordinates via datalink, then Brahmos offers fastest reaction time. Prithvi doesnt have that reaction time. Prahaar wasnt available then. Subsonic CM isnt as fast as a supersonic missile to take out such threats.

Some inaccuracies in that article, India doesnt have IIR seeker tech, Nag seeker is imported. Also 200 kg warhead isnt TNT, but RDX based and could be upgraded to ICL-20 http://tarmak007.blogspot.com/2010/12/i ... l-non.html

uddu · Post by **uddu** » 03 Nov 2011 18:22

^^^The answer can also be that the cost of aircraft, training, maintenance, weapons, success rate of delivery, systems that must coordinate a strike using aircraft like air cover, the time taken to implement that strike, the planning to execution stage etc all need to be considered and may not be as cheap as viewed from mere cost analysis of Brahmos cost Vs Bomb cost.
Second Nag got an indigenous seeker. (Latest development)

http://ibnlive.in.com/news/bdl-makes-co ... 0-121.html

HYDERABAD: The city-based Bharat Dynamics Ltd has productionised Imaging Infra Red Seekers (IIRS) for Nag, the third-generation anti-tank guided missile. The technology for IIRS was developed by the Defence Research and Development Organisation. IIRS is a very sophisticated system used for missile guidance. The first batch of IIRSs was handed over to P Venugopalan, director of DRDL, by BDL's CMD Maj Gen Ravi Khetarpal VSM (Retd), on Tuesday. These Seekers will be used for the forthcoming developmental trials of helicopter-launched Nag (Helina), another variant of the missile being developed by the DRDO.

Hope this will also bring down the cost of Nag and Helina missiles which can also be mass produced now.

Kersi D · Post by **Kersi D** » 03 Nov 2011 18:34

Narayana Rao wrote:I do not understand why Orissa need some 4 ports in private sector within a small area. There is not much things to export from Odissa except minarals. Is mining mafia preventing missile development efforts?

You bet

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 03 Nov 2011 18:57

^^ can one ever be up to date

This is good news. If the technology makes it to Astra AAM, then it will truly be a force multiplier.

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 03 Nov 2011 19:29

ramdas wrote:Kanson,

Is this hydrogen breakthrough for cruise missiles or for ballistic missiles ? The USSR had developed solid rocket fuels with Aluminium hydride that were of much higher performance than conventional HTPB based propellants. Is our breakthrough something along such lines ?

P.S: If information is sensitive, keep it to yourself.

I'm too expecting something on this front as NEWS, Ramdas. BTW, on this AlH3/ADN combo, you can find references of DRDO/ISRO showing interest in ADN among other propellants. Apart from AlH3, Nano Al + H2O is another route. There is more than one way to skin the rabbit, I guess.

Unrelated, some tidbits on Agni-5, I guess,

Pointing out that nano materials would also be used to develop long-range missiles, Mr Selvamurthy said that the DRDO will use nano technology to build a missile capable of travelling 5,000 kilometres.

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 03 Nov 2011 19:33

uddu wrote:^
Second Nag got an indigenous seeker. (Latest development)
http://ibnlive.in.com/news/bdl-makes-co ... 0-121.html

HYDERABAD: The city-based Bharat Dynamics Ltd has productionised Imaging Infra Red Seekers (IIRS) for Nag, the third-generation anti-tank guided missile. The technology for IIRS was developed by the Defence Research and Development Organisation. IIRS is a very sophisticated system used for missile guidance. The first batch of IIRSs was handed over to P Venugopalan, director of DRDL, by BDL's CMD Maj Gen Ravi Khetarpal VSM (Retd), on Tuesday. These Seekers will be used for the forthcoming developmental trials of helicopter-launched Nag (Helina), another variant of the missile being developed by the DRDO.

Hope this will also bring down the cost of Nag and Helina missiles which can also be mass produced now.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 03 Nov 2011 20:14

uddu wrote: Hope this will also bring down the cost of Nag and Helina missiles which can also be mass produced now.

