Smaller version of BrahMos missile being developed
Read more at:
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/art ... 370202.cms[/url]
Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14
-
Jamal K. Malik
- BRFite
- Posts: 638
- Joined: 27 Mar 2009 23:03
Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14
From rediff: Why China does NOT fear India's missiles
:
:
:
In a report entitled Space Invaders -- China's Space Warfare Capabilities', published recently by Jane's Intelligence Review, its authors explore the enormous investment Beijing is funnelling into space warfare.
China has long been developing an anti-ballistic missile system that will have dramatic implications for the deterrence threat posed by India's missile force. If China can effectively negate the threat posed by Agni missiles, it has less to fear from India.
Indeed, the report concluded: "A limited ABM force is capable of protecting the industrial and population centres in eastern China from attack by longer-range Indian systems that are currently under development... One regional impact may be that it [China] feels emboldened to greater assist its own allies or Indian adversaries, such as Pakistan, in times of regional tension."
ABM systems have the potential to critically alter strategic balances because they nullify an adversary's attack capability.
Currently only the USA and Russia have operational ABM networks, although China is fast closing in on one, and India is pursuing such a system.
China's efforts to create an ABM capability began as early as 1964 due to fears about American and Soviet missiles.
If China has the ability to destroy incoming Indian missiles, Delhi will be forced to produce greater numbers, more destructive warheads or more sophisticated countermeasures to achieve the same effect.
Thus, India will almost assuredly develop multiple independent re-entry vehicles (MIRV) for the Agni-V, which will give each missile 2-10 separate nuclear warheads.
The same is true of Russian and US ICBMs, where a limited strike with a small number of missiles will no longer be guaranteed success. Instead, a larger barrage will be required.
Another aspect of the People's Liberation Army programme, and complementary to its ABM project, is the ability to target 'enemy' assets in space.
Key among them are anti-satellite weapons such as the SC-19 missile produced by the China Aerospace Science and Industry Corporation. It carries a 35 kg kinetic kill vehicle that can be used for both ASAT and ABM purposes.
China controversially tested an SC-19 in 2007 when it destroyed a defunct weather satellite and created 150,000 pieces of space debris.
The SC-19 has since been used in two other confirmed tests, one in January 2010 and another in January 2013.
However, the SC-19 is not the only trick in China's bag.
The HQ-9 air-defence missile, copied from Russian technology, has been developed into an HQ-9B anti-tactical ballistic missile variant.
The US Department of Defence also claims China has developed the HQ-19, an equivalent of the Terminal High-Altitude Area Defence system, of which the US Army currently has a battery deployed on Guam.
The Jane's report gave a bold warning: "Chinese ABM development is on par with US efforts technologically, only lagging behind in deployment."
However, Chinese investment will rapidly turn this situation around, with the authors stating "China could meet or exceed US ABM deployment levels within the next decade".
Large phased-array radars are key to conducting space-based intercepts.
They can be used offensively or defensively, supporting either anti-satellite attacks or a ballistic-missile early-warning function.
China has four known LPAR sites at Huian, Korla, Longgangzhen and Shuangyashan that provide coverage of most of Russia, Central Asia, India and Taiwan/Southeast Asia.
It is suspected the Huian site near the Taiwan Strait may be an electronic attack device able to target the strategically important AN/FPS-115 Pave Paws long-range early-warning radar atop a mountain in Taiwan.
Indeed, the Jane's report estimated, "Despite the potential to negate US missile threats, few capabilities offer a substantial threat to US forces, and the largest impact will be felt regionally through the potential interference with Taiwanese ballistic-missile early-warning systems, or the increasing Chinese assertion over shipping lanes."
Not content with current progress, China is constantly fishing for new technologies.
For example, in June the US security technology group Crowd strike accused the clandestine hacker group Unit 61398, with close links to the PLA, of systematically attacking computer systems belonging to space/satellite partners of US and European governments to glean top-secret information.
Just a few weeks earlier, the US Department of Justice indicted five PLA members of Unit 61398 for cybercrimes.
China is also pursuing high-energy laser weapons that can dazzle, blind or destroy enemy systems such as imaging satellites.
This is an acute threat for a country like the USA that is so dependent on space-based sensors.
It was reported in September 2006 that China fired a laser at a US spy satellite. The DoD regularly reports that China continues to pursue laser weapons for ASAT and ABM roles.
hat is not all. China may be developing co-orbital weapons, or 'assassin satellites', that quietly orbit in space awaiting an order to assault hostile satellites.
In September 2013, China tested a dual-use co-orbital 'assassin' or repair satellite with a robotic arm. It made contact with a target satellite, thus demonstrating a Chinese ability to manoeuvre and damage other satellites.
Russian sources revealed China tested a Shenlong small space plane in late 2011 or early 2012.
