Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 09 Sep 2014 18:00

Sad truth is tankable Ladakh area is aksai chin in which we hold a tiny shred daulat beg oldie.
Tanks are needed to break out of northern foothills and occupy part of aksai chin.

srin · Post by **srin** » 09 Sep 2014 18:13

Going east via Spangur gap and south down Demchok too are viable tank thrust options ?

deejay · Post by **deejay** » 09 Sep 2014 18:52

^^^ Tanks at DBO! Sir it is 05 kms in altitude (DBO). How will we get tanks there? 60 -65 tons or even 40 tons. Even the Demchok angle is not looking plausible. Plus these piston engines (tanks) - will they have 'dum' at such altitudes to seriously mean business?

shaun · Post by **shaun** » 09 Sep 2014 18:59

What are tanks doing at himalayas in a missile and munition thread !!

Picklu · Post by **Picklu** » 09 Sep 2014 22:30

Shaun wrote:What are tanks doing at himalayas in a missile and munition thread !!

When you have the solution ready (mass salvo of hellfire from apache) you need to search for a problem, no?

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 09 Sep 2014 23:26

deejay wrote:^^^ Tanks at DBO! Sir it is 05 kms in altitude (DBO). How will we get tanks there? 60 -65 tons or even 40 tons. Even the Demchok angle is not looking plausible. Plus these piston engines (tanks) - will they have 'dum' at such altitudes to seriously mean business?

Have not been following news reports, are we?

Indian Army has moved a T-90 Regiment BY ROAD from plains to Leh to be placed under 3 Division. The Division already has a mechanized infantry battalion under it. Check this:

Apart from this, they've also asked for - and got - sanction for an (I) Armored Brigade under 14 Corps HQ. That would make 4 x T-90 Regiments and 2 x BMP-2 Battalions in Eastern Ladakh. As for tank country, there is plenty. In 1962 war, India had feared a Chinese armored thrust along Spanggur Gap and had airlifted a troop of AMX-13 from 20 Lancers to Chushul.

We need more infantry and more 'force-in-being' for eastern Ladakh.

jamwal · Post by **jamwal** » 09 Sep 2014 23:50

^ This picture was posted here couple of years back if I am not wrong.

Parts of Laddakh are suitable for tank warfare, but the major problem is getting the machines there and keep them in peak condition at that altitude. That too away from necessary supply lines. Laddakh remains cut off from rest of country for 6 months. The new train line and tunnel at Rohtang may help a bit, but wouldn't solve all logistics related problems for the last mile.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 10 Sep 2014 01:16

First things first - I'm getting very tired of your completely clueless posts on each and every topic. If you don't know a subject, you either need to ask or do some research on the same and at least make an attempt to put together a coherent and logical argument. Not the one like below which mixes and matches data-points to suit your POV. And show that you've not done even a wee bit of research on the subject before passing your 'expert' opinion on the subject.

This is my last attempt to present to make you see sense; henceforth, I'm going to delete your post and hand out a warning for thread derailment.

Rien wrote:Sattili, Deejay

We don't need Javelin. We have the NAMICA and the Kestrel and mortars and the Light Combat Helicopter as well as Smerch. Why will they go into action against tanks with the least well equipped to handle it unit, the jawan? Why do we have IFV's for in the first place? In the Gulf War, the Bradley IFV took out more tanks than the Abrams did.

Reality Check - We don't have NAMICA in numbers and will not have them beyond some niche areas. Areas like Reconnaissance & Support Battalions (Recce & Support) under the Mechanized Infantry Regiment. Some of these are tracked in nature and equipped with BMP-2 while others have Jeep mounted ATGM capability. IA has seven or eight of these battalions and each is part of a certain RAPID/Infantry Division. A Squadron of NAMICA may well form part of each Tracked R&S Battalion. IMO, unless R&S battalions increase in the IA beyond current numbers - and hopefully they would - NAMICA will see limited deployment.

And the level of mechanization in IA is very low and not more than 20% of it's infantry is mechanized - bulk of Mechanized Infantry equipped with BMP-2 will be busy attacking Pakistani positions and few would be available as counter-penetration reserves.

