Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

member_19648 · Post by **member_19648** » 18 Jul 2012 21:36

This Prasun guy is such an a$$hole, defence analyst my foot, he should be given a begging bowl, that's what he is good at, begging for brochures. Anyways, I have a nagging feeling these jokers are in the payroll of even bigger jokers in some other country, IIRC, the US had offered its patriot system just when DRDO had matured its own BMD and was in the process to have special approval granted to offer it to India. The Indian BMD system is comparable to US patriot and is even better perhaps in someways and its not the first time they have tried to kill the program. Infact I read somewhere in some interview of a Paki general perhaps that they were so concerned about the credibility of Nuclear strike owing to Indian BMD, they were trying desperately to get MIRV/Nuke subs etc to have some form of strike option. These guies seem to speak from their a$$es. Spoiled the whole mood for the day.

kit · Post by **kit** » 18 Jul 2012 21:58

ban all brochures for Mr pasun ?

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 18 Jul 2012 22:07

Yes, their patience and ability to put up with such rubbish, is beyond understanding. They are perhaps concerned about being openly antagonistic to powerful media figures

Basically, the media in India is not held to account in any manner and can get away with anything, including misleading the public.

Look at Shekhar Gupta, he ran an overt hit piece on DRDO a few years back, full of lies, half truths, and all sorts of dubious claims, yet continues to prance about today, till he made a joke out of himself with the recent Army Chief coup story. But public memory is short and he will be back claiming other rubbish. In his interview with Saraswat, he was nearly clueless about most programs or even basic tech! Yet postures as a defence expert.

At the very least, the time has come for DRDO, IA etc to openly rebut such stupid, deliberately mis-informative reports in the media.
They should realize that one way or the other some sections in the media are lost causes and need to be countered. And the indian public can see through the likes of Joshi if given information

Lisa · Post by **Lisa** » 18 Jul 2012 22:33

Just to make your day, from Wiki about Joshi

In July 2011 he was appointed by the Government of India's Cabinet Committee on Security to be a member of a high level National Task Force chaired by former Cabinet Secretary Naresh Chandra. The 14-member task force was asked to examine India's security system and suggest ways of plugging the gaps, if any, and recommend reforms to make the system more efficient.[7]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manoj_Joshi

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 18 Jul 2012 23:10

The saving grace is that it was probably a 26/11 sort of thing they looked at, and not defence technology development. Where this fool could have wasted more time.

Our present Govt has anwya had luminaries like NAC - full of moonbat leftists who have squandered thousands of crores in stupid dig a hole, fill a hole schemes.

So a gasbag like Joshi worming his way through the cracks and getting invited to a Govt appointed shindig is not unheard of either. Typically such "committees" tend to try and seek a balance between Govt officials, rtd types, military and rtd military and assorted civil society "strategic experts" who will be chosen on the basis of chamchagiri to current GOI and self proclaimed expertise.

Joshi certainly fits the category. He is an INC man for sure and a long time networker.

But yeah, it does "make my day" to realize that this fool would have been involved in any sort of GOI "strategery"..

Makes one realize what kind of "system" then panders to Pakistan despite 26/11 and does kriket diplomacy (allowing terrorists to sneak in)...with such "experts" in such "committees", GOI does itself no credit.

Boreas · Post by **Boreas** » 18 Jul 2012 23:46

Karan M wrote:BTW, this is this twit Joshi's record and what happened when DRDO succeeded with Agni-V. Any Indian military or R&D success = jingoistic, unproven, boastful, bad.

http://twitter.com/ADAMPLOW/statuses/193211504198299648

Manoj Joshi says India being 'needlessly boastful' about Agni V. Reminds us there is no independent verification.

Atleast A5 had "authentication" from Chinese of being atleast 8000Km range missile. Joshi should trust the independent verification.

Lisa wrote:Just to make your day, from Wiki about Joshi

In July 2011 he was appointed by the Government of India's Cabinet Committee on Security to be a member of a high level National Task Force chaired by former Cabinet Secretary Naresh Chandra. The 14-member task force was asked to examine India's security system and suggest ways of plugging the gaps, if any, and recommend reforms to make the system more efficient.[7]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manoj_Joshi

Reminds of Kalmandi pressing to cancel LCA in 1990's.

