Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 27 Dec 2011 11:49

I have seen that video befoe 10 days back on Youtube

JE Menon · Post by **JE Menon** » 27 Dec 2011 17:00

Great stuff from Tarmak!

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 27 Dec 2011 23:00

SagarAg wrote:Tarmak Update on Akash

We will have to get a firm written commitment from the Services so that we are sure about the road ahead,” sources said.
What does DRDO mean by this statement??

Mk2 initiative is from DRDO end. They are expecting a firm commitment before putting their extended effort/man hours behind the project.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 27 Dec 2011 23:16

an enhanced akash mk-2 will be preferred by the user definitely.. wondering, if that 23k crore then be split between mk1 and mk-2 then? why not stage this with predetermined set of quantities for each versions, that way, the project and product life cycle can be easily envisioned?

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 27 Dec 2011 23:18

Austin wrote:Looking at the way we are trying to look at intermediate alternative options for Air Launched F&F option and similar ground based types before Nag sees the light of the day 26 years after it was originally conceived , it just shows Nag from day 1 carried a very heavy burden on its shoulder to prove something that was a tall ask.

Nag was originally conceived as a 4 Km F&F ATGM with MMW seeker as part of IGMDP , since i have been following IGMDP almost from the time it was conceived , the target was then to induct Nag by 1995 and it considered at the most challenging missile to be built in the 5 types for IGMDP since DRDO scientist from day one have been saying that there will be NO missile like Nag once it gets inducted by mid-95 due to true F&F nature with Top Attack capability , sounds very very ambitious for the time when we did not develop any thing remotely like that.

The GSQR or goal for Nag never changed AFAIK it still was the 4 Km F&F missile with top attack capability with MMW seeker , how ever they got bogged down in testing and development on the challenge of developing such missile , MMW seeker was a tall order so we moved to IIR seeker which were imported type iirc and then the whole development time took like 15 more years from the time it was originally planned to be inducted which was 1995.

Some year back I read DRDO Tech Focus magazine where Kalam in address to scientist challenged the scientist to develop a Gun Launched Nag , at a time even ground launched type was far from induction !

I think a much lesser challange for DRDO would have been to develop a Laser Guided or Beam Rider Nag to start with and then gradually move on to develop a more challanging F&F Top attack with IIR seeker and then MMW seeker when the technology is available with DRDO. That would have given IA exposure to Nag even if it was to be beam rider and helped it continously improving it either in range or capability or both and most importantly would have stopped the import of some class of ATGM.

Choosing Top of Line technology for Nag which no one in the world had even thought of developing or had developed meant that it would take almost 25 plus year to see it inducted from the time it was conceived.

Similarly for Akash it was suppose to be similar to US CorpSam project and which was cancelled by US and having to develop PAR was most challenging of the development , Originally suppose to be inducted in 1992 it was inducted in 2010 with the goal by and large remaining the same , changing only in the nature of deployment and not in specs of Akash or PAR.

I really do not know who had conceived IGMDP with such ambitious goals and most importantly ambitious induction time lines when they could have been most practical with goals , Like doing simpler things well first before getting the complicated top of the chain things right.

I'm quoting your entire post.

To answer in single word, it is known as Strategizing. To fully understand the reason behind, you have to know the previous history of indigenous arms development and procurement before that era and goals/impetus of that era. For a start you can check on what happened to previous indigenous anti tank missile developed and its fate.

Priorities/Goals/impetus of this era(current one) is different from that era(80's). These are dictated by the circumstances in that era.

Sometime back we(this forum) discussed why Tejas desgin was chosen that way - too ambitious goals. IGMDP too has its own reasons. Some of which was explained in the book WoF by AK.

srai · Post by **srai** » 28 Dec 2011 06:49

HAPPY HOURS: 2,500 missiles, 112 launchers, 28 MPARs & 100 3-D CARs | Massive Akash SAM system orders boost to desi pride, industries | 1st Sqn in June & 2nd in Oct 2012 | DRDO mum on Mk-II

...The numbers of the current combined orders will definitely make any desi defence devotee proud: 2,500 missiles, 112 launchers, 28 multi-functional phased array radars (MPARs) and 100 3-D Central Acquisition Radars (3-D CARs)....

That's 28 Akash batteries all together. We know IAF ordered 1,000 missiles in 8 squadrons worth (each with 2 batteries). This means IA order is 12 batteries (28 - 16) and 1,500 missiles. Since 2 "regiments" are reportedly being ordered, it means each Akash "regiment" has 6 batteries in it each with (avg) 125 missiles per battery.