Same goes with LCH - it has not even cleared FOC and you're spinning yarns about it being the panacea for threat faced by PA armored corps? And when it does enter production, how long do you think will it take to reach required levels in IA service? And till the time that happens, what do you suggest we do till then? And while we're at it, let's also look at another number - IA will have like 1 x Squadron of LCH per Corps with 10 choppers per squadron. How much battle-space do you think hey can cover?

And not to forget that we've only 3 x SMERCH battalions with about 40 odd launchers - and these are with Arty Divisions of Strike Corps. What do you propose the rest of army should do?

Even the most bad-a$$ army in the world with a very high level of mechanization - the US Army - equips it vanilla infantry battalions with ATGM capability. That should tell you something.

The Indian infantryman needs to be equipped to be ready to fight his war on his own - even if in a limited way.

We have no less than 30 000+ Milan and 15 000+ Konkurs. No need.

'NO NEED' - I really marvel at finality supposed to be inherent in that statement. 'I've said such and such thing and that will be end of it. It matters not that I know zilch about the topic I'm pontificating on'.

Ever heard of a concept called Explosive Reactive Armor (ERA) in tanks? Those brick like structures they bolt onto tanks these days? Well, if you'd bother to check, you would have ascertained that missile like Milan is less effective to redundant against such armor. Because you need a TANDEM warhead to be able to have any chance to get past ERA and hit the main tank armor. And Milan is NOT that missile. IA has inducted 4,100 Milan 2T missiles which come with TANDEM warhead as an interim measure.

But all these are old missiles in terms of technology. The need of the hour is F&F missile with tandem warhead and good probability of hitting the tank in one shot.

As for Konkur-M imported by India - these are part of the ATGM suite of BMP-2 in IA. And will be available to take on a PA tank only where the BMPs are - and they're not at all the places where our infantryman will be fighting.

<SNIP>

The Indian Army's old strategy was to cut Pakistan in half. They have given that up in favour of Cold Start. I can't think of an old fashioned tank battle anywhere in the world since the Gulf War.

You must be smoking Afghanistan's finest to make an utterly idiotic statement like above.

No tank battles because we're opting for CSD instead of one grand push to RYK and Indus? So, tell me, what are we going to fight the CSD with and how do we hope to overwhelm the enemy quickly within shortest time frame? And what will PA use to defend itself and throw at us by way of counter-attack? Would we be fighting with sticks and stones?

If anything - you're going to see a very high intensity campaign over a short period where everything will be thrown into the battle. They will not waste their mechanized forces by pitching in head-long battles with our armor - they'll try to find weak-points in our otherwise infantry dominated force and hope for a major break-through. Like we did in 1965. PA's 1st and 6th Armored Divisions are not going to pit themselves against Indian armor - they're going to attack softer Indian battles to make inroads against India.

And the requirement of ATGM stems from giving ability to IA's infantry to handle the attack by PA Armor and mechanized infantry.

<SNIP>

So even combined, two front war we are far in excess of requirements.

And how exactly did this revelation occur to you? Some divine intervention or was this on the lines of - 'PA has X number of tank and we've more than 10X the number of ATGM so voila, we've more than enough'

To begin with - we don't have the full inventory of authorized missiles. But that is another story. Let's look at these numbers:

- IIRC, each IA battalion has about 6 ATGM launcher and 5-6 missiles/launcher. Let's assume that is 1+4 missile per launcher. Assuming all are equipped with ATGM (even those in mountains albeit for bunker busting), we need about 12,000 ATGM as first line of ammunition. News reports mentions that IA needs 24,000 for its infantry - that is another 12,000 rounds for reserve and training.

- Konkur-M - each BMP-2 mounts Konkur in 1+4 structure. For a force with 2,500 BMP-2 in service that amounts to 12,500 Konkur-M in first line of ammunition. Need almost the same number for reserve and storage.

