Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Siddhu · Post by **Siddhu** » 31 Mar 2015 11:08

pankajs wrote:This is not about chips ... but about self reliance vs import.

Thats why i said ghar ki murgi daal barabar. More money should be spent at home rather than importing stuff that can be built here with some initiative.

pankajs · Post by **pankajs** » 31 Mar 2015 11:09

But will a guy who is 10 pass (per the poster; very specific about the qualification) be able reverse engineers Intel chip? That is the question and not India's capabilities in chip design.

Siddhu · Post by **Siddhu** » 31 Mar 2015 11:14

pankajs wrote:But will a guy who is 10 pass (per the poster) be able reverse engineers Intel chip?

Why would u reverse engineer Intel chip when u can design ur own chip. Float a company go to some nit and tell them your requirement you will get the design.

pankajs · Post by **pankajs** » 31 Mar 2015 11:16

A *10th pass* guy can design a chip equivalent to Intel chip at some level? That does not make sense.

The question is very narrow and NOT about India's chip design capability. Do not confuse the issues.

Siddhu · Post by **Siddhu** » 31 Mar 2015 11:18

pankajs wrote:A *10th pass* guy can design a chip equivalent to Intel chip at some level? That does not make sense.

Thats the mind set every where, our system lacks the ability to take initiative, get rid of this mind set that we cannot do , i know plenty of people who can design chips at par with Intel and even better.

pankajs · Post by **pankajs** » 31 Mar 2015 11:20

Just a *10th pass* who can only assemble computer from components can design computer chips equivalent to Intel!!?

More power to such folks. I am sure you have cleared Gyaan saars doubts. You reply should then have been to his post not mine! Thank you! Thank you! Thank you!!! Ya ahrrrr one learns new things every day.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 31 Mar 2015 11:28

This is one area where criciticism of the IN is valid.They have been very lackadaisical about air defence of ships.After the fiasco of the B class,where these frigates were commissioned without any SAM system at all,later Barak-1 installed,due to the failure of Trishul (DRDO couldn't walk the talk and a pal of mine recd flak for saying so),we've yet again repeated the same with the Kol DDG. I think even CAG reports have said that changes during construction of major systems has been one reason for delays and extra costs. Some earlier reports said that warships were beign built without some of the weaponry being confirmed.

The LRSAM requirement was strangely never tendered out,a quiet deal with Israel,behind time and cost overruns too,and despite the failure of Trishul,B-1 just an interim solution.no plans made for a new advanced BPDMS system,either desi or imported. We now have a motley combination of Kashtan,SAN-7/17 (Shtil) and Barak-1 defending our warships. B-8 has yet to arrive,will be fitted later this year say reports. Have we really acquired relevant tech for the same or was this prt of some pacakage deal involving other eqpt?

Why an expensive LRSAM is also tasked with meeting anti-missile duties ,when the weaponload of the same is below par for a large warship which should expect massed attacks of anti-ship missiles,beats me.The P-15A/B DDGS should have at least two SAM systems,LRSAMs for air defence and a very capable advanced SR SAM for missile defence,which can be installed in large number. In addition, MANPADS must also be available. The Russian Kashtan/Kortik dual gun/missile system is ideal for smaller vessels.Brief details below.

....unique KBP Kortik/Kashtan combined gun/missile ship defense system. KBP has succeeded in combining its 30mm gattling gun and a very fast 900m/s 10km range 3M87 (9M311/SA-N-11) laser-guided SAM, whereas European and U.S. ship defenses either use guns or missiles, but not in combination.

If we've agreed upon a proven SR SAM system with the French,better late than never,as mentioned in an above post,our requirement will be in the high hundreds,at least 1000 missiles. The PDMS will be used right from missile craft to DDGs,carriers,etc. The same missile could also be used by the IN for its shore establishments/bases along with Akash.I do not know why Akash was never considered by the IN for its warships,perhaps the experience of Trishul persuaded them to look elsewhere. The IA/IAF version could be used for defending bases.

Virupaksha · Post by **Virupaksha** » 31 Mar 2015 11:39

Philip,

think about threat perception of IN as well. China does not enough legs to be an aerial threat to IN. Pakistan's air threat is mostly within range of karachi, where as the submarine threat IN faces is much more potent and in the blue seas as well. Around Karachi, in a pinch, I can get even IAF to help out.

If I was IN, with the limited funds I have, I would choose more robust anti-submarine weapons every single time over anti-air.

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 31 Mar 2015 11:49

Virupaksha wrote:Philip,

think about threat perception of IN as well. China does not enough legs to be an aerial threat to IN. Pakistan's air threat is mostly within range of karachi, where as the submarine threat IN faces is much more potent and in the blue seas as well. Around Karachi, in a pinch, I can get even IAF to help out.

