Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

sattili · Post by **sattili** » 27 Aug 2014 18:51

^^^^^
@brar_w: with due respect, can you please take these American systems information to the International military thread? Its very tiring to sift through these USA brochure stats in every thread that is meant to discuss "Indian" systems.

What you post might be very interesting information, but please keep Indian threads for Indian stuff.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 27 Aug 2014 18:54

@brar_w: with due respect, can you please take these American systems information to the International military thread? Its very tiring to sift through these USA brochure stats in every thread that is meant to discuss "Indian" systems

Sir, if you look at the discussion it was not me who introduced foreign missiles into the discussion. My response began when a fellow board member posted a chart about comparable missiles from different OEM's. Anyhow point taken.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 27 Aug 2014 21:11

Let it be for it provides a comparison to what DRDO is doing.

Austin, Please post the e-mail comments from Arun on the interview with Dr Chander.

Thanks,
ramana

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 27 Aug 2014 21:36

Hi Ramana , Posting Aruns comment to Dr Chander Interview. Comments in Red. Thanks

Saurav Jha: Dr Chander, DRDO's prowess in the area of strategic missile systems is now accepted by even your worst detractors, but the same cannot be said about tactical missile systems yet. How would you respond to this?

Avinash Chander: Major systems that have already been realized in the tactical domain include the Akash surface to air missile (SAM) which has gone into bulk production and recent trials from production lot conducted by the Indian Army (IA) have been quite successful. IA will induct this system shortly. The Indian Air force has of course already inducted the Akash.

Then you have the Astra air to air missile (AAM) which has undergone successful launches from a Su-30MKI and will soon be tested from the same against actual aerial targets. We are very confident about trials against actual targets since the Astra has already intercepted aerial targets when launched from the ground. I think we have a world class system on our hands here with the Astra. Third on this list, is the Indo-Israeli Long Range Surface to Air Missile (LRSAM) which is headed for trials in September if things go according to plan.

So there has been significant growth even in the tactical missiles arena domestically.

Aksah and Astra are closest to mass production.

Saurav Jha: So in that context what are some of the new tactical missile systems being developed under DRDO's recently unveiled 'missile autonomy mission?'

Avinash Chander: Our aim via the 'missile autonomy mission' is to cover a wider space as it were. Let me outline some of the new systems being progressed. A new man portable anti-tank guided missile (ATGM) for which design is over and hardware is getting developed. A Longer ranged SAM with a range of 200-250 km is on the drawing board. A quick reaction SAM which can track on move is well-advanced in the design stage. An anti-radiation missile and a long range anti-ship missile which can prevent aircraft carriers from coming within 1500-2000 km of our shores are also being pursued

LRSAM 200 + km range is an interesting and important development. Lot of challenges to overcome. This system is only cost effective way to secure Indian Airspace. Also note that this is the Indian missile to neuter Barbur (sic) Cruise Missile of TSP.

I expect man-pad ATGM to be better than the touted US ATGM. Production facility for Focal Plane Array sensor gives credence to its viability.

Saurav Jha: What is the status of the anti-radiation missile and the long range anti-ship missile?

Avinash Chander: For the anti-radiation missile design is in progress, in fact hardware is being readied for the first trials. We expect successful trials of this ARM from an aircraft in about the next three years.

The long range anti-ship missile is on the drawing board, and we are confident that in about six years we would be able to get it ready. The long range anti-ship missile is going to be a ballistic missile with a seeker which can hit ships at long range.

Saurav Jha: So this is a rough equivalent of the Chinese DF-21D anti-ship ballistic missile? An anti-access/area denial system?

Avinash Chander: Something like that yes. So as you can see almost the entire spectrum of missile capability is being addressed. And addressed to meet state of the art requirements thereby giving full teeth to our armed forces.