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

Long story short - if you want to argue against JAVELIN induction, please do so using some logic and reasoning. Don't play loose and fast with facts and don't make posts bereft of any logic.

krishnan · Post by **krishnan** » 10 Sep 2014 10:24

that pic is old , 5 years old in fact

check this page

http://ttvnol.com/threads/quan-doi-an-do.441841/page-13

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 10 Sep 2014 10:32

if the DBO airstrip could be improved, the C17 should be able to airlift T90 tanks and ICVs there. but given the lack of proper roads leading into that area , would be a hard issue how to supply and reinforce them.
cheen would love to kick us out of the last little bit of aksai chin we have in our paws and will surely devote a full corps of armour and artillery to bombard that pocket.

deejay · Post by **deejay** » 10 Sep 2014 11:00

rohitvats : Thank You. My information was dated (2005). After your post checked for roads to DBO and Demchok. Demchok looks possible all the way along the river from Nyoma but DBO is still not or at least couldn't spot anything beyond Chungtash.

The altitude and ridges on both sides of rivers really boxes those tanks in.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 10 Sep 2014 11:05

Singha wrote:if the DBO airstrip could be improved, the C17 should be able to airlift T90 tanks and ICVs there. but given the lack of proper roads leading into that area , would be a hard issue how to supply and reinforce them. Cheen would love to kick us out of the last little bit of aksai chin we have in our paws and will surely devote a full corps of armour and artillery to bombard that pocket.

They're working on developing a metalled road to DBO. Problem is that Shyok is very unpredictable when it comes to course of the river; as it is, the river flows in multiple channels. That is something they're trying to sort out.

deejay · Post by **deejay** » 10 Sep 2014 11:21

Reading news articles on Tank deployments in Ladakh area I came across this (not sure if this was available here):

According to Defence experts, the upcoming tank brigades may have to be complimented by attack helicopters as well. It is felt that the Indian Army and IAF must also have attack helicopters like Mi-28 or Apaches in this region since they will go a long way in countering the enemy’s armoured attacks.

from: http://www.defencenow.com/news/893/indi ... order.html

A more recent news of Aug 17 has this http://www.tribuneindia.com/2014/20140818/main7.htm:

Meaning an armoured component will be available from the northern most tip, that is the base of the Karokaram pass at Daulat Baig Oldie, to the south eastern extreme of Demchok and Chumar, sources said. Adding up the numbers would mean that over the next 18 months India would have stationed 200 of the T-72 tanks in Ladakh and all night-sight equipped

The existing numbers of tanks are just not enough in case of an attack, especially after the Indian side was alerted of threat by way of a specialised exercise by the Chinese to have rapid movement across Tibet and Xinjiang, both abutting Ladakh. The Lanzhou Military Area Command of the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) of China carried out rapid movement exercises in 2012. The first tank regiment moved to Ladakh in 2013.

China has ringed J&K with new airfields. The Ngari Gunsa airbase in Tibet has come up just 200 km east of Demchok in India. North of J&K, airbases at Kashgar, Yarkand, Hotan and Qeimo (Cherchen) in Xinjiang can be used to launch an attack.

More tanks and artillery

New Delhi will be moving an armoured brigade, nearly 150 T-72 tanks, to Ladakh and also have Smerch multi-barrel rocket launch units placed at key locations
An armoured regiment, 46 tanks, had moved in last year to join the Kiari-based 70 Brigade and is now located at a forward sector, 20 km inside the Line of Actual Control
Three Regiments, comprising 46 tanks each, of Armoured Brigade will be co-located with existing infantry and artillery regiments of the Indian Army

It's tough to admit but I was wrong and happy about it.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 10 Sep 2014 11:52

It is strange to see a discussion on tanks in the missile thread. Since we are already OT, I have seen reports of the PLA testing the Long range ATGMs for beyond the line of sight applications. I don't remember about the guidance mechanism for those. If those missiles work as designed, (A huge if). Then the presence of Indian tanks will not do any thing, as they are likely to be knocked out in the opening round of the bout it self.