Hope it is used and not rejected as not being as good as phoren. The IAF rejected a radar seeker for K-13 missiles in the 70s. The Chinese happily make their own seekers, copied or original and use them. Any mention of those Chinese things causes every Indian to instantly crap in his pants. On the other hand mention and Indian seeker/Indian hardware and Indians are ROTFL. Our attitudes are interesting, if pathetic.

uddu · Post by **uddu** » 03 Nov 2011 20:27

That's sarcasm mixed with some realism.
The changes of success are high today than it was earlier. But seems some people are making attempts to sideline the indigenous Nag and Helina systems by importing foreign stuff. Seems those attempts will not succeed and Nag and Helina along with the indigenous seeker be considered by the Indian Army and the MOD instead of imports. Here the demonstrated capability of Nag is something that's very much appreciated by many and also the Helina trials as reported by Chacko has been a grand success. Hope the same is repeated with the indigenous seeker when fired from the Helis. Bang. Bulls eye.
The time is also nearing for Akash-II trials. Any news on that?

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 03 Nov 2011 21:23

Shiv Ji,

It it can happen, it will happen. I always fear for home made weapons. In spite of the relative success of Akash.

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 03 Nov 2011 21:29

From what I am aware of, no such biases exist in the mind of the user. Only performance and reliability count.

What typically happens is that the government, to save H&D of R&D, comes up with half truths like "system has been successfully tested" meaning "we ran through the checklist of all testing activities", while not mentioning whether test results met the success criteria

Infact the services are extra lenient towards DRDO & DPSUs. Its only when the shortcomings are too extensive without any chance of rectification is when something is rejected.

http://www.cag.gov.in/html/reports/defe ... /chap2.pdf Page 54

The Navy, since 1984, has projected a provisional requirement for 120 ALH with 51 per cent being of the Utility type and remaining being ASW/AntiSurface Vessel version. These helicopters, to be manufactured by HAL, were to be completely inducted by 2010 to replace the Chetak helicopter and Match role aircraft . Selection of the ALH was done with a view to promote indigenisation and to standardise the types of helicopters in the Indian Navy. Induction of this helicopter was to begin by 1991 but there was a slippage of ten years in the development of the helicopter by HAL. After spending Rs 283.78 crore on design and development of the ALH helicopters and supply of two helicopters of ‘Limited Series’ by February 2002, IN reviewed its acquisition plans for the aircraft. It was decided that a reduced quantity (49) of these helicopters (both utility and ASW) of ‘Series Production’ would be acquired over a period of time till 2017. Notwithstanding HAL’s poor track record, IN continued to release payments amounting to Rs 287.92 crore with attendant extensions in delivery dates, without signing a formal contract with HAL.

As of December 2009, only six utility helicopters had been delivered by HAL and these, too, were accepted by Navy with concessions. The helicopter is yet to prove its operational capabilities for offshore operations in its main utility role viz., Search and rescue operations at sea, since the Automatic Flight Control System is not performing optimally and there are other inherent problems like blade folding. This has prevented IN from gainfully utilising even the limited exploitation potential of this aircraft in utility role. Parts of the associated equipment to be delivered along with the helicopter are yet to be supplied as some of the equipment is still under development.

Page 58

For instance, in the case of the Eagle Electronic Support Measure equipment, although the system procured earlier in October 1999 at a cost of Rs 38.30 crore was yet to be proved, eight more Eagle ESM systems had been procured at a cost of Rs 51.72 crore for eight Dorniers under the current procurement. The performance of Eagle Electronic Support system continues to remain poor and inconsistent (December 2009).

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 03 Nov 2011 21:39

Shiv, Could you confirm with AM Rajkumar whether the seeker design & development was Indian? From what I'm aware of, the seeker design was Russian, but integration effort was Indian.

And IMVHO, the reason for rejection was SARH concept doesnt work in CCAAM used in dogfights. A simple climb or turn can take the enemy fighter out of radar cone. SARH Sidewinder was rejected for the same reason in the same time.

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 03 Nov 2011 21:59

http://mod.nic.in/reports/AR-eng-2011.pdf

Bharat Electronics Limited (BEL) was awarded a contract for supplying 22 surveillance Radar Element radars at a cost of Rs. 870 Cr.. The contract was signed by the Ministry under special dispensation of the Defence Procurement Procedure on the premise that BEL would be able to manufacture the radars indigenously as they had absorbed the technology transferred from the Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM). BEL violated this intent by procuring 60 percent radars in Completely Knocked Down form from the OEM at a lower cost. As a result, BEL earned unwarranted additional returns of Rs. 10 Cr. Supplying completely knocked down radars instead of indigenously manufactured ones also resulted in premature delivery before finalization of associated works services with no benefit to the Indian Air Force.

Was any PSU employee hauled up? No. A service chap faces a Court of Inquiry at the minor hint of misconduct, but in this case, no action was taken.