Boreas · Post by **Boreas** » 18 Jul 2012 23:50

What is this "independent verification" bullshit anyways... who in the world with their right mind will call some outsider to access there weapons and sneak into there R&D??

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 19 Jul 2012 00:13

Apparently journalists like Joshi lack the education or even common sense to tell the difference between a bullock cart and a maruti 800, and need an outsider to tell them what is what, to make them feel important.

Joshi is quoting non proliferation experts on indian strategic issues, as if they don't have their own agenda to peddle. He doesn't even understand India is a sovereign nation with the right to determine its own responses to its own security challenges. Talk about mental colonization.

Such is the quality of indian journalists

Sanjay · Post by **Sanjay** » 19 Jul 2012 00:29

If I can play devil's advocate (I totally support the ABM program and think the article was a nasty hatchet job by a discredited individual who mislead me many times on the S-300 issue), I would like to pose a couple of technical questions that if answered properly could be the basis for a rebuttal:

(a) The capability so far demonstrated is the interception of a modified Prithvi ballistic missile. Is there any indication that this missile can simulate the range and speed of anything more than a 600km range MRBM (if so source) ?

(b) The PAD and AAD have intercepted incoming missiles. Has there been any indication of the ability to detect an RV separating from the missile and intercepting the same (like the DF-15/M-9) ?

Unless these questions are answered in some way, I think there are substantial gaps in our knowledge of what DRDO is indicating that it can do.

I am not saying that the system does not have the capability claimed. I am just asking as to what has it demonstrated so far.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 19 Jul 2012 00:48

Separating RV was not demostrated.

All others have been answered multiple times by the DRDO officials in the prelude and aftermath of the PAD/AAD tests

To me the DRDO has not yet proven the capability against a separating RV.

It has proven the capability agains the non-separating missile which are the bulk of the TSP arsenal.

Sanjay · Post by **Sanjay** » 19 Jul 2012 01:18

Agreed but then isn't a bit premature to talk about an IOC save an except for a very limited system vs Pakistan ? Other than the M-11 and its clones, is there any other system that the Indian ABM system has demonstrated the capability to intercept ? Not the Ghauri or Shaheen series as yet. For the record, it would appear that the PAD intercepted a modified Prithvi simulating a 1500km missile in the 2009 test.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 19 Jul 2012 01:44

So what class do the Ghauri/Nodong and the Shaheen or Shine belong to? Range, separating non-separating RVs/

Katare · Post by **Katare** » 19 Jul 2012 02:15

Pretty much every report and quote from DRDO scientist since 2009 had said that a prithivi missile was modified to simulate an enemy IRBM (2000KM range) for ABM interceptor tests. What other proof would you want?

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 19 Jul 2012 02:16

“We have carried out six successful launches and demonstrated the capability for 2,000 km targets... We have demonstrated it in two layers that is endo-atmospheric (inside the Earth’s atmosphere) and exo-atmospheric (outside the Earth’s atmosphere),” Mr. Saraswat said.

For all the tests, the target missile in these cases simulated a 2000 km missile. Rather than the range, it is indeed the speed of RV that is the criteria here. And the systems are built based on the detection capabilities of Radar which detects upto so and so RV speed. 2000 km notional figure is used to specify that the system is Pak centric and exact figure could be classified.

In all these cases, a modified Prithvi missile is used. This missile climbed to 120 km and re-entered with speed and angle simulating ~2000 km missile. Def. ordinary Prithvi can't do this unless it is modified. It is not a far fetched idea to entertain that this modified Prithvi is a two stage missile like Interceptor PAD. 120 km altitude is chosen to mark reentry as that of realistic long range ballistic missile.

Dr Saraswat said that the new seeker in the Interceptor enabled the missile to match the maneuvers of a hostile missile – like the zig zag movement of the Russian Topol missile.

Live screen shots of the radar images at the point of interception as seen on the command and control display station at Wheeler island, Orissa, on Monday. The Target missile is broken into multiple pieces.
http://www.thehindu.com/news/article535042.ece

Sanjay · Post by **Sanjay** » 19 Jul 2012 02:22

It is not a case of doubting DRDO. There are issues of RV interception that need to be addressed.