Which brings me on the topic of LR-ATGM for beyond the LOS. applications. DRDO should come up with a beyond the LOS ATGM's as well. So that, the advancing armour can be taken care of before it entered the combat zone.

abhik · Post by **abhik** » 10 Sep 2014 12:24

^^^
In a way the HELINA is also a beyond line-of-sight missile with its lock-on after launch.

member_20453 · Post by **member_20453** » 10 Sep 2014 12:53

Javelin should be acquired asap, with 97% TOT is more than enough, we should be able to make the missiles entirely in India and better cost than in the US. It would bring in much needed teeth. By the time DRDO Nag manpads is ready for mass production it will be another 5 years, in the mean time it would be smart to get on with Javelin and I really think we should pursue the Nag manpads furhter as a joint development with the US for the next gen manpad, we already possibly have something lighter than the Javelin, bring in US expertise in seekers and our expertise in keeping things light and our increasing prowess, the Nag manpad could be better employed as 4th gen ATGM instead of being a 3rd gen system that comes active in 5 years.

My ideas for a 4th Gen Nag/Cobra Missile

New Gen Color IR Seeker with MMW (combo?)
With OLED/4K Electronic Vinder
LOBL
LOAL
Multiple Warhead modules(AT/HE/Bunker Busting/Thermobaric/Air burst/ Fragmentation)

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 10 Sep 2014 13:24

Missile Defence problems of the US.The development and progress of our very own PAD,etc.,Exo-Endo missiles is eagerly waited.The report about joint Indo-Russian exercises,where it is reported that we are v. interested in Russian AD BM missiles is interesting. The recent report of a joint Israeli-US Arrow-2/3 test in the Meditt. shows that perhaps some countries are doing better than the US.

Pentagon: Missile defense ‘kill vehicle’ still plagued with problems after years of failure

Published time: September 09, 2014

An exoatmospheric kill vehicle (EKV) interceptor is launched from the Kwajalein Atoll in the Republic of the Marshall Islands (Reuters)

A Pentagon investigation of the “kill vehicle” warhead, part of a weapons system plagued with years of failed tests, found dozens of quality control problems, according to a new report.

The Pentagon’s inspector general said in the report released Monday that the “kill vehicle,” a warhead meant to intercept missiles, fell short of quality standards in 48 specific cases, including issues with software testing, supply chain demands, and design changes, making the kill vehicle “susceptible to quality assurance failures.”

The warhead, known as the Exoatmospheric Kill Vehicle (EKV) is built by Raytheon Co. and is part of the Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD) system led by Boeing Co. EKVs are launched by a Ground Based Interceptor (GBI), “which is designed to engage high-speed ballistic missile warheads in space,” according to Raytheon. The current procurement cost for each GBI is around $75 million, said Missile Defense Agency Director Vice Admiral James Syring in July 2013.

The inspector general report, the first of two on the EKV, said the US Missile Defense Agency has agreed with concerns over the interceptor warhead and has started to address 44 of the 48 issues identified.

The GMD missile defense system was deployed in 2004 even before it completed testing to be able to counter what the George W. Bush administration claimed was a looming missile threat from North Korea.

The EKV finally conducted its first successful missile intercept in June after years of failed attempts.

This undated file photo released by the Pentagon shows two unidentified workers with the exoatmospheric kill vehicle (EKV), a missile interceptor that is part of an anti-missile defense system. (AFP Photo)

"A combination of cost constraints and failure-driven program restructures has kept the program in a state of change. Schedule and cost priorities drove a culture of 'use-as-is' leaving the EKV as a manufacturing challenge," the report said.

"With more than 1,800 unique parts, 10,000 pages of work instructions, and 130,000 process steps for the current configuration, EKV repairs and refurbishments are considered by the program to be costly and problematic and make the EKV susceptible to quality assurance failures," it added.

The Pentagon inspector general wrote that most quality management systems on the weapons program were in compliance, but problems were evident. The report found 15 major and 25 minor quality problems with Raytheon's EKV work. Boeing’s work on the entire system had six major and one minor problem.

Most of the issues identified in the report have been corrected, the inspector general said, but Raytheon is still working on four issues.

