Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

koti · Post by **koti** » 18 Nov 2014 01:21

^I am pretty eager for expert thoughts on it too.

IIRC, its the solid motors that are always on, whereas liquid motors can be switched off/choked: Enabling better turns; Also there was an advantage where the CG of the platform can controlled.
And what seeker?

John · Post by **John** » 18 Nov 2014 02:14

koti wrote:^I am pretty eager for expert thoughts on it too.

IIRC, its the solid motors that are always on, whereas liquid motors can be switched off/choked: Enabling better turns; Also there was an advantage where the CG of the platform can controlled.
And what seeker?

Propulsion : Liquid fueled VS Solid Fueled (akash more maintenance intensive?)

Actually Akash is not liquid ramjet engine like Brahmos is ramjet and is not capable of throttling. Also Ramjet also hampers its max speed and ceiling, there are no accurate figures on LR-SAM but will be far higher than Akash.

Range : 25-35Km VS 70+ Km / 120Km for the IAF variant

LR-SAM flies a optimized flight path where as Akash flies direct flight path to its target.

Seeker : Both should be equally good judging by the reports on tests.

Akash lack of seeker reduce its effectiveness on long ranges due to latency. Next variant should use active or semi active seeker.

Cost : I am not aware of quoted prices for either missile, but i assume LR-SAM is being manufactured locally at Indian rates.

Akash should be far cheaper; if Aster-30 is any indication LR-SAM will cost in upwards of 2 mill+.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 18 Nov 2014 02:22

koti wrote:^I am pretty eager for expert thoughts on it too.

IIRC, its the solid motors that are always on, whereas liquid motors can be switched off/choked: Enabling better turns; Also there was an advantage where the CG of the platform can controlled.
And what seeker?

Both the Meteor and the GQM-163 use a solid propellant and are throttle able. It all depends upon what performance you want and the purpose. The Europeans wanted a thrrotlable missile to better account for various attack scenarios depending upon the targets. USN wanted to create a capability that they could then transfer onto a tactical air to air missile (in fact DARPA test fired a solid propelled thorttleable ramjet air to air missile last september)

John · Post by **John** » 18 Nov 2014 02:25

Meteor uses gas generator control system.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 18 Nov 2014 02:29

John wrote:Meteor uses gas generator control system.

Thats how the coyote does it too if I am not mistaken, although I would have to dig around to see how they throttle...

http://www.bayern-chemie.com/ramjet.htm

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 18 Nov 2014 03:05

vina wrote:
PTI that it hit a para barrel target.
In Inglees, it can be used to target actual ammo dropped from an aircraft , even if the ammo itself was toss bombed by the aircraft which then turned away!

Your comment is lost in the din. Its a very significant point.

One certain maal is toss bombed!

koti · Post by **koti** » 18 Nov 2014 03:19

John wrote:LR-SAM flies a optimized flight path where as Akash flies direct flight path to its target.

That's quite interesting. It could be from the fact that the optimized trajectory makes sense for anti AShm targets given they don't actively engage in dodging maneuvers .
Could this also mean Akash has scope for range increase if the trajectory is better calculated?

srai · Post by **srai** » 18 Nov 2014 04:22

xave wrote:noob question, please don't hate, but what advantages does the Akash have over the LR-SAM ?

Weight : 720Kg VS 250Kg (less akash can be carried )
Range : 25-35Km VS 70+ Km / 120Km for the IAF variant
Propulsion : Liquid fueled VS Solid Fueled (akash more maintenance intensive?)
Terminal Performance : Akash Engine On till impact VS Secondary Terminal Rocket Motor (similar end result)
Seeker : Both should be equally good judging by the reports on tests.
Cost : I am not aware of quoted prices for either missile, but i assume LR-SAM is being manufactured locally at Indian rates.

While i am proud of our scientists in developing the Akash from the ground up, the LR-SAM also has significant Indian contribution, so i think the matter of H&D can be avoided in the comparison.

So to sum up, does the Akash offer any advantages?
or is it in service because it came out sooner? if so can we expect to see LR-SAM (or its MR-SAM IAF Variant) in service with the IA and the IAF in the future.

thanks.