Similar in size to the USA's X-37B Orbital Test Vehicle, the Shenlong "could be developed into a slightly larger space plane that could carry passive or active military payloads," the Jane's report predicted.
China is clearly developing major capabilities so it can both strike first and strike back against any nation with satellites or missiles aimed at it. China has well and truly cemented its position in the 'star wars' era.
:
:
:
In a report entitled Space Invaders -- China's Space Warfare Capabilities', published recently by Jane's Intelligence Review, its authors explore the enormous investment Beijing is funnelling into space warfare.
China has long been developing an anti-ballistic missile system that will have dramatic implications for the deterrence threat posed by India's missile force. If China can effectively negate the threat posed by Agni missiles, it has less to fear from India.
Indeed, the report concluded: "A limited ABM force is capable of protecting the industrial and population centres in eastern China from attack by longer-range Indian systems that are currently under development... One regional impact may be that it [China] feels emboldened to greater assist its own allies or Indian adversaries, such as Pakistan, in times of regional tension."
ABM systems have the potential to critically alter strategic balances because they nullify an adversary's attack capability.
Currently only the USA and Russia have operational ABM networks, although China is fast closing in on one, and India is pursuing such a system.
China's efforts to create an ABM capability began as early as 1964 due to fears about American and Soviet missiles.
If China has the ability to destroy incoming Indian missiles, Delhi will be forced to produce greater numbers, more destructive warheads or more sophisticated countermeasures to achieve the same effect.
Thus, India will almost assuredly develop multiple independent re-entry vehicles (MIRV) for the Agni-V, which will give each missile 2-10 separate nuclear warheads.
The same is true of Russian and US ICBMs, where a limited strike with a small number of missiles will no longer be guaranteed success. Instead, a larger barrage will be required.
Another aspect of the People's Liberation Army programme, and complementary to its ABM project, is the ability to target 'enemy' assets in space.
Key among them are anti-satellite weapons such as the SC-19 missile produced by the China Aerospace Science and Industry Corporation. It carries a 35 kg kinetic kill vehicle that can be used for both ASAT and ABM purposes.
China controversially tested an SC-19 in 2007 when it destroyed a defunct weather satellite and created 150,000 pieces of space debris.
The SC-19 has since been used in two other confirmed tests, one in January 2010 and another in January 2013.
However, the SC-19 is not the only trick in China's bag.
The HQ-9 air-defence missile, copied from Russian technology, has been developed into an HQ-9B anti-tactical ballistic missile variant.
The US Department of Defence also claims China has developed the HQ-19, an equivalent of the Terminal High-Altitude Area Defence system, of which the US Army currently has a battery deployed on Guam.
The Jane's report gave a bold warning: "Chinese ABM development is on par with US efforts technologically, only lagging behind in deployment."
However, Chinese investment will rapidly turn this situation around, with the authors stating "China could meet or exceed US ABM deployment levels within the next decade".
Large phased-array radars are key to conducting space-based intercepts.
They can be used offensively or defensively, supporting either anti-satellite attacks or a ballistic-missile early-warning function.
China has four known LPAR sites at Huian, Korla, Longgangzhen and Shuangyashan that provide coverage of most of Russia, Central Asia, India and Taiwan/Southeast Asia.
It is suspected the Huian site near the Taiwan Strait may be an electronic attack device able to target the strategically important AN/FPS-115 Pave Paws long-range early-warning radar atop a mountain in Taiwan.
Indeed, the Jane's report estimated, "Despite the potential to negate US missile threats, few capabilities offer a substantial threat to US forces, and the largest impact will be felt regionally through the potential interference with Taiwanese ballistic-missile early-warning systems, or the increasing Chinese assertion over shipping lanes."
Not content with current progress, China is constantly fishing for new technologies.
For example, in June the US security technology group Crowd strike accused the clandestine hacker group Unit 61398, with close links to the PLA, of systematically attacking computer systems belonging to space/satellite partners of US and European governments to glean top-secret information.
Just a few weeks earlier, the US Department of Justice indicted five PLA members of Unit 61398 for cybercrimes.
China is also pursuing high-energy laser weapons that can dazzle, blind or destroy enemy systems such as imaging satellites.
This is an acute threat for a country like the USA that is so dependent on space-based sensors.
It was reported in September 2006 that China fired a laser at a US spy satellite. The DoD regularly reports that China continues to pursue laser weapons for ASAT and ABM roles.
hat is not all. China may be developing co-orbital weapons, or 'assassin satellites', that quietly orbit in space awaiting an order to assault hostile satellites.
In September 2013, China tested a dual-use co-orbital 'assassin' or repair satellite with a robotic arm. It made contact with a target satellite, thus demonstrating a Chinese ability to manoeuvre and damage other satellites.