The 1500 + Km range LR Anti-ship missile is interesting. But SA should not have said its an anti-aircraft carrier missile for the identifies the potential enemy. Calling it an Snti-Shipping missile would have been sufficient. Question is what previous missile sub-systems is it likely to use? My estimate is it that its propulsion stage will borrow heavily from Agni-1 (1 m dia booster), Agni-4 (1.3 m dia booster) or Shourya.

Saurav Jha: Coming back to the Akash, is there a move to upgrade the Akash, with say the addition of an onboard seeker?

Avinash Chander: We are examining various options for Akash Mk-II so that it can operate over a larger profile. One of the options is putting a seeker on board. Of course it not simply a matter of adding a seeker since it changes the entire dynamics of the missile. Nevertheless we are looking at multiple options and are certainly working on a Mark 2 version of the Akash.

Saurav Jha: Moving onto the Astra, when can we expect Initial Operational Clearance (IOC) for it?

Avinash Chander: After the first air-launched trials against an actual target which will take place in October-November this year, we will continue to extend its total engagement envelope and by 2015 end we should be looking at induction clearance.

This support my suspicion that the reason for 25 km range fro Akash mk-1, that has super efficient propulsion is the command mode guidence. Ground radar accuracy degradation at longer range, not to mention poor low level RF visibility at long range. Active seeker will make Pk very high, and of course extends the range ad altitude coverage.

Saurav Jha: Why was the LRSAM beset with delays? What would your perspective be on this?

Avinash Chander: LRSAM is a state of the art system. The Armed forces had actually tried to buy such a system from abroad, but nothing was really available that would come with satisfactory terms. And that is how we got into a joint venture with Israel, the system had to be developed ab initio. So there were issues with respect to radar development, issues with respect to the actuation system as well which was initially supposed to be pneumatic but then had to be changed to electromechanical. Then there was the two pulse motor which was being done for the first time and that got into certain combustion stability problems. But the good news is that all those problems have now been overcome. We launched a massive program on the rocket motor and today we have a motor which is stable and will be tested shortly.

Some would say why LRSAM and a seperate 200+ km LR SAM? The reason is one is quick reaction with shorter minimum engagement range and small RCS fast moving high supersonic target. The latter is expected to have long legs but also longer minimum engagement range and low supersonic target.

Saurav Jha: Many of the new missiles being developed under the missile autonomy mission will require an on board seeker given their functions. For true autonomy India will have to be sufficient in that domain at some level. So in that context has a new detector fabrication facility for seeker heads been approved?

Avinash Chander: We are committed to setting up a detector production facility. Normal process of dialogue and tendering, taking approvals etc is currently underway. We are going to have a detector production facility for focal point arrays.

On the radio frequency (RF) seeker front also there is a major thrust. Right from the device i.e source of RF to the stabilization system, to the processing, we are starting a national mission kind of thing. Like we did when it came to developing control laws for the LCA. We have also set up a national mission for engines, for the 1500 HP engine. Now we are setting up a national mission for seekers by involving multiple agencies. We are confident that in the next three years.

We are starting a national mission for seeker and we are confident in the next three years we'll have our own seekers in multiple spectral domains - X band, Ka-band etc.

Looks like DRDO has got critical mass to make this successful. Both optical and RF seekers. Lots of water has flown down the bridge since the failed Millimeter Wave seeker seeker project for Nag, started 25 years ago (Recall CARE @ IIT-Delhi). Active RF front end, DSP is a mainstay of commercial industry and this is no more a Hi-tech black art.

Saurav Jha: Coming to strategic missile systems. Missile ejection tests for the Agni-V's canister were carried out recently. How successful were these and when will see an actual canisterized launch of the Agni-V?

Avinash Chander: We had two tests and both were quite successful. Prime requirement is that there should be full repeatability matching with the projections. Both requirements have been met and the missile has been cleared to be launched from the canister. It should happen after the monsoon sometime.

Saurav Jha: Dr Chander, given that China is investing in anti-ballistic missile systems, it seems that MIRVs are becoming an inevitability for greater leakage probability. So when will see a full blown system test?