Interesting number of 3-D CARs being acquired ... I wonder if that is a typo ... more like 10 3-D CARs would be sufficient in a group mode for 28 batteries ... unless IAF/IA are acquiring 3-D CARs independent of Akash SAM system as well.

A Sharma · Post by **A Sharma** » 28 Dec 2011 07:01

^^^
The first 3D CAR (Rohini) was delivered to IAF in 2008. So they may be acquired as stand alone.Not sure though.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 28 Dec 2011 07:43

while it would make perfect sense for a Mk2 Akash and reuse the radars and C3I system in a mix-mode, the IA and IAF might want to save their $$ for the LRSAM that is supposed to be offshoot of the naval Barak8!! that would come with its own mfstar derivative land based radar no doubt and be costly.

I think we should still do Mk2 to lock down the <= 50km space with a dense cloud of Akash and Spyder shots and then snipe beyond that range with LRSAM....at long range, an alert a/c that detects its being targeted by a SAM still has plenty of time to turn and burn to escape the engagement zone....so Pk will certainly be less than firing on a a/c @ 30km.

a single Akash+LRSAM zone of radius 120km is imo inferior to 3 Akash zones in a triangle of radius 50km each in tackling agile fighter targets.

sankum · Post by **sankum** » 28 Dec 2011 11:19

IAF AKASH order is 8sq=16 batteries is for 1000 sam i.e, 62.5 sam per battery.

While IA 2regi=12 batteries is for 1500 sam i.e, 125 sam per battery which is too high a number for 4 launchers with 12 ready to launch sams.

IA 2 regi is replacement for 1500 kvadrat sam with 160 launchers with around 9.375 sams per launcher.

I think there is error and actual number of IA batteries is 48 nos with 192 launchers with 31.25 sams per battery while earlier news report gave 2000 sam order which gives 41.7 sams per battery.

This gives one to one replacement for kvadrat sam batteries and thus the likelihood of 48 akash batteries.

koti · Post by **koti** » 28 Dec 2011 11:53

A very interesting read on the Akash and Rajendra.

Link

krishnan · Post by **krishnan** » 28 Dec 2011 12:15

Rajendra in WLR mode??

koti · Post by **koti** » 28 Dec 2011 12:42

Nope sir.
Integration of Akash with S-300. And dual mode radar/infra-red seeker for improved Rajendra.

krishnan · Post by **krishnan** » 28 Dec 2011 13:19

Thats what the link says...using rajendra in artillery finding

The army intends to use the Rajendra radar in the artillery locating role as well

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 28 Dec 2011 13:29

IIRC, the WLR derives from the Rajendra technology.

Yogi_G · Post by **Yogi_G** » 28 Dec 2011 13:35

rohitvats wrote:IIRC, the WLR derives from the Rajendra technology.

Correct, and by accident also. Dont remember where I read it (wiki?), Rajendra was being tested and in the vicinity artillery shells were also being fired and it was noticed that the Rajendra was able to trace the trajectory successfully, that led to the spawning of the Rajendra-WLR combo.

koti · Post by **koti** » 28 Dec 2011 14:17

Rajendra as WLR is there. What I am more interested into is the integration of Akash into the S-300v systems.

It is in the page 4859. It is opening fine for me. Maybe I need to modify something in the link before I post it.
Link

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 28 Dec 2011 14:30

it's BS. no s-300 in India, nor will be. question of integration with something that doesn't exist here does not arise.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 28 Dec 2011 16:31

its been posted india purchased two of the big surveillance radar of s300pmu as a stopgap in mid 1990s but never the missiles or control system.

koti · Post by **koti** » 28 Dec 2011 17:00

Noted Gentlemen.
Could you also directly claim the link I posted as incredulous?

It will ease my curiosity.

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 28 Dec 2011 17:26

Rahul M wrote:it's BS. no s-300 in India, nor will be. question of integration with something that doesn't exist here does not arise.

Don't be sure.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 28 Dec 2011 17:51

Well, iirc, INdia does have a bunch of tin shield 36d6 radars as a part of EW/GCI network. Can't see why a couple of S300 batteries with the reqd. fcr couldn't have been purchased to augment AD. But there is no conclusive evidence open source at least.

koti · Post by **koti** » 28 Dec 2011 18:09

What troubles me is the fact that even PAK and Myammar field some variants of Hq-2, HQ-7 that have longer range then anything IAF or IA has(Officially).