Atleast the Chinese show more integrity towards their country while reverse engineering by copying properly and stealing with vigour. Our DPSU pay for ToT and dont avail it.

BR members, in the heat of battling Chinese photoshopped pictures and alms to Pakistan, come up with conspiracy theories that “indigenous weapons systems perform fantastic, our services love foreign stuff”.

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 03 Nov 2011 22:46

Example of how government saves H&D of R&D

http://mod.nic.in/reports/AR-eng-2010.pdf Page 219

Tardy progress in development of a radar
Despite almost a decade in developmental effort and spending Rs 27.88 Cr., DRDO has been unable to provide a radar as per the requirements of Navy. It closed the original project and initiated another ‘Staff Project’ with the same goals and new funding. Resultantly, the main aim of providing maritime radar for helicopter ‘A’ remains unfulfilled.

This is the Super Vision SV2000 radar. The new project was Xtra Vision XV2004 radar.

Departmental view and Present status: The Paragraph was partially agreed to, since the set objectives of radar under project “Development of Maritime Patrol Radar for Naval ALH” have been met.

The catch is the word set objectives. Typically when projects start going wrong, the set objectives are so watered down that it is possible to claim set objectives is met. It’s like reducing the pass percentage from 35% to 10% and then say candidate A has passed the test. The department’s reply does not clarify how related were the set objectives to user requirements.

This was a maiden venture for LRDE, the long development time is owing to complexity in airborne radar system engineering, grey areas in processing, elaborate qualification and certification effort involved and very limited availability of the intended airborne platform for radar evaluation and optimization. Each sub-system has to be realized with a high degree of complexity and fineness. Qualification and certification process is very elaborate. The period lined with design, validation, refinement, optimization and tuning on an airborne platform is long drawn and calls for several hundreds of flying hours. The MK-II version of radar is ready for user trials and the project Probable Date of Completion (PDC) is July 2010, therefore, all issues could be resolved by then. It is envisaged that, at the end of this PDC, NSQR Compliant radar would be ready for productionisation.

The Naval ALH (with goatee beard shaped housing the radar) was unavailable for trials. But Navy made available a Kamov helicopter to support the program. What more support does LRDE need from IN? Services do support indigenous effort.

BR members visiting Aero India and other shows are dazzled by brochures. But they fail to understand that brochures contain design specifications. The actual performance specifications are never revealed, that indicates what percentage of design specifications are met.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 03 Nov 2011 22:56

tsarkar wrote:Regarding http://www.hindu.com/op/2007/05/06/stor ... 021600.htm

Firstly, why is this expensive missile required? Because of special targets - like M9/11/Abdali etc launchers that can launch nuclear weapons at formations. One cannot have a 24x7 air cover, and those aircraft may be under threat of SAMs protecting M9/11s.

So when a UAV radar or an aircraft carrying Elta RTP detects a launcher, and sends back coordinates via datalink, then Brahmos offers fastest reaction time. Prithvi doesnt have that reaction time. Prahaar wasnt available then. Subsonic CM isnt as fast as a supersonic missile to take out such threats.

Some inaccuracies in that article, India doesnt have IIR seeker tech, Nag seeker is imported. Also 200 kg warhead isnt TNT, but RDX based and could be upgraded to ICL-20 http://tarmak007.blogspot.com/2010/12/i ... l-non.html

T sarkar, masked in the polemic, I think the writer is pluggin for some thing being offered by someone:

A typical Air To Surface Stand Off Missile (ASSM) could have a range in excess of 350 km with an overall missile weight of nearly 1,000 kg and a warhead of 500 kg plus at a cost of maybe Rs. 1-2 crores.

The missile could have a terminal seeker of Imaging Infra Red (IIR) which would recognise the target from pre-sorted target wire frame image, even in sand, snow or foliage. The seeker guides the missile to a specific aim point on the target.

He is throwing mud on Brahmos to promote this one. Wonder if this mythical missile has US components in it which would require their approval also and not jsut the seller's?
Interesting that Hindu is allowing its Open Page to be used to promote hidden interests.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 03 Nov 2011 23:13

Well, if the IA and other Services are happy with Brahmos (and I know they are), then let people say all that they want. The concerned person does not represent IA's views on the matter - it does not matter if he is ex-IA.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 03 Nov 2011 23:56

He is rising a small dust cloud. Need to see it as a warning sign.