Russian sources revealed China tested a Shenlong small space plane in late 2011 or early 2012.
Similar in size to the USA's X-37B Orbital Test Vehicle, the Shenlong "could be developed into a slightly larger space plane that could carry passive or active military payloads," the Jane's report predicted.
China is clearly developing major capabilities so it can both strike first and strike back against any nation with satellites or missiles aimed at it. China has well and truly cemented its position in the 'star wars' era.
Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14
Several news outlets are reporting that the Buk missile suspected in the shooting down of Malaysian MH17 has been exported to India, among others.
The Indian Navy obviously has the related Shtil missile, but is there any evidence of Buk in service in its land-based version? Don't see why the army or air force would keep this a secret.
The Indian Navy obviously has the related Shtil missile, but is there any evidence of Buk in service in its land-based version? Don't see why the army or air force would keep this a secret.
Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14
No we don't. IA has a MRSAM requirement though for which a tender should be out and Buk is a contender provided it can fire on the move.
Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14
@KaranM, Isn't MRSAM an IAF requirement for airspace protection ? The IA's SAM requirements are more tactical (SPAAGs and such) - for protection of formations from Strike aircraft. Akash is probably the longest range missile they would want.
Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14
>> Akash is probably the longest range missile they would want.
akash on the T-72 chassis does a similar job. but then its IA we are talking about, surely there is room for a few dozen next gen Buk/Pantsyr to replace the tunguskas, which also could need a $1b update soon
akash on the T-72 chassis does a similar job. but then its IA we are talking about, surely there is room for a few dozen next gen Buk/Pantsyr to replace the tunguskas, which also could need a $1b update soon
Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14
Latest requirement from IA is they want a "light, mobile system" that can fire on the move, per reports. I wonder whether the original RFI is available someplace to check. I doubt whether any MRSAM system can fire on the move so would want to see whether the RFI put it out or it was another brainwave from one of the so called analysts to plug for imports.srin wrote:@KaranM, Isn't MRSAM an IAF requirement for airspace protection ? The IA's SAM requirements are more tactical (SPAAGs and such) - for protection of formations from Strike aircraft. Akash is probably the longest range missile they would want.
This is DRDO's view on the matter from 2009. They rarely provide their POV on user programs so it provides some inner details.
So, basically, the MRSAM requirement came out of "we need it now" and it may be possible the IA changed the specs of its MRSAM requirement later.Akash Surface to Air Missile System: Akash was developed based on the ‘GSQR’ (General Staff Qualitative Requirements) projected by the Indian Army. Development activities resulted in maturation of a sophisticated and state of art indigenous weapon system with several unique features customized for the army such as mobility, multi-target handling, ‘all the way thrusting’ for manoeuvrability, short flight time due to no coasting phase till intercept and C-4I implementation. Lifetime product support is an added advantage. Nine consecutive successful guided flight tests have proven the system’s reliability. The system, tailor-made for the army, has undergone rigorous electronic warfare evaluation at Gwalior, mobility trials at Pokharan desert and extensive functional trials at Kolar. It is comparable to the best systems of its class worldwide. The MOD had in March 2005 permitted the army to (i) import one group of MRSAM and (ii) to simultaneously process induction of Akash. Thus, the delay in procuring MRSAM (ex-import) cannot be attributed to DRDO. In March 05, DRDO had indicated that Akash prototype would be available for user trials by 2007, and this time-line has been fully met. The air force has placed an order for two squadrons of the Akash missile system. Production of such a technologically advanced medium range surface to air missile will provide a big boost to the Indian defence industry. Deliveries can be made within 24 months of an order by the army. It is considering placing an order for at least one group of Akash missiles. The air force is also likely to order additional squadrons of the improved Akash missile system.
The requirement is for one group.
And the Indo-Israeli MRSAM could be a contender, given the usual delay in all IA driven procurements + Antony's delays. (IAF has done far better in working their procurements though, till the megabuck Rafale came along)
Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14
I don't think that is correct, how many big ticket items has the IAF signed after the full RFP-Technical eval-price/offset negotiation? Consider all the airframes bought in recent past: MKI follow on orders, Mi-17, C-17, C-130, Mig-29 and M2000 upgrade (and Hawk?) were all more or less "single vendor" deals. Only other airframes that were bought were the Pilatus and the AW101(we now know how that was selected).Karan M wrote:...
And the Indo-Israeli MRSAM could be a contender, given the usual delay in all IA driven procurements + Antony's delays. (IAF has done far better in working their procurements though, till the megabuck Rafale came along)
Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14
True, but what IA really needs is the SRSAM. I haven't heard much recently about any progress about Maitri - so I suppose that hasn't gotten off the ground even after so many years.Singha wrote:>> Akash is probably the longest range missile they would want.
akash on the T-72 chassis does a similar job. but then its IA we are talking about, surely there is room for a few dozen next gen Buk/Pantsyr to replace the tunguskas, which also could need a $1b update soon
They may have to go for off-the-shelf options - like you mention Pantsir.
Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14
every paisa spent on tunguska, pantsir, ZSU-23-4 or tor is a paisa gone from the akash and follow on projects + letting rival systems establish a strong inertia and footprint.
unfortunately with nothing done on maitri for ages, and no sign a cloned domestic radar/EO guided gun to replace the ZSU and L70, billions of $$ to replace these are inevitable. atleast we should have learnt from the ZSU which is there for decades now and come up with a local soln to be deployed in bulk for close in airfield and anti-helicopter/anti-munition defence. this should be well within our capability considering we apparently license make the ak630 as well. even the ak630ski on a truck could do it.
unfortunately with nothing done on maitri for ages, and no sign a cloned domestic radar/EO guided gun to replace the ZSU and L70, billions of $$ to replace these are inevitable. atleast we should have learnt from the ZSU which is there for decades now and come up with a local soln to be deployed in bulk for close in airfield and anti-helicopter/anti-munition defence. this should be well within our capability considering we apparently license make the ak630 as well. even the ak630ski on a truck could do it.
Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14
Just look at the overall quantum of procurements in systems& platforms both, and the IAF is streets ahead of the IA.abhik wrote:I don't think that is correct, how many big ticket items has the IAF signed after the full RFP-Technical eval-price/offset negotiation? Consider all the airframes bought in recent past: MKI follow on orders, Mi-17, C-17, C-130, Mig-29 and M2000 upgrade (and Hawk?) were all more or less "single vendor" deals. Only other airframes that were bought were the Pilatus and the AW101(we now know how that was selected).Karan M wrote:...
And the Indo-Israeli MRSAM could be a contender, given the usual delay in all IA driven procurements + Antony's delays. (IAF has done far better in working their procurements though, till the megabuck Rafale came along)
You don't see the IAF complaining as the IA does of completely insufficient ammo stocks or their frontline fleet being technologically behind that of their peers. The IA procurement system is completely broken - pretty much everyone notes it, vendors, IA insiders themselves. A lot of the blame can fall on MOD but a fair share is with IA itself for running pretty convoluted tenders and then withdrawing, rereleasing.
Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14
The missile and AD radar requirement of the IA needs massive expansion and should not be seen only in context of what it already has.
Having said that, there does not seem to be any need to import MR-SAM with same range as Akash. What IA probably needs is a missile in 50-70 km range category to protect Vulnerable Areas and Vulnerable Points.
Given the range and accuracy of stand-off weapon systems, it would not be prudent to allow enemy aircraft to come with in 20-30 km of such a target. We need to throw a ring around our critical assets on western and eastern borders with such missiles along with something like S-300 XX.
Having said that, there does not seem to be any need to import MR-SAM with same range as Akash. What IA probably needs is a missile in 50-70 km range category to protect Vulnerable Areas and Vulnerable Points.
Given the range and accuracy of stand-off weapon systems, it would not be prudent to allow enemy aircraft to come with in 20-30 km of such a target. We need to throw a ring around our critical assets on western and eastern borders with such missiles along with something like S-300 XX.
Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14
Er isn't the 120km barak8 version for ia supposed to do that.
Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14
Sorry, wasn't aware that Barak has a version for army as well.Singha wrote:Er isn't the 120km barak8 version for ia supposed to do that.
-
Prem Kumar
- BRF Oldie
- Posts: 4246
- Joined: 31 Mar 2009 00:10
Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14
The 120 Km MRSAM is for the Air Force. I would assume these would be static air defenses. I dont know if the Army requirements have anything special like mobility. If not, there is no reason they cannot use MRSAM (whenever that becomes available though. Better not to hold our breath, given the LRSAM delays)
Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14
Well MRSAM is supposed to be for IA as well. The details - based on Israeli advertising in Paris etc is that LR/MRSAM come in two versions, 70 km and 120 km - the difference in range is due to a large booster attached.
The SAM systems will be truck mounted so should be able to go wherever trucks can but tracked systems should have an edge. Wont be surprised after LR/MRSAM is developed Army suddenly discovers and cribs existing Akash on T72 is more mobile than Tatra/Ashok Leyland based MRSAM.
The SAM systems will be truck mounted so should be able to go wherever trucks can but tracked systems should have an edge. Wont be surprised after LR/MRSAM is developed Army suddenly discovers and cribs existing Akash on T72 is more mobile than Tatra/Ashok Leyland based MRSAM.
Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14
I thought the LR-SAM was only for IN & IAF.
Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14
The IA is stated to be considering it for its MRSAM requirement since its been so delayed (the original import path), which is for 1 Group at present but is expected to increase beyond that.