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 28 Dec 2011 18:40

long range is not a panacea imo. a good rwr/ew equipped plane will constantly keep aware of being tracked by long range radar and hightail it moment it senses missiles are outbound. suppose we fire a 'big' missile of S300 from 200km away, if the ew senses the guidance radar from the ground tracking the plane and providing mid course updates to the flying missile would it not escape the scene?

imo a good 70km fast missile like MRSAM with active seeker is enough to make life difficult for fighters.

probably thats the reason Khan chacha has not tried to build these huge S300/400 type big missiles and remains content with pac3 improvements.

even Rus seems to think the most potent of the S400 missiles is the 90-120km range 9M96M1 and M2.

the 'big' missiles might be useful to scare away large a/c but these are best scared away or shot using a fighter that can give chase and launch multiple aams.

prabhug · Post by **prabhug** » 28 Dec 2011 18:48

Hey
All say S300 is a very good AD System.
I just wanted to get data on the following
1 All specs of radars in the wiki talk about detection range not tracking range) All Akash radars give tracking range(So it looks less).
2.Can multiple radar inputs be fusioned to get the exact picture on the threat scenario?
3.Does it have radars with multiple Bands and have to be capable of tracking? Hope this makes HARM targeting very tough(AKASH has 3DCAR,BSR,BLR,can loan other Baterry Radars to track).
4.Can we network multiple batteries together so that we can have a area defense system ?

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 28 Dec 2011 20:13

4 batteries of Akash can be employed as a group and usually will be if defending a static target like a big urban area.
for a airbase, one battery would be sufficient at the base and perhaps another one along the expected axis of ingress in ambush mode.
http://akashsam.com/operational.htm

prabhug · Post by **prabhug** » 28 Dec 2011 22:31

But what happens if base is under a cruise missile attack

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 28 Dec 2011 23:02

Singha wrote:the 'big' missiles might be useful to scare away large a/c but these are best scared away or shot using a fighter that can give chase and launch multiple aams.

The advantage of long range missile assuming that a 200 km missile is fired at a target at say 60 km is that it will retain enough energy to deal with a manouvering target or target thats trying to get away fast knowing its under attack and tries best to out manouver and run away.

Most of the long range missile wont end up firing upon its target at long range but would do it at much less range and will use the excess energy to deal with end game energy issue , unless ofcourse you are dealing with cruise missile or similar co-operative slow target.

srai · Post by **srai** » 29 Dec 2011 06:09

MRSAM gains momentum; India, Israel developing 450 missiles & 18 firing units under the project

Looking at this MRSAM diagram, we can infer the following about MRSAM battery:

1 x MFR w/ 1 x RPS
1 x CMS w/ 1 x MPS
3 x 8-pack VLS Launchers => 24 ready to fire rounds
3 x Reloaders (each with 8 reload rounds) => 24 quick field reload rounds
Total: 48 missiles

For 18 MRSAM batteries on order, this would translate to the following:

18 x MFR w/ 18 x RPS
18 x CMS w/ 18 x MPS
54 x 8-pack VLS Launchers => 432 ready to fire rounds
54 x Reloaders (each with 8 reload rounds) => 432 quick field reload rounds
Total: 864 missiles

Plus, xx number in additional reserves.

srai · Post by **srai** » 29 Dec 2011 06:30

prabhug wrote:But what happens if base is under a cruise missile attack

Layered Air Defense (where applicable):

Long/Medium-range aerial engagements -> Air Defense fighters use their MR and SR AAMs.
Medium-range (between 15km to 60km) SAM engagements -> MRSAM, Akash SAM
Short-range (between 15km to 5km) SAM engagements -> Akash SAM, LLRQM (Maitri & Spyder)
Point-blank-range (less than 5km) engagements -> MANPADS, Air Defense artillery (L-70)

fanne · Post by **fanne** » 29 Dec 2011 07:48

100 of 3D CAR radars? MakeS perfect sense. Light one up, and have others also receive the return is silent mode. If that is taken out (and it will be at long ranges that will be the radar showing up for SEAD planes), others take over. Nice strategy, next marry the SAM systems with either AWACS or maybe SU30MKI.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 29 Dec 2011 08:25

imo the big missiles of the s300 system are too obese and low-packed to deal with saturation attacks unless one has a ton of ready launchers in the area. the 9m96 is more like it...each TEL can release 12. the Aster30 and our MRSAM is also on those lines....fast , manouverable, active seeker, high salvo rates...should be able to tackle low flying cruise missiles and long range PGMs also - the inevitable first wave of the attack.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 29 Dec 2011 09:28

Singha wrote:imo the big missiles of the s300 system are too obese and low-packed to deal with saturation attacks unless one has a ton of ready launchers in the area. the 9m96 is more like it...each TEL can release 12. the Aster30 and our MRSAM is also on those lines....fast , manouverable, active seeker, high salvo rates...should be able to tackle low flying cruise missiles and long range PGMs also - the inevitable first wave of the attack.