Raytheon has a $636 million development and sustainment contract to produce the EKV, though the Pentagon is seeking one of the major defense contracting firms to develop a more reliable, second generation EKV, Reuters reported. Weapons giants Boeing, Raytheon and Lockheed Martin Corp. are all in the running.

member_20453 · Post by **member_20453** » 10 Sep 2014 14:11

http://www.defensenews.com/article/2014 ... ssile-Deal

Good ridance, time for a Naval version of Akash

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 10 Sep 2014 15:16

why not just purchase a few more barak1 systems for srsam and if any MRSAM is needed fund the Akash for the role, while using Shtil for short term. the Shtil is available in VLS format also as seen in PLAN 054 FFGs.

vipins · Post by **vipins** » 10 Sep 2014 16:14

rohitvats wrote:
Singha wrote:if the DBO airstrip could be improved, the C17 should be able to airlift T90 tanks and ICVs there. but given the lack of proper roads leading into that area , would be a hard issue how to supply and reinforce them. Cheen would love to kick us out of the last little bit of aksai chin we have in our paws and will surely devote a full corps of armour and artillery to bombard that pocket.
They're working on developing a metalled road to DBO. Problem is that Shyok is very unpredictable when it comes to course of the river; as it is, the river flows in multiple channels. That is something they're trying to sort out.

Already some parts are double laned further to north pullu.

Rien · Post by **Rien** » 10 Sep 2014 18:58

Singha wrote:Sad truth is tankable Ladakh area is aksai chin in which we hold a tiny shred daulat beg oldie.
Tanks are needed to break out of northern foothills and occupy part of aksai chin.

Do we have such plans though? AFAIK we are status quo power only. The Chinese are not complaining of aggressive Indian patrolling.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 10 Sep 2014 19:38

reality is there are some areas very tough/impossible to defend against a determined attack - like DBG.
so in exchange we have to seek their weak spots and grab territory.
there is an area near jammu also where I think IB on one side, and tawi river on our backs where we have always been put under pressure and withdrew behind the river in the wars.

srai · Post by **srai** » 10 Sep 2014 20:28

Septimus P. wrote:http://www.defensenews.com/article/2014 ... ssile-Deal

Good ridance, time for a Naval version of Akash

Astra AAM is close to ready. I would think that would be the missile used on any future "Maitri" SRSAM project. Where French MBDA could come in would be in supplying/co-developing IR/RF seekers for the missile. In any case, since formal R&D process hasn't even begun the proposed system is still more than 10 years (i.e. 2025/30) from being ready for induction.

More Barak-1 SAM systems would be the way to go for the IN as a stopgap measure for smaller ships. For larger vessels, the IN should standardise on Barak-8.

koti · Post by **koti** » 10 Sep 2014 21:22

There is some good headway made by General Atomics in terms of plausible Laser based C-RAM system.
This high level partnership exercise can evolve into a more future proof effort if there can be a solid system that can be proposed instead of something that can(?) be addressed by ASTRA, Akash, Barak 1, or SPYDER.

http://aviationweek.com/blog/navy-test- ... lads-laser

The French are also planning on this

rsingh · Post by **rsingh** » 10 Sep 2014 21:28

rohitvats wrote:First things first - I'm getting very tired of your completely clueless posts on each and every topic. If you don't know a subject, you either need to ask or do some research on the same and at least make an attempt to put together a coherent and logical argument. Not the one like below which mixes and matches data-points to suit your POV. And show that you've not done even a wee bit of research on the subject before passing your 'expert' opinion on the subject.

This is my last attempt to present to make you see sense; henceforth, I'm going to delete your post and hand out a warning for thread derailment.

Rien wrote:Sattili, Deejay

We don't need Javelin. We have the NAMICA and the Kestrel and mortars and the Light Combat Helicopter as well as Smerch. Why will they go into action against tanks with the least well equipped to handle it unit, the jawan? Why do we have IFV's for in the first place? In the Gulf War, the Bradley IFV took out more tanks than the Abrams did.

Reality Check - We don't have NAMICA in numbers and will not have them beyond some niche areas. Areas like Reconnaissance & Support Battalions (Recce & Support) under the Mechanized Infantry Regiment. Some of these are tracked in nature and equipped with BMP-2 while others have Jeep mounted ATGM capability. IA has seven or eight of these battalions and each is part of a certain RAPID/Infantry Division. A Squadron of NAMICA may well form part of each Tracked R&S Battalion. IMO, unless R&S battalions increase in the IA beyond current numbers - and hopefully they would - NAMICA will see limited deployment.