Without Akash R&D effort (and other IGMDP missiles), Indian contribution on MR/LR-SAM (Barak-8) would not have been possible. Akash and Barak-8 can co-exist being used for different purposes: Akash for more of a shorter ranged area point (100 km BADZ) defense and Barak-8 for an extended area denial (ADGES) defense. To some degree, it is like the IAF's planned combat aircraft fleet composition: Su-30MKI (heavy), Rafale (medium) and LCA (light). Technically, a Su-30MKI can do all of the task performed by a Rafale or LCA. But looking at it from an operational viewpoint that may not be an optimal solution due to various reasons, such as costs. The IAF/IA bought 8 squadrons and 2 regiments worth of Akash system comprising of 2,500 missiles and related radars and support equipment for Rs 23,500 crore. The cost of 9 squadrons of Barak-8 comprising of around 450 missiles and related radars and support equipment is approved at Rs 10,075. This comes out to be roughly more than twice the cost of Akash if we look at it from number of missiles being procured for the said amount. The IAF requires 30-40 SAM squadrons to cover some 150 VA/VP. There is plenty of room for both systems to co-exist.

Beyond the costs, timelines also come into play. The IAF will have inducted 8 squadrons of Akash by the time Barak-8 is ready for induction. Then there are other factors like completely indigenous Akash could be more of an unknown entity for adversaries during wartime versus a JV product like Barak-8, which could be compromised by a foreign partner's obligations to their other "alliances".

kmc_chacko · Post by **kmc_chacko** » 18 Nov 2014 06:24

Why DRDO is pursuing with Dhanush Missile for 350 kms while BrahMos is ranged 290 kms. they could have speed up Nirbhay missile R&D.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 18 Nov 2014 06:44

Akash is not liquid fuel. it is solid fuel ramjet like the SA6 to which it is externally similar.
being a close in weapon, we need to keep it as cheap as possible and not install a uber seeker with imported...not until we start making desi AAM seekers in good volumes to drive costs down.

Thakur_B · Post by **Thakur_B** » 18 Nov 2014 07:19

From Dr.Saraswat's presentaion:-

Missile Launched PGM (MLPGM) using IIR and MMW seekers developed for Nag Program. (The mmw based PGM is already in testing and can be launched from UAVs). These munitions can be bunched up in a Prithvi missile and take out multiple targets simultaneously.

The radars in BMD program. Very impressive detection range against low rcs objects.:

In the BMD program they are vying for 99.8% kill probability by launching two interceptors per missile, per phase.

The AAD endo atmospheric interceptor from the BMD programs also might be a part of cruise missile defence (CMD) program.

Multiple kill vehicle payloads are being worked on:

member_26622 · Post by **member_26622** » 18 Nov 2014 09:01

thanks Thakur_B

member_24684 · Post by **member_24684** » 18 Nov 2014 09:50

Thakur_B wrote: - Army's RFI for MRSAM is dead, role filled in by Akash, many more orders for Akash expected.-
Sosna-R purchase likely to replace Strela (article unclear about the status)

from the Article

Even as the IA settles for the indigenous Akash system in the MRSAM segment, it may be bringing in the Russian Sosna-R which is meant to replace current holdings of the SA-13 Gopher (Strela-10) mounted on a MT-LB.

Army ok for Akash But Sosna Fits More ..!!

otherwise my english is too

- The QR-SAM procurement was supposed to be DRDO-MBDA maitri Vs Tor Vs SpyDer, but now Maitri is as good as dead. At present an indigenous QR-SAM is being pursued.

is this also filled by Akash

Sir..,

what happens to the MANPAD program last time I heard Igla scored only 2 kills out of 4

for AAA guns can those land based CIWS suits ,..if well what about Placing some AK 630 CIWS guns I think OFB has license to manufacture those Guns

member_28840 · Post by **member_28840** » 18 Nov 2014 11:49

thank you all for the insightful replies.

I forgot that the Akash was passive guided and mentioned the seeker (happens when you are posting at 3AM!)

my biggest takeaways about the Akash are
1) Solid Fueled Ramjet. (when the word ramjet gets thrown around, i assume liquid fueled. Glad i came to know otherwise)
2) Cost per Akash will be lesser compared to the LR/MR-SAM (going by the govt orders and budgets)
3) Point defence VS area denial roles being envisioned.
4) R&D efforts lead to other breakthroughs in our other missile development programmes.

vaibhav.n · Post by **vaibhav.n** » 18 Nov 2014 15:53

Couple of points.