Avinash Chander: First of all, there are many ways of countering a ballistic missile defence. MIRV is one of the ways of course, i.e. by increasing the numbers. There are other ways, putting in more intelligence, countermeasures, reducing RCS and so on. This is like the game between missiles and aircraft. Where you build better missiles, but that doesn't mean that you don't build aircraft. I don't think there can be system which can be 100 percent proof. As we build more and more intelligence, it will have a counter response.

This is where MARV/BGRV comes into play.

Saurav Jha: Has the program for a domestic turbofan for the Nirbhay taken off? What is the rating of this engine?

Avinash Chander: We have taken up the development of this engine and it has come to the bench test level. It is currently undergoing tests and evaluation and we are confident that we can do it. It has 400 kg thrust engine. But once we have the capability we can achieve varied thrust ratings for engines of this class. Incidentally, Nirbhay is coming up in a big way.

400 kg engine thrust means low subsonic 3500 kg Crusie Missile or when configured for high subsonic 2500 kg CM.

Saurav Jha: And what is the status of the flagship Turbofan development, the Kaveri?

Avinash Chander: Kaveri was tested continuously for 53 hours on a flying test bed in Russia where all the major parameters were proven. There were certain observations which are now being addressed at the lab level. We have put up a proposal to the government to continue. So that we have a viable engine at the end of it. More importantly Kaveri will have to be modified for use in the unmanned combat aerial vehicle (UCAV). As that comes under MTCR and nobody will give us engines. So Kaveri will essentially be a lifeline for that program.

This pivotal for UCAV.[/quote]

member_23370 · Post by **member_23370** » 27 Aug 2014 23:06

Nirbhay was supposed to be 1000-1200 kg. Or like Agni is it a series of sub sonic cruise missiles that will cater to 1000-3000 km range?

Prem Kumar · Post by **Prem Kumar** » 28 Aug 2014 03:18

Methinks they are planning Nirbhay to be a class of cruise missiles. There were some murmurs about a 2500 Km range missile as Mark 2

srai · Post by **srai** » 28 Aug 2014 07:06

Bheeshma wrote:Nirbhay was supposed to be 1000-1200 kg. Or like Agni is it a series of sub sonic cruise missiles that will cater to 1000-3000 km range?

Ground-launched version would be heavier and longer because of a booster that is required for launching. Air-version doesn't need the booster and should be both shorter and lighter. IMO, the air-version needs to be less than 6m length and less than 1,500kg to be able to be carried by multiple aircraft types, like Su-30 MKI, Rafale and Jaguars.

Rien · Post by **Rien** » 28 Aug 2014 11:28

A forum moderator has already stepped in and replied to request by sattilli. Read before you post and pass such ungratuitous comments. And refrain from using words like 'USA Marketing Machine' etc. for posters. You don't get pass certificate on posters here. You're looking at a warning here otherwise. - rohitvats

Prem Kumar · Post by **Prem Kumar** » 29 Aug 2014 07:37

Had an exchange with Saurav Jha. He clarified some points regarding LRSAM:

a) Barak-8 work had started but was not near completion when India expressed interest
b) Israel was short of funds & Indian JV request with funding came as a boon at the right time
c) Even though some work was done, we could work out a work-share agreement for what was not yet developed: rocket motors, actuators & controls
d) Barak-8 *is* LRSAM and will be the end product of this JV. Hence there was no question of "buying Barak-8 off the shelf"
e) Israeli corvette Saar 5 suffers the same situation as Kolkotta: both waiting for LRSAM because its the same missile and is delayed. Any report (like StrategyPage) that says "Israeli warships equipped already with Barak-8" is bogus
f) DRDO is shooting to become self-sufficient (at the cutting edge level) in most types of seekers (for instance the RF seeker on LRSAM) in 3 years. So, whether Israelis do ToT on LRSAM seeker or not is moot

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 29 Aug 2014 09:47

Regarding the LRSAM.

Will this JV & TOT help us in developing even longer ranged weapons?
Also how will further development of Akash be effected by this?
Also do we have a mid to long term SAM road map, for the nation. Or are we making things up as we go along.