I see no reason to doubt the claim that the Prithvi target can achieve what was claimed (and incidentally I am even happier for Kanson's source refresher).

On the other hand, from the 2012 test, the last paragraph of a report said as follows:

"D.S. Reddy, Programme Director, BMD programme, said the success of the interception proved that India had graduated “from the experimental mode to the deployment mode” of its interceptors. While the target missile belonged to 600 km range class, the interceptor missile was capable of taking on missiles which had a range of 2,000 km. “We met all the objectives we had as part of the mission and we have demonstrated to the user [the Army] whatever we were claiming,” Mr. Reddy said."

http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/a ... 878400.ece

In the case of the Pak Shaheen, Ghauri and M-9s we need to consider something else.

The RVs apparently separate in all three. As with the M-9. If the Paks are to be believed (always a danger) the ranges are realistically between 750km (Shaheen 1) to 2500km in the case of the Shaheen -2. The Ghauri has a range of between 1500 and 1800km depending on the variant and (of course which Pakistani source is doing the quoting). This means that the need to intercept RVs needs to be demonstrated before IOC.

As far as range is concerned, the PAD/AAD may well be able to intercept the missiles in terms of trajectory/speed, but it is the RVs that need to be intercepted to make any BMD system viable.

I am not trying to belittle DRDO. What I am trying to do is get as clear a picture as possible of what has been demonstrated.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 19 Jul 2012 02:35

I think DRDO knows the targets it needs to intercept and have shown the ability with pictures on intercepting them.

DS Reddy statement shows they tested it to simulate a 600km range vehicle and the same intercept vehicle has the capability to take on a 2000km range vehicle. Its linear thing there. No need to test at all ranges except to demonstrate to those who need it.

The added bonus is the intercept vehicle can take on incoming targets which are executing terminal manuevers which neither the Nodong nor the Shine have demonstrated. So the extra energy can also be used for the seprating RV.

For back of enevlope calcs can some one say what are the weight of the separting Ghauri and Shine RVs? And base diameter of the cone?

Sanjay · Post by **Sanjay** » 19 Jul 2012 02:38

Don't disagree at all. Just one thing to note is that in the case of the M-9, and possibly the others, the missile body often masks the RV approach so target discrimination becomes important.

Again, the capability may well be there, but has not been demonstrated. Perhaps it is time to test it on an Agni-1 ?

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 19 Jul 2012 02:46

Sanjay wrote: On the other hand, from the 2012 test, the last paragraph of a report said as follows:

"D.S. Reddy, Programme Director, BMD programme, said the success of the interception proved that India had graduated “from the experimental mode to the deployment mode” of its interceptors. While the target missile belonged to 600 km range class, the interceptor missile was capable of taking on missiles which had a range of 2,000 km. “We met all the objectives we had as part of the mission and we have demonstrated to the user [the Army] whatever we were claiming,” Mr. Reddy said."

http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/a ... 878400.ece

I don't see any issue here, If I have to give my opinion. The part that needs to be highlighted is...

D.S. Reddy, Programme Director, BMD programme, said the success of the interception proved that India had graduated “from the experimental mode to the deployment mode” of its interceptors. While the target missile belonged to 600 km range class, the interceptor missile was capable of taking on missiles which had a range of 2,000 km. “We met all the objectives we had as part of the mission and we have demonstrated to the user [the Army] whatever we were claiming,” Mr. Reddy said.

They have demonstrated to the User what they are claiming(i.e. interception of 2000 km range missile) using a target missile of class 600 km range. Pls note, Reddy is NOT claiming that the target performed/stimulated a 600 km range for interception exercise. It means, they used 600 Km class missile to stimulate as 2000 km range.

In the case of the Pak Shaheen, Ghauri and M-9s we need to consider something else.

The RVs apparently separate in all three. As with the M-9. If the Paks are to be believed (always a danger) the ranges are realistically between 750km (Shaheen 1) to 2500km in the case of the Shaheen -2. The Ghauri has a range of between 1500 and 1800km depending on the variant and (of course which Pakistani source is doing the quoting). This means that the need to intercept RVs needs to be demonstrated before IOC.

As far as range is concerned, the PAD/AAD may well be able to intercept the missiles in terms of trajectory/speed, but it is the RVs that need to be intercepted to make any BMD system viable.