So far, the IA has ordered 12 Batteries of Akash ADS. This breakdown makes it more than likely that the Akash is headed for induction into the 3 Strike Corps. Only 2 Strike Corps have SAM Groups which currently field the SA-6 with 4 Batteries each. If correct, the IA has not chosen to field Tracked variant of the Akash over the SA-6. Probably the lower cost ofacquasition and operating could have played a role.

The Indian Army had recently placed an order for 12 batteries of the medium range Akash missiles. Earlier this year, the IAF had ordered six Akash missile squadrons in addition to two squadrons already procured by it.

Link:http://archive.indianexpress.com/news/a ... on/646015/

One of the army’s three strike corps, which attack deep into enemy territory, has no anti-aircraft “area defence system”; the other two strike corps are equipped with the vintage Russian SA-6, designed in the early-1960s. This makes them dangerously vulnerable to enemy fighters if they advance deep into enemy territory.

Link: http://ajaishukla.blogspot.in/2010/11/f ... l-gap.html

Rohit had earlier provided data-points that some SAM Groups could handed over to Pivot Corps. IIRC it was 11 Corps, the other possibly could be 9 or 12 Corps.

In a letter written on December 4, 2002, to the MoD, the IAF’s Air Marshal Raghu Rajan pointed out that a study by the military’s apex Chiefs of Staff Committee, ordered by the Cabinet Secretariat, had identified 101 Indian VAs/VPs in 1983. That went up to 122 in 1992; to 133 in 1997; and is now understood to be well above 150.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 18 Nov 2014 17:44

vaibhav.n wrote:Couple of points. So far, the IA has ordered 12 Batteries of Akash ADS. This breakdown makes it more than likely that the Akash is headed for induction into the 3 Strike Corps. Only 2 Strike Corps have SAM Groups which currently field the SA-6 with 4 Batteries each. If correct, the IA has not chosen to field Tracked variant of the Akash over the SA-6. Probably the lower cost of acquisition and operating could have played a role.<SNIP>

The article by Saurav Jha needs to be read for nuggets of information which are otherwise hard to come by. Otherwise, for crying out loud, please get someone to edit that article. Reading that article is an effort in itself.

Coming to Akash - for the Nth time, IA DOES NOT have 12 Regiments of SA-6. He, and some on BRF, have taken that from BR Army page. What we have is 2 x SA-6 Groups.

They were with 1 Corps and 2 Corps respectively. But the one with 1 Corps [ 502 AD Group (SP)] has moved to 12 'Desert' Corp in Jodhpur. Basically, IA is not phasing out SA-6 from service.Yet.

For each Corps in western India from Leh to Jodhpur to have Akash SAM Group/Regiment (4 x battery per Corps), we're looking at total requirement of 36 batteries across nine Corps. After accounting for 12 x batteries already ordered and 2 x SA-6 Groups, that is an additional requirement of 22 batteries and assorted paraphernalia.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 18 Nov 2014 18:26

thats around $4 billion in orders on top of the current $2 bil.

vaibhav.n · Post by **vaibhav.n** » 18 Nov 2014 21:24

Rohit,

That article has some inaccuracies, he has just collated stuff primarily. One of the most highly regarded systems in the AAD, Tunguska M1 had its last 4 batteries come in 2008 from KBP. Why would they want to conduct an Upgrade so fast?

The ZSU-23-4 Shilka Upgrade for 48 units by BEL&IAI&Nimda JV already happened in 2012 and is almost through. It involved the following:

A 359hp Caterpillar main diesel engine and an 51hp APU, an IAI mounted radar, Thermal Imager, daylight TV and laser rangefinder

The actual benefit Sosna has over the Tunguska are cheaper missiles and lower acquasition costs.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 18 Nov 2014 22:28

rohitvats wrote:
vaibhav.n wrote:Couple of points. So far, the IA has ordered 12 Batteries of Akash ADS. This breakdown makes it more than likely that the Akash is headed for induction into the 3 Strike Corps. Only 2 Strike Corps have SAM Groups which currently field the SA-6 with 4 Batteries each. If correct, the IA has not chosen to field Tracked variant of the Akash over the SA-6. Probably the lower cost of acquisition and operating could have played a role.<SNIP>
The article by Saurav Jha needs to be read for nuggets of information which are otherwise hard to come by. Otherwise, for crying out loud, please get someone to edit that article. Reading that article is an effort in itself.