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 03 Nov 2011 23:58

Taurus, Storm Shadow, JASSM-ER are those missiles that fit the description(as per the article) than can challenge Brahmos in any competition (Not just in Indian scenario). Of course Brahmos comes with unique advantage of being Supersonic throughout its flight path. When taken its cost into consideration being supersonic alone won't help win the contract in open competition.

Compared to land based missile, air launched missile offers flexibility in deployment, extended range (300 km + Combat radius of its carrier) so its reach and reduced response time. Carrier can be UCAV which offers continuous loitering from several hrs to days. One can't think only through with current possibilities. Even with Crystal maze, its provides stand off range of 100 km enough to evade SAM defence.

On the cost front, Brahmos differ with other competitors atleast by a factor of 2. Such difference is justifiable only if Brahmos have capabilities and flexibilities as that of its competitors + its supersonic capabilities. Supersonic capabilities alone won't make it competitive in an open market. Brahmos Mark II and III are towards that end.

If interested, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a_7PWO2JK4, this Taurus promo lists targets that Taurus can engage.

In 2006, no. of offers were considerably less or nil. But in 2012, if Brahmos has to be competitive to every challenge, it has to excel in every sphere and it cannot rely solely on its supersonic capabilities.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 04 Nov 2011 01:20

A humble question - which of the above missiles can be launched from Land? And if the argument is that air-launched missiles like those mentioned in the report are cost effective as compared to land based missiles, what about the cost of aircraft and its support structure? The strike a/c resources with IAF are limited and during first 48-72 hours, IAF may well have its hands full and may not have resources to cater to all of IA requirements. Brahmos LACM offers IA commander tremendous flexibility and an option to deal with variety of threats. It is IA's PGM to take out pre-identified very high value targets and those threats which emerge during course of war.

Now, let me twist the question on its head (with respect to western border) - what good is 300kms+ range of these missiles to India? Most of the important targets on western border are going to be well with-in 300kms radius. So, why do I need an ALCM where all that launch platform is required is to go up in air and launch the missle from with-in Indian territory?

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 04 Nov 2011 01:29

I think he is peddling the Taurus to equip the MRCA. What he doesnt understnad is that bird has US made jet engine which will require their approval. And its guidance package can be swithched off.

Most likely he added his name to the article.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 04 Nov 2011 07:07

Taurus may be denied to us as it mounts the williams engine which US might fear we will clone. if at all we want it, need to be close to productionize Nirbhay with the licensed russian engine to build a pressure point as counter 'take our offer or lose the sale'

but Scalp and apache might be good for deep strikes on hard protected targets in the enemies' rear area unsuitable for close attacks with LGB or AASM type gliders. very costly weapons though, even the UK and France probably have in low 100s only.

we need a desi air launched nirbhay to cut costs.

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 04 Nov 2011 08:37

The General takes Babur for comparison. If we leave outside competition, from 2012, Brahmos faces challenges from other homegrown products. Nirbhay is supposed to begin its flight test in 2012 and LRCM (direct challenger to Brahmos) by 2014(?) These Taurus, Naval version of Storm Shadow/Scalp, JASSM-ER provides ~1000 km coverage and weighs ~1000 kg similar to Nirbhay. If Brahmos has to hold its fort it has to be versatile. Question is not whether we need Brahmos. Def it plays its role. The question rather is how much share Brahmos going to get under the PGM budget. Interesting time ahead. Nirbhay was officially announced in 2007. Pillai(CEO) knows the challenge his missile has to face. He sees at least 1000 missile to be procured by Indian customer. Success of other programs can eat into Brahmos share. And then we cannot rule out external competition.

@Rohit, Naval Scalp can be launched from Sea. So none at present.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 04 Nov 2011 08:49

now that sudarshan is flight tested we need to productionize it as a bread and butter weapon and procure in 1000s for every strike a/c to use.

a wing glide range extention kit for sundarshan is also a MUST. sooner the better. for mach0.9 launches from 20,000ft the range is supposed to be around 20km and from 40,000ft around 40km. quite a cheap option to increase range of glonass guided weapons going after static targets assuming laser designation is not feasible for such ranges.

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 04 Nov 2011 08:59

tsarkar wrote:Example of how government saves H&D of R&D

http://mod.nic.in/reports/AR-eng-2010.pdf Page 219
Tardy progress in development of a radar
Despite almost a decade in developmental effort and spending Rs 27.88 Cr., DRDO has been unable to provide a radar as per the requirements of Navy. It closed the original project and initiated another ‘Staff Project’ with the same goals and new funding. Resultantly, the main aim of providing maritime radar for helicopter ‘A’ remains unfulfilled.
This is the Super Vision SV2000 radar. The new project was Xtra Vision XV2004 radar.