I am not trying to belittle DRDO. What I am trying to do is get as clear a picture as possible of what has been demonstrated.

Of course, if they have to be serious, target must be similar to RV at interception. But there are no quotes to show how they achieved that. But we can derive how they managed, circumstantially.

Sanjay · Post by **Sanjay** » 19 Jul 2012 03:18

Kanson, - now you have me intrigued. What do you mean by your last sentence ? I know that simulations can be run but how did they manage in this case.

I find it curious that reference was made to the Army. I cannot see them being the user. Unless of course there is inter-service argument again.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 19 Jul 2012 04:47

Ref to Army is becuase they control ground based air defence weapons.
Kanson, Are we sure the RVs separate for those vehicles?

Sanjay · Post by **Sanjay** » 19 Jul 2012 05:37

Ramana, that is not correct.

The IAF operates 38 SAM squadrons and has responsibility for strategic air defence. While the army operates SAMs, all of them are for protection of their formations. The AD network for the country is in the hands of the IAF with the army contributing L70/40s and some Zu-23-2 for VA/VP point defence.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 19 Jul 2012 09:45

afaik some of the older missile bodies have a tendency to burn and fragment and present many distorted targets, and with separating RV presents a real challenge to ABM radars to pick the RV and ignore the rest. the twisting bent and broken Scud bodies were what confused the patriot radars .... though other issues in the radars and sw themselves might have contributed.

D Roy · Post by **D Roy** » 19 Jul 2012 10:02

the real thing although OT for this thread that you should worry about is the fact that the luminary who wrote that article was a member of the NC committee that submitted its report recently.

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 19 Jul 2012 10:58

Sanjay wrote:Kanson, - now you have me intrigued. What do you mean by your last sentence ? I know that simulations can be run but how did they manage in this case.

Sirji, By simulation I here mean a 600 km class missile mimicking a 2000 km class missile in trajectory and speed.

On how, as we all probably know, when range of missile is not a concern, these missiles can be modified to increase speed on re-entry there by mimicking a 2000 km class missile - apart from Boost phase, ascent, descent and terminal phases can be powered there by increasing speed of re-entry and this is nothing new. Other missile powers have done similar things. Distance between the interceptor location and the location from where target missile was fired is less than 100 km, to give a perspective. And the target missile used here is of 600 km range.

One way of doing this is by two stage missile where lower stage separates before re-entry so the RCS of the target can mimic a realistic RV. Already PAD(interceptor) is a two stage missile.

There is a quote from Saraswat on how a second interceptor could pick remaining part/chunk of the missile from previous interception. This gives the idea of target size they are trying to intercept.

There are many incidents that show us how realistic their testing environment is. So there is nothing to suggest they like to take chances and dilute testing procedures for speedy deployment.

Sanjay wrote:I find it curious that reference was made to the Army. I cannot see them being the user. Unless of course there is inter-service argument again.

The interception was witnessed by V.K. Saraswat, Scientific Advisor to the Defence Minister, Vice-Chief of the Air Staff P.K. Barbora, top Army officers and scientists from the DRDO laboratories.
.........
Air Marshal Barbora, said the mission proved that the nation was at the doorstep of having a BMD umbrella, “which is required considering the environment.” He was extremely proud that the system would be operational in a short duration.

“As an Indian, I am proud,” he added.

What we can make out from this?

P.S. And I think this remark throws cow dung on the face of Manoj Joshi who is saying Armed forces were not in the loop.

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 19 Jul 2012 11:01

ramana wrote:Ref to Army is becuase they control ground based air defence weapons.
Kanson, Are we sure the RVs separate for those vehicles?

Ramana Sir, there is not a direct quote from officials on the separation of RV.

But from Saraswat Interview,

In the BMD project, we track and intercept a 0.1 square meter target over 1,000 km away

Do we need further confirmation?

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 19 Jul 2012 11:18

D Roy wrote:the real thing although OT for this thread that you should worry about is the fact that the luminary who wrote that article was a member of the NC committee that submitted its report recently.