IAF meanwhile put out a RFI for its own new MRSAM as a hedge against further delays in the IAI-DRDO one.
IAF meanwhile put out a RFI for its own new MRSAM as a hedge against further delays in the IAI-DRDO one.
Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14
Can someone enlighten me on how the MRSAM project has been divided between India and Israel? What exactly are the contributions of India and Israel respectively? Plus who is the lead partner, if there is one?Karan M wrote:Well MRSAM is supposed to be for IA as well. The details - based on Israeli advertising in Paris etc is that LR/MRSAM come in two versions, 70 km and 120 km - the difference in range is due to a large booster attached.
The SAM systems will be truck mounted so should be able to go wherever trucks can but tracked systems should have an edge. Wont be surprised after LR/MRSAM is developed Army suddenly discovers and cribs existing Akash on T72 is more mobile than Tatra/Ashok Leyland based MRSAM.
Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14
israel has the mission computer, airframe, VLS & radar (both onboard and the MFSTAR) I think.
india has the warhead and the rocket motor.
not sure who has the lead role, surely rafael as project is being executed and tested in israel.
atleast thats what I read many a moon ago.
india has the warhead and the rocket motor.
not sure who has the lead role, surely rafael as project is being executed and tested in israel.
atleast thats what I read many a moon ago.
Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14
Unlike Brahmos, there doesn't seem to be a corporation. So, who gets the money from the LRSAM/MRSAM sale (IMI IAI or DRDO or both ?) and in what proportion ? And looks like Elta will make money anyway ...
Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14
Mission computer/C3I is by India - DRDO and TataSingha wrote:israel has the mission computer, airframe, VLS & radar (both onboard and the MFSTAR) I think.
india has the warhead and the rocket motor.
not sure who has the lead role, surely rafael as project is being executed and tested in israel.
atleast thats what I read many a moon ago.
http://www.tataadvancedsystems.com/static.php?id=63
Also the cooling system for radar etc
http://www.hindu.com/2011/03/18/stories ... 200400.htm
in terms of missile itself - crucial propulsion is by india. If we can make it work, expect work to flow into astra mk-2.
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-pRWKN98mKrE/T ... 00/111.jpg
The fabrication will be in India, should include the radar as well - again Tatas will do a lot of the work (since they acquired HBL, ELtas partner) and BEL will be the primary integrator + BDL.
Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14
The requirement for SAM in IA need to be seen in context with their responsibilities.Karan M wrote:The IA is stated to be considering it for its MRSAM requirement since its been so delayed (the original import path), which is for 1 Group at present but is expected to increase beyond that. IAF meanwhile put out a RFI for its own new MRSAM as a hedge against further delays in the IAI-DRDO one.
Generally, this is how the AD Missile and Gun assets are distributed:
1. Air Defense Brigades with Armored Divisions - these account for bulk holding of Self-Propelled (SP) ZSU-23-4 'Shilka', Tungushka, Sa-10 Strela and SA-8 Gecko AD assets. These are supposed to provide AD cover to the mechanized columns on the go.These are called Mechanized AD Brigades. And from what I know, we have grand total of 03 such brigades @ 1 per armored division.
- http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/LAND-FORC ... 5/0287.jpg - Tungushka with 31 Armored Division 'Whilte Tiger of Reva'
- http://img217.imageshack.us/img217/5748 ... 720wb9.jpg - SA-8 with 1st Armored Division
- http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/LAND-FORC ... 3/0286.jpg - SA-13 in action; formation unknown.
2. Missile Groups equipped with SA-6 'Kvadrat' - The Akash SAM will replace missiles in these groups. There are two of them - I think with 1 Corps and 2 Corps respectively. It may be possible that SA-6 are moved to Pivot Corps while Strike Corps refit with Akash.
http://www.armyrecognition.com/images/s ... my_001.jpg - pic of SA-6 in what looks like Army Day Parade.
3. AD Brigades under various Corps/Commands - these are equipped with the venerable Bofors L70 guns and ZSU-23 guns. IA mounts ZSU-23 on TATRA platforms to give them mobility. L-70 are there for defense of static targets.
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/LAND-FORC ... 4/0620.jpg - ZSU-23 mounted on TATRA from R-day.
Missile assets are also used to safeguard high value targets like ammunition depot along L-70 guns. I think this responsibility is shared with IAF in terms of deployment of missile assets.
Long story short - IA assets are woefully short considering the nature and expanse of threat. Given the stand-off nature of weapons and sophistication of delivery platforms, enemy a/c might not even enter the AD bubble of assets like SA-8 and L-70. IA+IAF will need AD assets to neutralize enemy a/c 50-70 km away from just high value assets.