Sorry if the questions come across as nube.

merlin · Post by **merlin** » 29 Aug 2014 10:32

So what is the timeline for LRSAM to finish testing and then start production and initial examples arming INS Kolkata?

P Chitkara · Post by **P Chitkara** » 29 Aug 2014 12:15

What gains can be expected from LRSAM technology on Akash Mk II? Will it be weight reduction, propulsion improvement etc.?

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 29 Aug 2014 15:33

Prem Kumar wrote: d) Barak-8 *is* LRSAM and will be the end product of this JV. Hence there was no question of "buying Barak-8 off the shelf"

The timeline of initial JV offer from Israel in c. 2004 and work starting in c. 2006 for both LR-SAM and Barak-8 confirm the above. My initial understanding was Barak-8 for the IN would also be the MR-SAM for the IAF.

tushar_m · Post by **tushar_m** » 29 Aug 2014 22:48

What is High G for Brahmos means ???? (Klub can do 10 G)

i can't seem to find any instance where a figure for given for brahmos missile's ability to maneuver by its G capability (always says high G).Does anyone have any idea ???

RoyG · Post by **RoyG** » 29 Aug 2014 23:55

I'm not sure about the figure but the three I have come across are the terminal dive, and S. I have also come up with the term "shark stalk" for the ability of the missile to maneuver around the target and hit it from the rear.

Prem Kumar · Post by **Prem Kumar** » 30 Aug 2014 00:07

Pratyush wrote:Regarding the LRSAM.

Will this JV & TOT help us in developing even longer ranged weapons?
Also how will further development of Akash be effected by this?
Also do we have a mid to long term SAM road map, for the nation. Or are we making things up as we go along.

Sorry if the questions come across as nube.

Please read the Saurav Jha interview with Dr. Avinash Chander. Its in 2 parts & links in previous pages. Many questions will be answered.

Akash is a separate development. From what I gathered from the interview, DRDO is exploring options (seeker or not etc), but Akash-II is certainly coming. SAM roadmap is also discussed in interview

Prem Kumar · Post by **Prem Kumar** » 30 Aug 2014 00:11

SSridhar wrote: The timeline of initial JV offer from Israel in c. 2004 and work starting in c. 2006 for both LR-SAM and Barak-8 confirm the above. My initial understanding was Barak-8 for the IN would also be the MR-SAM for the IAF.

I asked if MRSAM = LRSAM + Booster (because former was supposed to have 120Km range and the latter 70Km). He thinks that they will have the same 70Km range. They are the same missile. But he didnt discount the possibility that there might be a 120Km variant with booster.

Prem Kumar · Post by **Prem Kumar** » 30 Aug 2014 00:16

merlin wrote:So what is the timeline for LRSAM to finish testing and then start production and initial examples arming INS Kolkata?

Its headed for final tests now. Saurav feels it will get inducted in 1st half of next year, all going well

RoyG · Post by **RoyG** » 30 Aug 2014 00:26

Prem Kumar wrote:
Pratyush wrote:Regarding the LRSAM.

Will this JV & TOT help us in developing even longer ranged weapons?
Also how will further development of Akash be effected by this?
Also do we have a mid to long term SAM road map, for the nation. Or are we making things up as we go along.

Sorry if the questions come across as nube.
Please read the Saurav Jha interview with Dr. Avinash Chander. Its in 2 parts & links in previous pages. Many questions will be answered.

Akash is a separate development. From what I gathered from the interview, DRDO is exploring options (seeker or not etc), but Akash-II is certainly coming. SAM roadmap is also discussed in interview

Perhaps it should resemble something like the BUK system which is superior in almost every way to the Sa-6 and Akash.

merlin · Post by **merlin** » 30 Aug 2014 14:44

Prem Kumar wrote:
merlin wrote:So what is the timeline for LRSAM to finish testing and then start production and initial examples arming INS Kolkata?
Its headed for final tests now. Saurav feels it will get inducted in 1st half of next year, all going well

Thanks for the reply Prem Kumar. That timeline should be comfortable for the IN I think. I was worried it might take an additional couple of years.

