The Nag is a specialist system designed to engage MBTs at range. Not point targets like infantry, hiding in crevices, using folds of the earth etc to mask themselves. Which standoff distance gives its BMP the safety. Cost of opponent equipment disabled also justifies the expense - as tanks are expensive.
The Akash is a SAM, which targets low flying aircraft, still several meters above the earth. Ergo, LOS is not such an issue. Look up minimum height of targets attacked by SAM systems!
"let me ask a counter question, what if NAMICA is taken out which renders the NAGs useless, why does IA want that system when NAGs cannot operate standalone? same thing what if Rajendra radar is taken out by ARMs rendering Akash missiles non-functional?"
Of course, there is the risk of both. The NAMICA has been designed to minimize exposure. See above. Similarly, the Akash is automated and relies on quick lock on and engagement measures to do the same. Even so, its part of a layered IADS program (with Barak-MRSAM) to extend the AD envelope beyond the typical ARM!
If BFSR is the be-all and end-all, why is it that the IA is then installing tripwires with movement sensors, putting EO/TI cameras on bunkers...the terrain ensures radars alone are not sufficient.
How is Afghanistan different?
Here, you dont seem to have done even the most basic of due diligence into the basics of how this proposed method would work. What you are doing is emphatically arguing about something:
1. Which lacks the common sense technology to make it work
- Radar guided missiles to be carried by infantry, which missiles are likely to underperform when compared to even the primitive RPGs that ANA uses
- Are not going to be able to target small targets, as versus tanks, hiding in various terrain features
- Rely on taking a helicopter FCR (whose size, cost all of which you ignored) and putting it into a BMP, which has to be then specifically developed to guide such missiles
- Aforesaid FCR has been designed to operate against vehicles and not men and is of a totally different configuration. Here you want it to do both.
2. Which does not even have the cost advantage to justify it
- Training ANA to use such a complex system. Heck, they currently have issues using arty per US observers since the standard of education for the average Afghan is very bad. You wish they use such missiles and maintain them
- Costs associated with developing and maintaining them
- Costs associated with developing this system
3. Is operationally a complete disaster
- No flexibility for dismounted troops. Tied to the BMP at all times. Nice, if the engaging party sneaks up on them from a direction the BMP is not pointed in. Then what?
Your project does not even make operational or tactical sense, nor does it have any cost benefit to it as a given. It also ignores the profile of the intended user and what they would need.
That combined with stuff like, lets put a helicopter radar etc into the BMP and make it a guidance vehicle for multipurpose missiles etc ...is very reminiscent of stuff like this - which was a far simpler idea and at least had the logic worked out, and a proper operational need.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M247_Sergeant_York
Such whimsical questions belong in the newbie thread to be honest as they detract from serious debate.
just a caution the Himalayas can have foggy weather and radars might be better suited, hence the Apache maybe
}