Even for maneuver forces, it will need a 4-tier structure with MR-SAM/AKASH/SA-8/SA-10+Guns - basically, 70 km/30 km/ 15 km/ 5 km/guns. With advent of modern and sophisticated missiles+radar (not to mention the steep price), this may be brought down to 3 missile system.
The LR-SAM and MR-SAM requirement for defense of fixed high value assets will have to sorted out between IA and IAF based on distribution of responsibility. Though, IA will require MR-SAM assets for its own use as well.
Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14
^^^ Saar ji in the above IIRC the SA-10 should actually be the SA-13 Gopher. SA-10 Grumble continues the lineage of S-300 ityadi.
Great explanation re. deployment and formations for AD coverage.
Great explanation re. deployment and formations for AD coverage.
Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14
Slip of tounge, I say!andy B wrote:^^^ Saar ji in the above IIRC the SA-10 should actually be the SA-13 Gopher. SA-10 Grumble continues the lineage of S-300 ityadi. Great explanation re. deployment and formations for AD coverage.
Thanks for pointing it out.
Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14
How about an missile system to replace Sa-8-10 systems? I know Spyder is there, but that still doesn't seem to complete the picture. . It would be nice to see an Desi version of Spyder. That would be a 1:1 replacement ofrohitvats wrote: The requirement for SAM in IA need to be seen in context with their responsibilities.
Even for maneuver forces, it will need a 4-tier structure with MR-SAM/AKASH/SA-8/SA-10+Guns - basically, 70 km/30 km/ 15 km/ 5 km/guns. With advent of modern and sophisticated missiles+radar (not to mention the steep price), this may be brought down to 3 missile system.
The LR-SAM and MR-SAM requirement for defense of fixed high value assets will have to sorted out between IA and IAF based on distribution of responsibility. Though, IA will require MR-SAM assets for its own use as well.
Israeli SPYDER Desi Metal Tarantula
Tatra truck Tata truck
Python/Derby Astra
I forget what radar is used with the Israeli Spyder, but the desi version can use the Swordfish or any other appropriate AESA radar. That would be a 100% Desi solution MR-SAM, Akash and P.Metallica system. There would be no guns, this would be an all missile solution, since guns are obsolete.
Indian Tarantula
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... allica.jpg
Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14
Rohit,
Should not Armoured Divisions be equipped with a single Tungushka Regiment and the AD Brigade being held at a Strike Corps level ideally? Having said that,the second picture (SA-8 Gecko) is very telling, but could also be an Composite Unit. AD units are notorious for it.
With regards to numbers, here are a few data points.
The 14 Battery figure (if correct) taking into account the standard AD TO&E of 2 Guns/Troop and 3 Troops for a total of 18 to a Regiment.These then account for as many as 4 Regiments plus Reserves.
AFAIK, Most Shilkas units are being held with the RAPIDS. As it is we should not have more than 4-5 Regiments of them in any case. Gophers and Gecko's are the real mystery in terms of numbers and their holdings.
Added Later: The SA-8 Gecko picture you uploaded has two stars on the drivers side. I could be wrong but stars are only painted onto the vehicle for Aircraft kills. Who the hell were they shooting at?
Should not Armoured Divisions be equipped with a single Tungushka Regiment and the AD Brigade being held at a Strike Corps level ideally? Having said that,the second picture (SA-8 Gecko) is very telling, but could also be an Composite Unit. AD units are notorious for it.
With regards to numbers, here are a few data points.
http://defense-update.com/products/t/tungushka.htmAmong the operators of the system is the Indian Army, which has already received ten batteries. Four additional batteries are on order. (New order announced December 20, 2005)
The 14 Battery figure (if correct) taking into account the standard AD TO&E of 2 Guns/Troop and 3 Troops for a total of 18 to a Regiment.These then account for as many as 4 Regiments plus Reserves.
AFAIK, Most Shilkas units are being held with the RAPIDS. As it is we should not have more than 4-5 Regiments of them in any case. Gophers and Gecko's are the real mystery in terms of numbers and their holdings.
Added Later: The SA-8 Gecko picture you uploaded has two stars on the drivers side. I could be wrong but stars are only painted onto the vehicle for Aircraft kills. Who the hell were they shooting at?
Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14
Dude, guys like you talk a lot of airy fairy stuff with zero research ...I am usually polite, but what you write needs an answer.dhiraj wrote:Sorry Sir , you are quoting on convenience.
With the same lack of funding and same lack of direction you have the G3OM which everyone is very proud about (including me).
Who gave the direction for G3OM ? Who requested funds for ?
G30M comes from Accord - a company which has been working on GPS for many many years now & depends on availability of signals from GPS/GLONASS and IRNSS - again, all of which depend on technologies matured at great cost abroad & adopted lately in India (read up on IRNSS).
That module feeds into a complete INS/GPS package designed by RCI. Again, DRDL started working on INS packages from eons ago with limited budgets which were assisted by the fact the IGMDP came along to give INS research & production a boost.