And the level of mechanization in IA is very low and not more than 20% of it's infantry is mechanized - bulk of Mechanized Infantry equipped with BMP-2 will be busy attacking Pakistani positions and few would be available as counter-penetration reserves.

Same goes with LCH - it has not even cleared FOC and you're spinning yarns about it being the panacea for threat faced by PA armored corps? And when it does enter production, how long do you think will it take to reach required levels in IA service? And till the time that happens, what do you suggest we do till then? And while we're at it, let's also look at another number - IA will have like 1 x Squadron of LCH per Corps with 10 choppers per squadron. How much battle-space do you think hey can cover?

And not to forget that we've only 3 x SMERCH battalions with about 40 odd launchers - and these are with Arty Divisions of Strike Corps. What do you propose the rest of army should do?

Even the most bad-a$$ army in the world with a very high level of mechanization - the US Army - equips it vanilla infantry battalions with ATGM capability. That should tell you something.

The Indian infantryman needs to be equipped to be ready to fight his war on his own - even if in a limited way.

We have no less than 30 000+ Milan and 15 000+ Konkurs. No need.
'NO NEED' - I really marvel at finality supposed to be inherent in that statement. 'I've said such and such thing and that will be end of it. It matters not that I know zilch about the topic I'm pontificating on'.

Ever heard of a concept called Explosive Reactive Armor (ERA) in tanks? Those brick like structures they bolt onto tanks these days? Well, if you'd bother to check, you would have ascertained that missile like Milan is less effective to redundant against such armor. Because you need a TANDEM warhead to be able to have any chance to get past ERA and hit the main tank armor. And Milan is NOT that missile. IA has inducted 4,100 Milan 2T missiles which come with TANDEM warhead as an interim measure.

But all these are old missiles in terms of technology. The need of the hour is F&F missile with tandem warhead and good probability of hitting the tank in one shot.

As for Konkur-M imported by India - these are part of the ATGM suite of BMP-2 in IA. And will be available to take on a PA tank only where the BMPs are - and they're not at all the places where our infantryman will be fighting.

<SNIP>

The Indian Army's old strategy was to cut Pakistan in half. They have given that up in favour of Cold Start. I can't think of an old fashioned tank battle anywhere in the world since the Gulf War.
You must be smoking Afghanistan's finest to make an utterly idiotic statement like above.

No tank battles because we're opting for CSD instead of one grand push to RYK and Indus? So, tell me, what are we going to fight the CSD with and how do we hope to overwhelm the enemy quickly within shortest time frame? And what will PA use to defend itself and throw at us by way of counter-attack? Would we be fighting with sticks and stones?

If anything - you're going to see a very high intensity campaign over a short period where everything will be thrown into the battle. They will not waste their mechanized forces by pitching in head-long battles with our armor - they'll try to find weak-points in our otherwise infantry dominated force and hope for a major break-through. Like we did in 1965. PA's 1st and 6th Armored Divisions are not going to pit themselves against Indian armor - they're going to attack softer Indian battles to make inroads against India.

And the requirement of ATGM stems from giving ability to IA's infantry to handle the attack by PA Armor and mechanized infantry.

<SNIP>

So even combined, two front war we are far in excess of requirements.
And how exactly did this revelation occur to you? Some divine intervention or was this on the lines of - 'PA has X number of tank and we've more than 10X the number of ATGM so voila, we've more than enough'

To begin with - we don't have the full inventory of authorized missiles. But that is another story. Let's look at these numbers:

- IIRC, each IA battalion has about 6 ATGM launcher and 5-6 missiles/launcher. Let's assume that is 1+4 missile per launcher. Assuming all are equipped with ATGM (even those in mountains albeit for bunker busting), we need about 12,000 ATGM as first line of ammunition. News reports mentions that IA needs 24,000 for its infantry - that is another 12,000 rounds for reserve and training.

- Konkur-M - each BMP-2 mounts Konkur in 1+4 structure. For a force with 2,500 BMP-2 in service that amounts to 12,500 Konkur-M in first line of ammunition. Need almost the same number for reserve and storage.