Singha , the S-300 are more energetic then the Aster and you can always defeat any missile with saturation attack , 9M96 lacks the energy of big missile of S-300 ,they are more in Aster class.

More ever these missile will have multiple batteries and reload and will be defended by its own IADS in case of Chinese it will be S-300, HQ-16 and other low level sam , much like MRSAM will have it own layered defence of Akash , Spyder etc to deal with medium low flying targets.

Flying low has its own problem you are more vulnerable to many common AD weapons ranging from dumb gun to smart missile these days , IIRC in vietnam war American suffered more losses to their fighter from dumb Ack Ack due to deliberate low level mission in order to avoid SA-2.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 29 Dec 2011 17:34

Austin wrote:
Singha wrote:the 'big' missiles might be useful to scare away large a/c but these are best scared away or shot using a fighter that can give chase and launch multiple aams.
The advantage of long range missile assuming that a 200 km missile is fired at a target at say 60 km is that it will retain enough energy to deal with a manouvering target or target thats trying to get away fast knowing its under attack and tries best to out manouver and run away.

Most of the long range missile wont end up firing upon its target at long range but would do it at much less range and will use the excess energy to deal with end game energy issue , unless ofcourse you are dealing with cruise missile or similar co-operative slow target.

The greatest advantage of the big missiles imho is that they can effectively mission kill. MOst A2G stand off missiles require release at about 100-150km, well within range of the big missiles. Possibility to make a quick getaway becomes v.difficult at these ranges. V.tough situation both ways - even fast supersonics will find it tough at longer ranges because of the high alt flights required. A layered ADS with newer versions of S300/Buk/Tor would be a pain in the behind.

Marut · Post by **Marut** » 30 Dec 2011 18:44

Has this pic been posted here? Helina firing from WSI Dhruv

vipins · Post by **vipins** » 30 Dec 2011 20:27

Tarmak on Prahaar
Prahaar awaits Army intent; DRDO luring IAF, Navy

“With all weather, day and night launch capability, Prahaar's range, if launched from an aircraft (read as Sukhoi), can be extended up to 350 km.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 30 Dec 2011 21:37

in air launched mode it could be a ideal long range ARM/GLONASS weapon to bust SAM systems from long range to back up the nirbhay which is still many years away. and it will likely be cheaper than brahmos with the same range...so we can shoot more of them.

it will outrange the KH31P which is our longest arrow for sure.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 30 Dec 2011 21:52

vipins wrote:Tarmak on Prahaar
Prahaar awaits Army intent; DRDO luring IAF, Navy
“With all weather, day and night launch capability, Prahaar's range, if launched from an aircraft (read as Sukhoi), can be extended up to 350 km.

Excellent! It was actually one of the first things I thought of when I saw the Prahaar. Very nice speed and weight characteristics would make for a super airlaunched missile with multiple applications including anti radar, anti ship etc. Plus, an MKI could surely carry around 3 of these enabling proper saturation attacks unlike the Brahmos.

Only issue I think could be maneuvers - since it follows more of a ballistic trajectory.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 30 Dec 2011 22:47

Reminds me of the idea proposed by LM to integrate Patriot PAC-3 with F-15 as A2A missile which just needed some software changes , the idea was to use F-15/PAC-3 combination to shoot down Ballistic Missile in Boost and Terminal phase along with Cruise missile , wonder we can do that with Su-30/AAD combo.

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 30 Dec 2011 23:12

Cain Marko wrote:Only issue I think could be maneuvers - since it follows more of a ballistic trajectory.

From Tarmak blog,

Tough to be detected owing to its high maneuvering capabilities, Prahaar is a quick reaction missile, which can be used against targets between 50-150 km.

.....

“The missiles are controlled and guided from lift off to impact and maneuver continuously so that the prediction of both launch point and impact point are difficult. Multiple launchers can be linked together to form a missile battery to deliver simultaneous multi-axis saturation attack on the target,” sources said.

Something on the lines of M30/31 porpoising Guided MLRS.

With variety of warheads, this can provide IAF an alternative to Crystal Maze.

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 30 Dec 2011 23:21

Austin wrote:Reminds me of the idea proposed by LM to integrate Patriot PAC-3 with F-15 as A2A missile which just needed some software changes , the idea was to use F-15/PAC-3 combination to shoot down Ballistic Missile in Boost and Terminal phase along with Cruise missile , wonder we can do that with Su-30/AAD combo.

Very much positively one can conclude that India will have some form of air launched Anti ballistic missile, owing to its unique geographic situation and proximity to its adversary.