Ranjani Brow · Post by **Ranjani Brow** » 31 Aug 2014 13:06

Rien · Post by **Rien** » 31 Aug 2014 18:27

RoyG wrote:Regarding the LRSAM.

Perhaps it should resemble something like the BUK system which is superior in almost every way to the Sa-6 and Akash.

More info please? What is the current state of the art in this field, and how does Akash compare to it? What upgrades should we do to

A.) Catch up
B.) Surpass

dinesha · Post by **dinesha** » 02 Sep 2014 16:03

More Tests on DRDO Radar
http://www.newindianexpress.com/states/ ... 410709.ece

BALASORE: Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) has pulled up its socks after Prime Minister Narendra Modi directed it to ensure delivery of cutting edge weapon systems to the Armed Forces in time so that the country can keep pace with other nations in the national security arena.

The DRDO plans to test nuclear capable Agni-I, sub-sonic cruise missile Nirbhay and longest range Agni-V.
While the Strategic Forces Command (SFC) of Indian Army is slated to carry out a fresh user trial of the 700-km range surface-to-surface medium range Agni-I on September 10, DRDO would conduct the second and third developmental trials of Nirbhay and Agni-V missiles too.

Though the exact date for the experimental tests of Nirbhay and Agni-V missiles has not been fixed, preparations are underway at the Wheeler Island test facility off the Odisha coast. If everything falls in place, the weapons could be test-fired this month itself.

At the annual DRDO awards function recently, Prime Minister Narendra Modi flayed the ‘chalta hai’ attitude of the DRDO, which has been resulting in delay in projects and cost overruns.

While DRDO is not worried about performance of Agni-I and Agni-V missiles, all eyes will be on Nirbhay, which is India’s first home made cruise missile capable of delivering nuclear warheads nearly 1,000 km away.

While Agni-I has already been inducted in the Armed Forces after several rounds of successful trials, Agni-V has proved its might successfully twice in the last two years.

Nirbhay had failed during its maiden test on March 12, last year. The missile veered off as snags developed in its inertial navigation system (INS). Post failure, the DRDO is said to have made some corrections in the design of the missile.

DRDO Chief, Avinash Chander said the faults in the missile have been rectified and the missile is ready for the test which will be conducted soon. What makes Nirbhay significant is that the missile is very manoeuvrable and can fly at low altitude thus making it difficult to be detected on the enemy radar.

The defence scientists are also expecting third consecutive success of Agni-V missile that would pave the way for its early induction in the Armed Forces and maiden test of its next generation missile Agni-VI having a projected strike range of more than 8,000 km.

Sources said the Prime Minister is expected to witness Agni-V launch from the Wheeler Island. DRDO spokesperson Ravi Kumar Gupta said Modi’s attendance depends on his schedule.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 03 Sep 2014 23:39

When you discuss the merits or otherwise of Javelin deal, please don't bring such fancy arguments like CBU in IAF service or PA tanks being cheap and inferior. Everything said and done, PA has a large tank fleet which will be faced by Indian infantry. And they need a counter to these tanks. Even armies equipped lavishly with tanks and mechanized vehicles have organic ATGM component in their infantry.

Whether it's a T-80 or Al-Khalid or upgraded Chinese T-59, a tank represents serious threat to infantry. If you believe otherwise, imagine yourself facing a 40 ton monster with a 84mm Carl Gustav or a rifle.

IA had orderer 4,100 Milan 2T as 'interim' measure pending induction of F&F missile. Other ATGM is Milan; IA had inducted very limited number of Kornet. Not used by regular infantry.

With MILAN 2T generation of missiles, you have a wire going from launch tube to missile to carry direction; some fun it would be for firer to continue holding his position till missile hits target! And we've huge short fall in holding of ATGM across infantry and mechanized infantry. And Milan held by IA should've gone decade ago. So, there is an urgent requirement requiring a solution. Let there be no ambiguity about it.