Coming to Akash - for the Nth time, IA DOES NOT have 12 Regiments of SA-6. He, and some on BRF, have taken that from BR Army page. What we have is 2 x SA-6 Groups.

They were with 1 Corps and 2 Corps respectively. But the one with 1 Corps [ 502 AD Group (SP)] has moved to 12 'Desert' Corp in Jodhpur. Basically, IA is not phasing out SA-6 from service.Yet.

For each Corps in western India from Leh to Jodhpur to have Akash SAM Group/Regiment (4 x battery per Corps), we're looking at total requirement of 36 batteries across nine Corps. After accounting for 12 x batteries already ordered and 2 x SA-6 Groups, that is an additional requirement of 22 batteries and assorted paraphernalia.

What you are saying is even those SA-6 groups need to be upgraded as they might remain in service..!

sankum · Post by **sankum** » 19 Nov 2014 00:21

The IAF and IA orders for Akash SAM is confusing.

IAF order for 8sq i.e, 16 batteries(1000 missiles) for Rs 6200 Cr. Each battery cost around Rs 350 Cr. Rs 600Cr for ground infrastructure.

IA order for 12 regiments (reported 2000 missiles) for Rs 14400 Cr.

Just mathematically IA order is 3 times the cost of IAF order. So that we can say 48 batteries of Akash which comes to 12 Regiment ( 4 batteries per regiment) which comes to Rs 16800 Cr- Rs 2400Cr ( for 1000 nos less missiles)= Rs 14400 Cr.

One regiment in linear deployment of 4 Batteries can cover 150Km by 60Km.

IAF has 62 missiles per battery while IA has 42 missiles per battery.

Thakur_B · Post by **Thakur_B** » 19 Nov 2014 06:31

Apparently ARDE is preparing for testing the warhead for MLPGM (missile launched PGM). MLPGM is an RCI project developing a family of munitions, some of which can be launched from UAVs (IIR, MMW) and also bunched up in a Prithvi missile to take out several targets at the same time.

Thakur_B · Post by **Thakur_B** » 19 Nov 2014 06:48

Thakur_B wrote:From Dr.Saraswat's presentaion:-

Missile Launched PGM (MLPGM) using IIR and MMW seekers developed for Nag Program. (The mmw based PGM is already in testing and can be launched from UAVs). These munitions can be bunched up in a Prithvi missile and take out multiple targets simultaneously.

Thakur_B wrote:Apparently ARDE is preparing for testing the warhead for MLPGM (missile launched PGM). MLPGM is an RCI project developing a family of munitions, some of which can be launched from UAVs (IIR, MMW) and also bunched up in a Prithvi missile to take out several targets at the same time.

This is a fairly long running project, conceptualised almost a decade back, including development of sensor fused munitions for Prithvi missile. Quoting from an older report:-

Missile Lanched Precision Guided Munitions Report No. RCI/PGT/PGM/1, dated July 7, 2003 and authored by Dr VK Saraswat, then Director RCI, Hyderabad, Main Missile laboratory and now Chief Controller at DRDO Headquarters:

"Non-availability of appropriate technologies has not allowed PGM system's development in India. Though the accuracy levels of some of the missile systems like Prithvi are acceptable in surface-to-surface theater weapons role, but precision strike capability in sub-meter level and precision neutralisation of mutiple targets without collateral damage is not possible with this system. Intelligence to each sub-munition aided by mother missile (e.g. Prithvi supported by high level of navigation accuracy with INS/GPS) is a possible candidate to fulfill precision strike weapon's requirements. Already developed Nag IIR seeker capable of giving sub-meter accuracy can be used for TGSMs (terminally guided submunition).

At present, two types of PGMs are being considered by the Indian Armed Forces. It has been suggested to explore reverse engineering after identifying suitable PGMs, available in the world market. In this contect, sensor fuzed munitions (SFMs) launched from Smerch and laser guided artillery projectiles like Krasnopol, which will be available in India, may be used for bridging the technology gaps. Although, the trend world over is towards precision strike weapons, there is no national programme on PGMs in India. Recently, SA to RM [Dr VK Aatre] has formed this task force for initiation of PGM development programme. Meetings of task force have helped in exchange of technological ideas on PGMs and involvement of many young scientists of various DRDO laboratories. Miniaturization of seeker systems, inertial navigation systems including MEMS [Micro Electro Mechanical Sensor] based sensors, actuators, etc are gaining importance for meeting the challenging requirements of PGMs."