In each case, we had the availability of limited amounts of commercial off the shelf technology. GPS for instance, put up in the sky by the US.
In contrast, do you even understand the costs that are required by stuff like seeker hardware & development? The amount that is needed across the chain? A country which in the 80's would not fund even acquisition of commercial TWTs for large ground based radars ("too expensive")? Trishul was stuck up for years till DRDL convinced folks to fund acquisition of magnetrons from a special provider abroad. Where were the funds to start and do something like that local??
Understand context. India is technology starved because its governance went socialist, screwed up the economy and then a bunch of corrupt sods also realized the import gravy train worked to get forex into their hands, so they devalued local R&D and let the whole structure stagnate as a confused mess, lack of direction et al come from that.
What gibberish. There is no low hanging stuff in defence given what you have quoted as "low hanging stuff" given stuff like AESA radars, seekers all require critical breakthroughs in hardware & much research in algorithms as well, plus specialized test ranges & facilities - which mean decades of investment & constant work.What one should understand is try to set priorities right. Understand the limitations of funds and capabilities and go for low hanging stuffs.
You fail to understand this, because you have done zero research on how the sector is organized in India. ULW Howitzers etc are the preserve of the OFB. The last time a proposal was made in the late 90's to reverse engineer the Bofors with assistance from DRDO etc, it was shot down by the Army which said it wanted imports which would be state of the art and the GOI would support it. Then the issue hung fire for decades and now we have reports of how it was OFB which sat on it all this while. Yup, even the IA realized finally what the assurance of state of the imports was worth..Asking funds for jet engines and not mastering for ex. a ultra light weight howitzer when there is requirement for so many years and providing it to the army is something I fail to understand. At the end of the day you have neither.
When the IA was not willing to even accept basic revisions on the Arjun, when its Pinaka program was going through multiple trials, you suggest DRDO should have proposed a howitzer. Right.
As regards jet engines, the answer to that is simple. The Marut was cancelled because of technology denial. The technocrats in the 80's didnt want that to occur all over again so they funded the Kaveri.
That's you being naive and raising a strawman and then demolishing it.Regarding " funding has been given as has been asked for and that too for prior projects in the R&D sector" , it would be too naive to assume that because we have additional funding this year so we have all the R&D backlog cleared next year.
The amount of investment required by local R&D is significant and has to be maintained for a decade plus to make a breakthrough impact on many programs.
Why? You are as expert as they are. Go on, add to the noise & babble. Do you well.Regarding media panel etc , sorry I am least interested in such suggestion. Thanks
Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14
SRSAMRien wrote:How about an missile system to replace Sa-8-10 systems? I know Spyder is there, but that still doesn't seem to complete the picture. . It would be nice to see an Desi version of Spyder. That would be a 1:1 replacement ofrohitvats wrote: The requirement for SAM in IA need to be seen in context with their responsibilities.
Even for maneuver forces, it will need a 4-tier structure with MR-SAM/AKASH/SA-8/SA-10+Guns - basically, 70 km/30 km/ 15 km/ 5 km/guns. With advent of modern and sophisticated missiles+radar (not to mention the steep price), this may be brought down to 3 missile system.
The LR-SAM and MR-SAM requirement for defense of fixed high value assets will have to sorted out between IA and IAF based on distribution of responsibility. Though, IA will require MR-SAM assets for its own use as well.
Israeli SPYDER Desi Metal Tarantula
Tatra truck Tata truck
Python/Derby Astra
I forget what radar is used with the Israeli Spyder, but the desi version can use the Swordfish or any other appropriate AESA radar. That would be a 100% Desi solution MR-SAM, Akash and P.Metallica system. There would be no guns, this would be an all missile solution, since guns are obsolete.
Indian Tarantula
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... allica.jpg
Radar would likely be the MMSR
Range: 0-80Km, 100 Target TWS, high scan rate (30 rpm), high elevation angles same as a WLR.
Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14
Regarding AD modernization, these 2 have been funded
http://www.bel-india.com/L-70-Gun-Upgradation
http://www.bel-india.com/Schilka-Weapon
http://www.bel-india.com/L-70-Gun-Upgradation
http://www.bel-india.com/Schilka-Weapon
Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14
Will reply to rest of your post later but here is something for you:vaibhav.n wrote:Rohit,
Should not Armoured Divisions be equipped with a single Tungushka Regiment and the AD Brigade being held at a Strike Corps level ideally? Having said that,the second picture (SA-8 Gecko) is very telling, but could also be an Composite Unit. AD units are notorious for it.
<SNIP>
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/image/10 ... parade.jpg - SA-8 in 31 Armored Division Color.