Departmental view and Present status: The Paragraph was partially agreed to, since the set objectives of radar under project “Development of Maritime Patrol Radar for Naval ALH” have been met.
The catch is the word set objectives. Typically when projects start going wrong, the set objectives are so watered down that it is possible to claim set objectives is met. It’s like reducing the pass percentage from 35% to 10% and then say candidate A has passed the test. The department’s reply does not clarify how related were the set objectives to user requirements.

One disagreement. Every military power faces this challenge. US, Russia, Europe, China does accept products with watered down objectives and improve their product in blocks. F-22 was accepted by their AF in such fashion. F-22 doesn't meet all the objectives initially laid. Only exception is our neighbour Pakistan which assembles developed product as their own development. Considering our competition with our neighbour I'm not surprised we entertain ourselves with such values across the border.

(ducking)

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 04 Nov 2011 09:45

tsarkar wrote:
And IMVHO, the reason for rejection was SARH concept doesnt work in CCAAM used in dogfights. A simple climb or turn can take the enemy fighter out of radar cone. SARH Sidewinder was rejected for the same reason in the same time.

sarkarji I am quoting from AM Raj's article in the latest Vayu. He is currently out of town.

I am sure you are 100% correct in your technical description. But you see, the Russians, the Chinese and other nations go right ahead and use these technically deficient systems because they are their own and using them allows their scientists and technicians to improve the product using feedback. Time and time and time again we have seen how foreign products do not live up to their imagined promise, but we buy them nevertheless while Indian products are spat at by other Indians.

The Indian attitude seems to be "This product is deficient. It won't work. We will not be able to kill the enemy. If you want us to win, get us the best, as shown in this Russian/British brochure"

Please tell me that what I have said does not happen.

Recalling from memory:
1. K-13s were useless. We bought them
2. Initially Baraks did not work. We bought them
3. Krasnopol GPS guided shells were useless. I am not sure if we bought them. We may have
4. MiG 29 engines had an MTBF of less than 100 hours IIRC. We bought them in significant quantities.
5. SMERCH tubes are not up to the mark. We bought them
6. Soldiers need ice to try and keep cool in T-72s in Rajasthan summer. We bought them

As a nation we do not trust other Indians. We are instantly confident of the quality of anything that is not Indian.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 04 Nov 2011 09:45

I shudder to think of kargil days when our paltry stock of paveways had to be used like gold bars to save them in the conflict escalated. even rich munnas like france and uk came in for scathing criticism for not having enough stock for libya ops and seeking emergency loans of US stock.

even a humble sudarshan thats 60% as good as paveway-IV but available in the 1000s is a extraordinary force multiplier for us and far more valuable than a stock of uber-costly 100 taurus which will be guarded like fort knox by IAF and need ACM clearance and no-objection certificate in triplicate with Rs10 stamp paper franking to use

the human tendency will always be to hold them back to further escalations or to attack enemy breakthroughs.

sudarshan cannot be allowed to keep on tinkering in science project mode. has to be tracked from CCS and ACM level and necessary funds and pressure applied to ensure huge production runs asap.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 04 Nov 2011 10:28

^^^

But will it be ordered in the numbers required.

WRT, the TARUS IMHO should not be considered by the Indian military, in any scenario. My reasons are

1) The Brahmos and the Prahar are good enough for quick reaction situation.
2) The Nirbhay will be available soon and and its absence for another 3 to 4 years is not going to hurt us a great deal.

PratikDas · Post by **PratikDas** » 04 Nov 2011 10:34

I'm sorry Pratyush ji, I like your posts, but I see this time and time again on BR: "its absence for another 3 to 4 years is not going to hurt us a great deal".

It is as if the Chinese have given us an astrological calendar with 2020 marked with a big red stamp when conches will blow from the Indian side and, I don't know, chopsticks will click on the Chinese side, before war begins. We have no crystal ball.

Can someone explain to me why when a Prahaar is tested, only *one* is tested? What is the religious significance of this, because there is surely no statistical significance to this? If one test proves that the missile works, testing 4 at once will give a quick indicator of CEP. If one test fails miserably, testing 4 at once will expose more failure modes.