The big drawback with Javelin is that same missile family cannot be equip the mechanized infantry and helicopters. IIRC, Spike family has missile which fits the bill for mounting on a IFV. It would be preferable if all platforms share same family of missiles.

The NAG family has clear ATGM market in FICV and large attack helicopter force India will induct. More than 250 LCH+WSI Dhruv will be requiring a home grown solution.

As for Javelin/Spike and NAG man portable ATGM, if any of the foreign missile comes, I guess we can kiss man portable version of NAG goodbye.

However, we lack any clarity on timeline for this missile. Rather than reinvent the wheel, it would be prudent IMO for DRDO to develop Javelin customized for Indian requirements. And see if doing so serves any purpose with respect to technology we're trying to master in this field.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 04 Sep 2014 00:17

From the Indian aviation thread .........................

Cosmo_R wrote:
Singha wrote:Next gen is a nice myth. Amrikas next gen atgm is not a atgm
..its showers of sdb and sfw unleashed from afar.
You're right...

"In 2010 the US government announced the sale to India of 512 CBU-105 Sensor Fuzed Weapons.[2] The expected platform is the SEPECAT Jaguar.[5]"

With this, you don't need Javelins or next gen ATGMs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CBU-97_Sensor_Fuzed_Weapon

The US sold 512 of these pups to India in 2010, for the SEPECAT Jaguar. It is meant for mass killing - each "bomb" has some 8 cannisters, each of which has some 5 skeets. So, one is looking for at least 40ish tanks/carriers to be able to use this stuff. If there are some 10 tanks, this is an overkill.

And, still India + US + Sweds + UK are still talking of a "Next Gen" ATM? Strange.

Sensor fused stuff would work wonders when the enemy is miles away.

In close proximity, I do not think these things are reliable. They could hit your own assets.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 04 Sep 2014 02:25

Hecky, that pic is awesome. Can you post the source? In a few years DRDO has moved from large, federated compute/nav black boxes to those compact SOC based units. That has huge ramifications for all our programs.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 04 Sep 2014 02:29

rohitvats wrote:However, we lack any clarity on timeline for this missile. Rather than reinvent the wheel, it would be prudent IMO for DRDO to develop Javelin customized for Indian requirements. And see if doing so serves any purpose with respect to technology we're trying to master in this field.

Problem is we stay locked in forever to whatever "massa" wants. That is the same reason BTW we never developed any local variant of the Milan or Konkurs, while Iran to Pakistan to China all went ahead with reverse engineered rip off's. The agreement with France /Russia stipulated even % of indigenization we could achieve (we weren't supposed to cross it!)/

Ultimately, the seeker tech/algorithms which make the Javelin what it is will never be handed over.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 04 Sep 2014 02:39

Saurav Jha @SJha1618 · Aug 31

Avinash Chander at RCI: 'You deny, we grow.'

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 04 Sep 2014 05:49

Ultimately, the seeker tech/algorithms which make the Javelin what it is will never be handed over.

* Never, Never have expectations of anyone giving anything. IF it happens so be it - thank the stars
* Always, always, at the very least, keep on slow boil research in critical technologies, especially when someone offers such techs. Keep that research going

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 04 Sep 2014 07:14

what I meant was US interest and battle plan are elsewhere (total air dominance, sensor fused weapons released from long range and height) vs more modest doctrines like ours. we still need a next gen F&F ATGM to improve the survivability and strike power of our infantry units against armoured attacks but the US is unlikely to be of much help beyond pocketing the javelin money and making a farce of the next-gen project under various restrictive clauses.

we could potentially work with japan/korea/taiwan for such projects to drive up volumes , reduce cost and source technologies we lack. another option is france which already supplies seeker for helina. but they have own product range and will always favour that. its better we import some tech from far east and start making these small seekers for use in various munitions.