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

Long story short - if you want to argue against JAVELIN induction, please do so using some logic and reasoning. Don't play loose and fast with facts and don't make posts bereft of any logic.

5900 posts and this attitude? May be it is high time that you stopped issuing certificates Sir. Everybody has right to express. Whatever you said may be true but you are not allowed to insult anybody,even if you are administrator. Salam

jamwal · Post by **jamwal** » 10 Sep 2014 22:42

Why are there so many tests of Agni -II going on ?
It's an old short-ranged missile with limited utility . What purpose do these kind of tests serve ?

1) Training personnel.
2) Checking condition of missile stocks.
3) Getting rid of missiles by putting them to some use before they become completely obsolete or white elephants.
4) Development of some new kind of missile under the guise of routine tests ?

koti · Post by **koti** » 10 Sep 2014 23:24

I can think of updated subsystem validation. Like when ring laser gyros were tested. Could also be different warhead options being validated.

Ankit Desai · Post by **Ankit Desai** » 10 Sep 2014 23:37

jamwal wrote:Why are there so many tests of Agni -II going on ?

If you meant Agni-I than it is for

Defence sources said as the missile has already been inducted in the armed forces, this will be a limited stock production (LSP) test for which the missile has been randomly selected from a bunch of missiles.

from Army to Test Fire Agni-I Missile on Thursday

-Ankit

jamwal · Post by **jamwal** » 11 Sep 2014 00:14

The short ranged version (700 km) was developed after longer ranged one and was called Agni -II. I probably missed this change in nomenclature.

koti sahab,
If news report is 100% true, it's selected from army stocks. Not sure if it's possible to test something new on these.

koti · Post by **koti** » 11 Sep 2014 00:28

I was being generic Jamwal ji

shaun · Post by **shaun** » 11 Sep 2014 04:26

@rsingh , ofcourse every one have his or her opinion but it doesn't justifies , writing some utter nonsense at least in a forum like BR. People here contribute , discuss , argue and learn in a logical way but trolls like rien have none. so as forum mod , rohit sir had done the right thing.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 11 Sep 2014 06:18

Indian Navy May Walk Away From French Missile Deal
http://www.defensenews.com/article/2014 ... ssile-Deal

Sep. 9, 2014 - 10:54AM |
By VIVEK RAGHUVANSHI

Navy Needs: India's Akash short-range surface-to-air missile (SRSAM) defense system is displayed at the Seoul International Aerospace and Defense Exhibition in Goyang in October. The Indian Navy is seeking its own SRSAM, since the Akash system does not come in a naval version. (JUNG YEON-JE / AFP via Getty Images)

NEW DELHI — The Indian Defence Ministry has sent a global request for information for short-range, surface-to-air missiles (SRSAMs), throwing into question an existing deal with the French for the same weapon for the Indian Navy.

The $5 billion Maitri missile deal was conceived eight years ago and is a joint project between India’s Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) and France’s MBDA. The missiles are to have a 25-kilometer range and were supposed to be used by Indian defense forces.

Originally, the Army, Air Force and Navy had a requirement for the missile, but the first two services have since found other solutions, leaving the Navy without a SRSAM unless the Maitri or another solution appears.

“Maitri seems to be heading for a dead end,” a senior Indian Navy official said.

A Defence Ministry source said six years of protracted negotiations between DRDO and MBDA have yielded a finalized work-share agreement, adding that the deal awaits only final clearance by New Delhi.

“The government of the day will have to decide whether to go ahead with the project or not,” the source added.

The French have been waiting for the clearance of the Maitri project, which has ascended to the highest diplomatic levels between India and France, a diplomat at the French Embassy said.

No official from MBDA was available for comment.

The Indian Navy was to use the Maitri to arm its three Project 16A Brahmaputra-class frigates and anti-submarine warfare corvettes, the MoD source said.

The Army requirement was for truck-mounted SRSAMs to replace the existing Russian-made Strella surface-to-air missiles. The Indian Air Force was to use the truck-mounted SRSAMs to replace Russian-made OSA-AKM surface-to-air missiles.