What's the deal?

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 04 Nov 2011 10:46

IMO, the debate about role of Brahmos in our context can be seen from the perspective of their deployment. AFAIK, these are supposed to form part of the Missile Bde of Arty Divisions (Prahaar may also end up in this bde). The employment is more tactical than strategic - though, the target may well have strategic implications. It is the Corps Commander's PGM to take out targets in his AOR and shape the battlefield. Missiles like LRCM and Nirbhay will most likely be with Missile Regiments directly subordinated to AHQ. I expect the target planning and usage of these missiles will be in consonance with IAF and over all target plan.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 04 Nov 2011 10:50

Pratik Ji,

The issue is not that the PRC wil attack us in 2020 or it will attack us today. From where I am looking at things, the nation is just not prepared enough to deal with the PRC where it will really make a difference.

Considering the PRCs way of fighting wars. One Lakh men on the Arunachal border or elsewhere will not make any difference. Because, when they attack, they will hit our Naval assets in the South China Seas and we are systemically gutting the one force that can deal with that threat. What to talk of building it up.

So whether the Tarus is available today or the Nirbahy 10 years from now will not really make much of a difference. To the over all military situation of the Indian military.

What will make a difference would be the availability of real fighting force in the south China Seas capable of operating on its own. Given the way Indian Naval procurement has functioned over the past 20 + years. By 2030 or even later we will not be able to field such a force.

PratikDas · Post by **PratikDas** » 04 Nov 2011 11:03

Sincere thanks for explaining that. The chain is only as strong as the weakest link.

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 04 Nov 2011 11:26

Shivji, the issue is whether user commitment is there. My PoV is that it is present. Like 40 Tejas orders for 2 sq / 1 wing. Despite FOC being pushed back. If one looks at previous purchases, the commitment is the same.

Pakistan F-16 first purchase – 40
IAF MiG29 first purchase ~ 40. Third sq was added later
IAF Mirage first purchase ~ 40
IAF Su30 first purchase – 40 (8+32). 10 ex-Indonesia aircraft were added later for financial solidarity with our Russian friends.

Su30 original plans was 40+140, additional birds were ordered for MiG23 replacements.

Tejas plans are 40+140. No reason why additional Tejas wont be ordered to replace older Jaguars, if the Mk 2 design lives up to its promise.

So it is equal-equal 40+140 (You introduced me to BRF glossary while explaining Bangalore, Kerala)

Since the ALH isnt available for SV2000/XV2004, it is now being explored for Kamov upgrade. Chetak can shed more light on these initiatives. When something is rejected, it is after verifying that the development roadmap is at an evolutionary dead end.

A completely separate issue is bad purchases / poor decisions / teething troubles.

In the 60’s IAF acquired Russian SAMs and IN/IA wanted their own. Missiles were the in-thing. The British offered the Tigercat (land) / Seacat (sea) missiles. IA evaluated Tigercat and found it useless. IN Seacat evaluation wasn’t good, but it was part of Leander package, and IN wanted a SAM. Poor decision / bad purchase – AK-230 mounts replaced the Seacat.

Like George Fernandes’s decision to buy Gorshkov after Kargil/Kandahar/Parliament when IN didn’t want it. George’s patriotism is beyond doubt, just that in the heat of the moment, a decision was taken that didn’t turn out right. I believe such decisions are exceptions rather than the norm.

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 04 Nov 2011 11:32

@ Ramana, Rohit - I concur with your thinking, Brahmos, Prahaar, Pinaka, LCH et al frees IAF from tactical strike and CAS duties and frees them for larger roles.

koti · Post by **koti** » 04 Nov 2011 12:14

Go easy on me.

Does the idea of 126 EF/Rafale + (200-126) F-35 have any merits against an outright purchase of 200 EF/Rafale.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 04 Nov 2011 12:21

Shiv just to nitpick.

shiv wrote:2. Initially Baraks did not work. We bought them

IIRC the problem was noted during trials of the system and was rectified before it was purchased and fitted on ships , If i am not wrong the P-16A was without its main SAM for more then a year in the hope Trishul problem will be rectified but finally the navy had to procure Barak because of some urgent clause that navy invoked

3. Krasnopol GPS guided shells were useless. I am not sure if we bought them. We may have

Krasnopol was a laser guided shell and was never a GPS system , again during trials there were flaws found when it was operated at higher altitude which was subsequenty rectified by OEM and it performed very well after that.