Saraswat's report also has an interesting timeline slide on systems and technologies essential to improve the precision of missiles. There were and are DRDO's milestones and where it wants to end up:

2003: interface with mother missile, modelling and simulation, harware in loop simulation (HILS), control and guidance.

2007: TGSM with Nag IIR seeker, SFM with Strap Down millimeter wave. (Automatic Target Recognition, Lock-on After Launch, Target Library, Lattice Tail Fin)

2012: Miniaturised TGSM/SFM (miniaturised IR/IIR/MMW, acoustic sensors)

2017: MEMS based TGSM/SFM single/dual/seekerless (MEMS; seekers/sensors/SOC)

http://www.livefistdefence.com/2007/03/ ... ssing.html

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 19 Nov 2014 07:42

if successful and productionized , would be the kind of game changing area attack weapon our imported CBU 105 units are.
in short, a production run of 50000 dispenser units

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 19 Nov 2014 09:10

Karan M wrote: What you are saying is even those SA-6 groups need to be upgraded as they might remain in service..!

Karan - if memory serves me right, the SA-6 have already been upgraded with help from Poland.

From our very own BR page on IA:

Note: The Indian Army has decided to upgrade it's Kvadrat air defence systems, due to inordinate delays in the Akash missile program which was supposed to replace the Kvadrat system. The $200 million upgrade program for 100 Kvadrat (and 50 OSA-AKM) systems is being done by Warsaw-based Centrex Trading Limited, Poland's state-owned agency for defence exports, and was expected to be completed by 2002-end. It is not sure whether this has been accomplished. The upgrade package includes replacement of both air defence systems' radars, signaling equipment and radio receivers. The package also includes new digital fire-control and power-pack systems.

What remains to be seen if any further upgrade was done post this period.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 20 Nov 2014 08:29

rv, cant see a single report of that upgrade being carried out. looks like a plan that was superseded by akash success.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 20 Nov 2014 10:22

On the subject of SA6 and Akash. Can the Akash missile use the launcher of the SA 6?

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 20 Nov 2014 10:39

AFAIK there were plans to upgrade the SA-3 and SA-6 but neither of these received any comprehensive upgrade.

Cant use SA-6 launcher for Akash.

member_24684 · Post by **member_24684** » 20 Nov 2014 15:02

.
again Defense News

Report on India's indigenous Cruise Missile Defence (CMD) Program

DRDO claims that the Interceptor when ready will be able to detect and track a Cruise Missile right from the launch phase with the help of the Akshadeep Aerostat system which is currently being developed by Aerial Delivery Research & Development Establishment (ADRDE) and other low ground based low level radars which will keep track of the cruise missiles trajectory. Upon detection of the incoming missile by the radars, the Interceptor will be auto-activated and an interceptor missile will be fired to seek and destroy. The interceptor missile will be fired when the enemy cruise missile will begin its final descent and will be destroyed before it reaches its target.

http://www.defencenews.in/defence-news- ... 24L4Zt4%3D

meh ..only news about Aerostat . what about the Interceptor Missile

jamwal · Post by **jamwal** » 20 Nov 2014 17:02

Any SAM including Akash or Spyder

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 20 Nov 2014 17:17

Akash missiles launched against flying targets - Y.Mallikarjun, The Hindu

Guided by state-of-the-art ground radar, two Akash surface-to-air missiles were simultaneously launched against two flying targets by the Indian Air Force personnel from the Integrated Test Range (ITR) at Balasore, Odisha, on Thursday.

Flying at supersonic speed, one of the missiles engaged and destroyed a moving unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) at a range of 11 km, while the other missile’s warhead detonated near its moving target comprising para flares at a range of 24 km. The para flares were dropped by a fighter aircraft. The exercise of launching the two missiles simultaneously was carried out by IAF personnel as part of their user-training.

According to official sources, the UAV was destroyed in a direct hit by the missile which was equipped with a 55 kg warhead.

The missiles were randomly selected from the production lot and launched for the mission.

Akash is a medium range air defence system. Each system comprises the missile, the launcher, the ground system and the radar which has the capability to simultaneously track 64 targets. Aided by the ground radar, eight missiles could be launched simultaneously to engage and destroy four targets.