KiranM · Post by **KiranM** » 04 Sep 2014 12:36

Moved from Aviation Thread. Apologies to the Mods.

abhik wrote:
KiranM wrote:^^^ Unfortunately that is not the way it needs to be seen. IA is an infantry division heavy force. We do not have sufficient combined arms units (to leverage limited NAMICAs, ATGM equipped IFVs, tanks and Attack choppers) in the deserts, plains and other tank territories; especially for formations like Holding Corps tasked to hold and defend territory. So local Armor thrusts by enemy tanks will be a huge threat for defending Inf Divs. Hence, Inf Battalions need to have well equipped ATGM platoons that can fire, forget and move to new location for next target engagement. Due to resource crunch, ATGM platoons will also be prized assets, hence the need for F&F like Javelin to avoid their attrition in battle.
I don't get the logic, given that the Javelin will be 5-10 more expensive than the missile(s) it is replacing. Going for a phenomenally more expensive missile because of a fund crunch makes no sense.

Yes, Javelin is more expensive than Milan. But it brings F&F capability through its IIR seeker. Resource crunch is in terms of having NAMICA type ATGM platforms in adequate number to support Infantry Bns. Hence, we need Inf Bns to have integral ATGM platoons which will be comparatively less expensive. But to enable ATGM crews to shoot & scoot we need to give them F&F capability.

srai · Post by **srai** » 04 Sep 2014 12:43

^^^

Isn't it possible to mount current NAG on smaller jeep-sized vehicles? While not MANPAT, it would be light enough to be deployed more extensively than NAMICAs. They can be the F&F LR component to the ATGM platoons armed with Milans.

KiranM · Post by **KiranM** » 04 Sep 2014 14:37

srai wrote:^^^

Isn't it possible to mount current NAG on smaller jeep-sized vehicles? While not MANPAT, it would be light enough to be deployed more extensively than NAMICAs. They can be the F&F LR component to the ATGM platoons armed with Milans.

Having 4 Nags Mk1 + Target Acquisition makes the system heavy. Also mobility requirements (especially in deserts) of IA resulted in the BMP based NAMICA platform. A jeep or any wheeled based platform makes sense but such will be a single launcher with manual re-loads. Considering Nag Mk1 missile weighs 42kg it might be a pain to reload manually especially on the move.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 04 Sep 2014 15:26

srai wrote:^^^ Isn't it possible to mount current NAG on smaller jeep-sized vehicles? While not MANPAT, it would be light enough to be deployed more extensively than NAMICAs. They can be the F&F LR component to the ATGM platoons armed with Milans.

NAG is simply too heavy - the missile itself weighs 42 Kg. And apart from the weight aspect, the length of the missile itself will be an issue.

An example of 'heavy' ATGM used in mounted and dismounted role is TOW ATGM from USA. US Infantry still uses a combination of this missile along with Javelin ATGM. The latest version of the missile with launcher should top at 25 kg with missile length being under 1.2 meter. This allows the missile to be fired from tripod on dismounted profile. Pakistan Army also uses TOW in their Light Anti-Tank (LAT) and Heavy Anti-Tank (HAT) infantry battalions. But the missile still is not exactly man-portable.

Pakistan Army M113 APC mounted Bakhtar-Shikan from 39 Azad Kashmir (HAT) Battalion: http://defence.pk/gallery/data/619/medi ... _15_w1.jpg

Compared to TOW, NAG missile itself weighs at 42 Kg with length of 1.90 meter and diameter of 0.19 meter (TOW diameter is .152 meter). These dimensions make NAG unwieldy in it's current form.

Tripod mounted TOW - you can see the missile cartridge loaded into the launcher. Not to miss the huge battery required to power the whole optronics complex:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... R-001a.jpg

Another picture which shows only the launcher w/o the missile cartridge:

http://semanticommunity.info/@api/deki/ ... ssiles.png

NAG in it's current form will be a still bigger and heavier missile. Also, being restricted to firing from only from mounted role would be a serious disadvantage. The TOW weighing at at 50% of NAG can at least be broken down into sub-components by a team and fired from dismounted role. And also moved by this team over limited distance. I doubt it can be done with NAG in present form.