Rather than waiting for the Maitri, the Army and Air Force have since inducted the Akash, developed by DRDO. DRDO scientists claim the Akash is roughly equivalent to the US Patriot system, with a range of 25 kilometers. However, DRDO was unable to develop a naval version.

The Air Force further supplemented its inventory in 2008 by agreeing to purchase 18 Spyder low-level quick-reaction missile (LLQRM) systems made by Rafael of Israel, which was competing against MBDA.

Due to the uncertainty over the Maitri, the Navy opted to float the global request for information, another Navy official said.

India and France agreed to build the Maitri after India’s indigenous Trishul LLQRM was abandoned in 2003 following technical problems in the guidance systems.
Request a Non-starter

The Navy’s global request for information does not specify whether the purchase would be in the “Buy and Make Global” category or “Buy and Make India” category, so the response from overseas defense companies is likely to be very poor, said defense analyst Nitin Mehta.

The request for information was sent to domestic and global defense companies.

The request was sent to Tata Power SED, Larsen & Toubro, Bharat Forge, Punj Lloyd, Ashok Leyland and state-owned Bharat Electronics Limited and Ordnance Factory Board.

The foreign companies include MBDA, Nexter and Thales of France, Saab of Sweden, KBP Tula of Russia and Rafael and Israel Aerospace Industries of Israel, and Doosan Group and Samsung of South Korea.

While the request did not specify the number of SRSAM systems it will purchase, Navy sources said there is a requirement of around 30 systems worth more than $2 billion.

The indecision on Maitri could kill the program, affecting Indo-French defense ties, Mehta said. ■

http://www.defensenews.com/article/2014 ... nstories[b]
Arrow-2 Intercept Test Inconclusive, Israel Says[/b]
Will Take Days to Review Data
Sep. 9, 2014 -

Neela · Post by **Neela** » 11 Sep 2014 11:45

India successfully test fires nuclear-capable Agni-I missile

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 11 Sep 2014 12:33

This is the first with more exciting tests to follow.

srai · Post by **srai** » 11 Sep 2014 12:47

With eye on China, India deploys Akash missiles in northeast

Aug 22, 2014, 06.41 AM IST

NEW DELHI: After basing its most potent Sukhoi-30MKI fighters at Tezpur and Chabua, India has now begun deploying six Akash surface-to-air missile (SAM) squadrons in the northeast to deter Chinese jets, helicopters and drones against any misadventure in the region.

Defence ministry sources on Thursday said IAF has started getting deliveries of the six Akash missile squadrons, which can "neutralize" multiple targets at 25-km interception range in all-weather conditions, earmarked for the eastern theatre.

"IAF has deployed the first two Akash squadrons at the Mirage-2000 base in Gwalior and Sukhoi base in Pune. The next six squadrons, as approved by the Cabinet Committee on Security, are to guard against any threat from the northern borders," said a source.
...

Time for the IAF to order 8 more Akash SAM squadrons for the North & Western sectors.

Ranjani Brow · Post by **Ranjani Brow** » 11 Sep 2014 16:13

Agni-1 launched by SFC today
via @Anantha Krishnan

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 11 Sep 2014 16:57

Self deleted

member_27164 · Post by **member_27164** » 11 Sep 2014 19:46

2 things i noted regarding today's agni 1 launch:
1. indian express article : It has a strike range of 700-900 km. I always heard/read the range 700km.
2. the hindu article: ... missile carrying a total payload mass of 1100 kg zeroed in.... till now payload was 1000kg
so either earlier all figures were understated or we have improved the missile. can someone please tell me what might be the case?

Picklu · Post by **Picklu** » 11 Sep 2014 19:59

Vicji, even I am a lover of Chinook, C17 and P8I import by India. These three should not be used to term anyone as import lover. They truely belong to TINA class.

I do not think RV is import lover even in other cases (may be a difference in opinion about armed forces priority) but that is a completely different discussion.

Ranjani Brow · Post by **Ranjani Brow** » 11 Sep 2014 20:08

Saurav Jha mentioned a Mach 4 cruise missile with terminal maneuvering capability for FGFA on twitter.