100% indigenous replacement for Spyder
How about a 100% indigenous AD system. It would be nice to see a Desi version of Spyder. That would be a 1:1 replacement of
System Israeli SPYDER Desi Metal Tarantula
Truck Tatra truck Tata truck
Missiles Python/Derby Astra/Mini Astra with IR seeker
Radar MMSR Rohini
Indian Tarantula
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... allica.jpg
The parts are literally available off the shelf to replace this expensive imported system. While the Army will insist on their interminable summer, winter and trial trials, all of these components have already been tested and are currently in Army service. Thanks KaranM for the Radar!
The planned AD Network
Maitri, Akash, And Spyder. There is only 1 Desi system. With the Metal Tarantula, we can have 2. Anyone know what tech is needed to produce an indigenous Maitri? And most of the systems are shared with Akash, ensuring large cost savings.
System Israeli SPYDER Desi Metal Tarantula
Truck Tatra truck Tata truck
Missiles Python/Derby Astra/Mini Astra with IR seeker
Radar MMSR Rohini
Indian Tarantula
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... allica.jpg
The parts are literally available off the shelf to replace this expensive imported system. While the Army will insist on their interminable summer, winter and trial trials, all of these components have already been tested and are currently in Army service. Thanks KaranM for the Radar!
The planned AD Network
Maitri, Akash, And Spyder. There is only 1 Desi system. With the Metal Tarantula, we can have 2. Anyone know what tech is needed to produce an indigenous Maitri? And most of the systems are shared with Akash, ensuring large cost savings.
Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14
You could be right about the AD Brigades. Such a AD heavy Brigade exclusively for the use by an Armoured Division is curious. Likely that the Division's Armoured Brigades donot have organic AD Batteries unlike the Indep Armoured Brigades.Will reply to rest of your post later but here is something for you:
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/image/10 ... parade.jpg - SA-8 in 31 Armored Division Color.
Looked up SIPRI also, around 100 SA-8 Gecko units were imported from the Soviets and delivered around 1984. ZSU-23-4 Shilka also number 100 units inducted around 1977 onwards. However they also mention a transfer of 200 units of SA-9 Gaskins, never seen those in IA service.
Looks like, they have a SA-19+SA-13+SA-8 Regiments in these Brigades.
Last edited by vaibhav.n on 23 Jul 2014 14:21, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14
From that news item posted in BR Home page,
“During the trial phase, the Arihant will test-fire the fully developed BO-5 missile as part of the sea trials,” said Avinash Chander, the head of DRDO, refereeing to the SLBM, which can strike from a moveable platform at a maximum distance of 2,000 km.
Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14
my mistake
Last edited by krishnan on 23 Jul 2014 15:03, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14
The report says from a movable platform, which implies from a moving submarine.krishnan wrote:either stupid reporting, or the missile is very good, able to hit movable targets at that range
Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14
Nirbhay launch likely by Sept; missile undergoes design changes-Tarmak007
http://tarmak007.blogspot.in/2014/07/ni ... ssile.htmlIt's official! India is gearing up for the second launch of its subsonic cruise missile Nirbhay in the next three months. After the aborted maiden launch in March 2013, the first made-in-Bangalore missile is likely to be test-fired in September, post the monsoon season.
"We were disappointed that we could not complete the mission, but proud of what we could achieve with the first copybook launch. We have made a few corrections in the design and a couple of prototypes are getting ready for the next launch. The next few prototypes will be used to confirm the design parameters and demonstrate the overall mission capabilities of the system. Any flight vehicle undergoes fine tuning of its design during the development flight trials," ADE director Srikumar told Express.
-
Ranjani Brow
Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14
K-4 disguised as BO-5?SSridhar wrote:From that news item posted in BR Home page,“During the trial phase, the Arihant will test-fire the fully developed BO-5 missile as part of the sea trials,” said Avinash Chander, the head of DRDO, refereeing to the SLBM, which can strike from a moveable platform at a maximum distance of 2,000 km.
IIRC the recent launch of a nuclear-capable ballistic missile from an underwater platform was officially reported to be at range of 2000 Km+.
-
Ranjani Brow
Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14
Nirbhay launch likely by Sept; missile undergoes design changes
http://tarmak007.blogspot.in/2014/07/ni ... e.html?m=1It's official! India is gearing up for the second launch of its subsonic cruise missile Nirbhay in the next three months. After the aborted maiden launch in March 2013, the first made-in-Bangalore missile is likely to be test-fired in September, post the monsoon season.
"We were disappointed that we could not complete the mission, but proud of what we could achieve with the first copybook launch. We have made a few corrections in the design and a couple of prototypes are getting ready for the next launch. The next few prototypes will be used to confirm the design parameters and demonstrate the overall mission capabilities of the system. Any flight vehicle undergoes fine tuning of its design during the development flight trials," ADE director Srikumar