I also think we need dedicated and robust 4x4 platform to mount a heavy ATGM. Check pics below of Milan ATGM mounted on Jonga/Maruti Gypsy/Mahindra Jeep.

http://www.defencetalk.com/pictures/dat ... m/0529.jpg
http://pib.nic.in/archieve/phtgalry/pgy ... 120016.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/XDaSXzK.jpg

Compare above to pic below of Land Rover Defender mounted Green Arrow ATGM from China (their 'heavy' ATGM which passes as Baktar Shikan in PA service):

http://defence.pk/gallery/data/619/Anti ... obile_.jpg

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Having said that, if we aim to develop a 'lighter' version of NAG in the same range as TOW, we could implement this solution. Use a light+heavy mix of Javelin and NAG ATGM for filling army's requirement.

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 04 Sep 2014 16:16

Rohitvats-> but if NAG range is reduced from 4KM to 2.5Km like Javelin, I am sure it can be brought to around weight of the Javelin.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 04 Sep 2014 17:39

Singha wrote:what I meant was US interest and battle plan are elsewhere (total air dominance, sensor fused weapons released from long range and height) vs more modest doctrines like ours. we still need a next gen F&F ATGM to improve the survivability and strike power of our infantry units against armoured attacks but the US is unlikely to be of much help beyond pocketing the javelin money and making a farce of the next-gen project under various restrictive clauses.

we could potentially work with japan/korea/taiwan for such projects to drive up volumes , reduce cost and source technologies we lack. another option is france which already supplies seeker for helina. but they have own product range and will always favour that. its better we import some tech from far east and start making these small seekers for use in various munitions.

I do not think the US has let go of a ground force - yet. All they (USMC?) have done is moved battle lines (old way was to get into the first 50 miles, now with the F-35B they are thinking in terms of 250 miles), the rest will remain the same. Their enemy is not going to rid itself of tanks/AV and the US cannot dictate all battles from afar.

But, let me ask this question. I am tho annadi. So, what is the *major* diff between a Nag and a Javelin? Forget the distance they can strike at.

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 04 Sep 2014 17:57

NRao wrote:
Sensor fused stuff would work wonders when the enemy is miles away.

In close proximity, I do not think these things are reliable. They could hit your own assets.

Why do you want to let the enemy get close?

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 04 Sep 2014 19:11

^^^ The 'lair' scenario where own force proximity is an issue is likely IMHO to be a rare one in a India-Pak full blown conventional war. Actually, I think most people don't envisage any kind of 'sweeping' tank battles like the 1965 Khem Karan/Asal Uttar stuff.

In between, you have Apaches/Dhruvs whatever with ATGMs who can take the fight to the enemy.

When I opine that Javelins are not necessary, it is to say, I am not sure that of all of the stuff on unki'ls shelf, this is the one we blow money on. We could build this ourselves if not left to the tender mercies of BDL.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 04 Sep 2014 19:17

Cosmo_R wrote:
NRao wrote:
Sensor fused stuff would work wonders when the enemy is miles away.

In close proximity, I do not think these things are reliable. They could hit your own assets.
Why do you want to let the enemy get close?

Conflicts are never regulated. Depending on the strengths and other factors of the combatants it is perhaps conceivable that some could have some amount of order imposed, but other than that not much can be done.

I see a place for both. I do not see the sensor fusion products replacing a ATM/W.

One situation I can think of, to answer your question, is when a combatant initiates contact.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 04 Sep 2014 19:22

I am not sure that of all of the stuff on unki'ls shelf, this is the one we blow money on.

Well ....................... what is your thinking on the alternative that India was about to execute: Spike?

We could build this ourselves if not left to the tender mercies of BDL.

I am quickly leaning towards the 'lost 60 years'.

What a waste in all directions.