Akash missile has a strike range of 25-30 km and was developed as part of the Integrated Guided Missile Development Programme of the Defence Research and Development Organisation. The system has already been inducted into the Air Force and Army.

karan_mc · Post by **karan_mc** » 20 Nov 2014 18:08

SajeevJino wrote:.
again Defense News

Report on India's indigenous Cruise Missile Defence (CMD) Program

DRDO claims that the Interceptor when ready will be able to detect and track a Cruise Missile right from the launch phase with the help of the Akshadeep Aerostat system which is currently being developed by Aerial Delivery Research & Development Establishment (ADRDE) and other low ground based low level radars which will keep track of the cruise missiles trajectory. Upon detection of the incoming missile by the radars, the Interceptor will be auto-activated and an interceptor missile will be fired to seek and destroy. The interceptor missile will be fired when the enemy cruise missile will begin its final descent and will be destroyed before it reaches its target.
http://www.defencenews.in/defence-news- ... 24L4Zt4%3D

meh ..only news about Aerostat . what about the Interceptor Missile

Basically the article is re-written of IDRW report put up earlier .

Thakur_B · Post by **Thakur_B** » 20 Nov 2014 19:17

SajeevJino wrote:.
http://www.defencenews.in/defence-news- ... 24L4Zt4%3D

meh ..only news about Aerostat . what about the Interceptor Missile

AAD interceptor.

jamwal · Post by **jamwal** » 20 Nov 2014 19:37

Is AAD suitable for non-ballistic targets ?

Thakur_B · Post by **Thakur_B** » 20 Nov 2014 19:49

jamwal wrote:Is AAD suitable for non-ballistic targets ?

If a seeker less Akash can take down cruise missiles, then AAD interceptor with an active seeker and thrust vectoring can only do better.

kuldipchager · Post by **kuldipchager** » 20 Nov 2014 20:28

ravi_g

Post subject: Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

PostPosted: 20 Nov 2014 12:25

Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 16 Nov 2011 22:31
Posts: 2963
Location: Jambudveepe Bharatvarshe, Bharatkhande, Sakabde, Mero Dakshine Parsve

Very.

The fact that India has not put up any option in that class speaks for itself.

Though I am sure we will be offered the F-22 Raptor as the FGFA gets to fruition .

US will never give india T O T of F 22 and F35.If they do decide to give india lets say F 35 It will be absolute the time india will get it. And it does not matter what west think they will never come close to the indo Russian relationship.

member_20317 · Post by **member_20317** » 20 Nov 2014 20:32

kuldip ji,

my comment about F-22 TOT, was made in jest. Kindly treat it as such.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 20 Nov 2014 20:47

US will never give india T O T of F 22

Just as a FYI, the US is expecting to *retire* the F-22 around 2030 ............................ just about when India expects to field her own first 5.5 Gen plane (and not to mention that the MMRCA Rafale will be just about be coming close to MLU).

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 20 Nov 2014 20:58

@NRAO, Who told you that? The F-22's are an 8000 hr airframe with a possibility of a 1000-2000 hr SLEP for the future. That means that those that went online post IOC would still be in service all the way into the 2040's with no doubt an MLU. The F-X effort of the USAF lags that of the FA-XX of the USN by about 6-8 years and as such the fighter should start its test program around 2030 with IOC around 2035. The Raptors would remain in service still beyond that simply because there is life left in them. The haste in the F-X is because there weren't sufficient F-22's acquired to replace all F-15's and nothing was developed to replace the F-15E.

The reason US will never sell TOT for the F-22 is because it is no longer in production and most of the technology in it, has been upgraded or bettered on the F-35. This is true of the stealth materials (FiberMAT), EW package, Radar, and the CNI suite (shrinking 30 Antennas down to 10).

John · Post by **John** » 20 Nov 2014 21:08

Thakur_B wrote:
jamwal wrote:Is AAD suitable for non-ballistic targets ?
If a seeker less Akash can take down cruise missiles, then AAD interceptor with an active seeker and thrust vectoring can only do better.

It is an overkill to use an large expensive missile like AAD to intercept cruise missile. Ideally you need small inexpensive missile that are highly maneuverable to deal with this threat.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 20 Nov 2014 21:42

KaranM & Thakur_B, Can you guys go thru the whole Akash testing phase from day one and try to summarize what were the targets it was proofed on?

I think its a hit to kill missile with a proximity fuze.

The objective is not just planes.
Could be to negate the Fizzleya's solah dropped payloads.