You know, all the luminaries(Manoj Joshi; Sengupta and his colleagues; their syndicate) who could be very much eligible to be part of such elite committee were harping for very long time on how DRDO's BMD project is a gimmick. In some of their articles, they went on to highlight Chinese achievement as gospel truth worth emulating similar to the piece written by Manoj Joshi. I wonder why?

P.S. Sengupta is a noted Chinese mil products promoter.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 19 Jul 2012 11:31

To even consider Chorgupta has worthy of mention is pure sacrilege...the discussion has thrown up some interesting questions and lets flesh them out. No need to give free publicity to people like him.

vic · Post by **vic** » 19 Jul 2012 12:13

Nag missile article shows that there is actually not much change in the real attitude of the army. The main difference is that they are now polite. Against a requirement of around 100,000 ATGMs, they give a small order of 400 to Nag along with condescending words.

There is no fire and forget IIR missile in the world with "seeker" range of 4km in full thar summer desert heat. Javelin has a range of only 2.5 km while spike missile family supposdly failed summer tests at Pokharan.

A reasonable way would be to use datalink ie to say use Helina which has 8km missile range.

After delaying Nag on pretext of Namica, then mast on Namica, now another issue of weight has been raised.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 19 Jul 2012 12:15

^^^There we go again....

member_19648 · Post by **member_19648** » 19 Jul 2012 12:20

vic wrote: There is no fire and forget IIR missile in the world with "seeker" range of 4km in full thar summer desert heat. Javelin has a range of only 2.5 km while spike missile family supposdly failed summer tests at Pokharan.

Well the Chinese family of ATGMs have a range of 8-10 km in Sahara desert extremestt hot conditions which are liked and approved by Choragupta in facebook/a leading Indian daily respectively. Maybe we can source some if we are lucky enough!

Btw, the DRDO has promised that the NAG with modification would be able to seek targets at 4 km in the extreme temperature
conditions, so I believe a little more wait is of no harm when you can get the final/best product. Till then the Army is doing what they should do, acquiring experience on the new system.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 19 Jul 2012 12:40

excellent work on finding those articles kanson.

abhischekcc · Post by **abhischekcc** » 19 Jul 2012 12:49

>>Against a requirement of around 100,000 ATGMs,

There are not 100,000 tanks in the world, vic.

member_20453 · Post by **member_20453** » 19 Jul 2012 12:57

Lets not pay too much attn to bs, our BMD is ready for phase 1, we need to quickly ramp up production and start deploying them at all major cities and more importantly bases. The enemy will try hard to hit our key military installations, tis therefore crucial to have BMD battalions deployed at all these sites.

However, little is known about the launchers, network elements and regimental layout. Can someone shed some light in this area.

Sanjay · Post by **Sanjay** » 19 Jul 2012 16:18

Kanson, if you don't mind, can you post a link to the Saraswat interview and the Barbora quote. I agree with your conclusions. Thanks for answering, and answering very effectively, the two questions I posed.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 19 Jul 2012 19:09

Kanson, I think you have doen excellent job of researching the issues. Others who want to follow up can do so on their own.

Again thanks a lot.

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 19 Jul 2012 19:31

You are welcome, Gents!

Sanjay wrote:Kanson, if you don't mind, can you post a link to the Saraswat interview and the Barbora quote

http://www.thehindu.com/news/article535042.ece

Sanjay · Post by **Sanjay** » 19 Jul 2012 19:32

Thanks

vic · Post by **vic** » 19 Jul 2012 19:42

abhischekcc wrote:>>Against a requirement of around 100,000 ATGMs,

There are not 100,000 tanks in the world, vic.

The ratio is not 1:1 in regard to ATGMS and Tanks. Why do you think India needs around 30,000 Milan, 30,0000 konkurs, AT-6 numbers?, 25,0000 Invars etc

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 19 Jul 2012 19:44

Septimus P. wrote:However, little is known about the launchers, network elements and regimental layout.

Thats not correct. There are lot of info given right from the first test, ie 2006 onwards to the last test so far conducted. Is it not we can only talk about regimental layout after induction? It is yet to be inducted.

Here is the latest one...

http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/a ... 880258.ece

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 19 Jul 2012 19:51

Sanjay wrote:Thanks

Welcome, How is your new book, sir?

And the link to Saraswat's interview..
http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/agni ... 86248.html