If I was IN, with the limited funds I have, I would choose more robust anti-submarine weapons every single time over anti-air.

What about Anti SHip missiles, can't risk capital ships. While anti Sub requirement is there, IN needs to ensure Pakis need to launch several missiles at a platform.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 31 Mar 2015 15:26

Could something like the Raytheon AMRAAM-ER ground launched SAM be developed from the Astra AAM in the future by DRDO? What might be the challenges and if it cannot be done, then any possible reasons why it may not be possible to develop?

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 31 Mar 2015 16:08

Are we sure that Maitri is a done deal. DRDO will have its say before any JV is signed. They will look long and hard at ASTRA before they say yes to Maitri.

Remember, that the early tests of the missiles were from a ground based launch rail. Before the air launch's took place. So the ability exists for the weapon to be launched from sea level. What needs to be seen, is if it can be installed on a vertical launcher and used as a point defense weapon.

Nitesh · Post by **Nitesh** » 31 Mar 2015 16:18

We are already using Agat seeker for Astra, now if we get some good deal in terms of seeker, then this project might get a go ahead.

pankajs · Post by **pankajs** » 31 Mar 2015 16:29

Four quick points on Astra as SRSAM

1. Astra is not yet ready for its primary role.
2. The missile is but a component of the SRSAM system.
3. Trishul system failed even while Akash system succeed. Moreover success in Akash system did NOT help Tirshul system evolve. We must never forget that.
4. Going from Akash-1 to Akash-2 and Pinaka-1 to Pinaka-2 is taking time i.e to say even simple *sounding* iterations are neither simple nor quick.

Am not saying that Astra based SRSAM system cannot be built BUT the key question is how long can we afford to wait for it to succeed. That only DRDO/Navy/MOD together can answer.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 31 Mar 2015 16:35

Pankajs,

Your arguments will work against Maitri as well.

pankajs · Post by **pankajs** » 31 Mar 2015 16:38

True. Depends what capabilities the Frenchies can show (Not claim) as part of their side of the deal. I hardly know their capabilities in the domain but am depending on DRDO/Navy/MOD to evaluate.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 31 Mar 2015 16:46

As am I and am thinking, that with the learning from Trishul. The DRDO would have understood, just what worked and what did not. Before making a decision, in this matter.

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 31 Mar 2015 18:02

Sid wrote:Tsarkar, so a ship cannot perform hard manoeuvre once tracking radar are locked on?

The guidance radar uses a pencil beam to guide the missile to target. If ship does something drastic, then the funnel or superstructure can obstruct the guidance radar's FoV of the target.

Sid wrote:And its a joint development like LRSAM and PJ10, and country will hold on to critical technology like seeker tech. I have not read anywhere that what will be shared as part of this project.

Well, atleast for BrahMos, seeker ToT has been done. Infact, we built a better seeker.

Original seeker - http://www.granit-electron.ru/en/produc ... hont_head/
Much improved desi seeker - http://www.datapatternsindia.com/produc ... p?catid=10

We should get LRSAM seeker technology if we're to manufacture in India.

Important thing is Navy has asked DRDO to decide on the best solution for SRSAM.

SRSAM is an Indian program. What fulfills it - like Maitri JV - is DRDO's prerogative.

It was DRDO under APJ that signed off on Barak 1 induction when Trishul was getting nowhere.

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 31 Mar 2015 18:10

How guidance radar FoV is important to shooting down missiles. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Coventry_%28D118%29

Also a good example of how state of the art technology might not work in actual circumstances.

Sid · Post by **Sid** » 31 Mar 2015 19:04

tsarkar wrote:
Sid wrote:Tsarkar, so a ship cannot perform hard manoeuvre once tracking radar are locked on?
The guidance radar uses a pencil beam to guide the missile to target. If ship does something drastic, then the funnel or superstructure can obstruct the guidance radar's FoV of the target.

Thanks tsarkar. Yes I understand that part, but my understanding is that radar can still keep on tracking irrespective of ships heading. Agreed there can be some blind spots.

Latest radars, like APAR, uses Interrupted Continuous Wave Illumination with SM to guide upto 32 SAMs at given point of time. Given similar configuration on Kolkata class with MF-Star (also an APAR), such handicap is no longer there. Plus MF-Star is mounted so high that hardly anything can obstruct it.

My take is that SRSAM will replace our standard CIWS (AK 630) with Sea RAM like system. Chinese have already built similar system. Should have an IIR instead of radar seeker.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 31 Mar 2015 19:57

pankajs wrote:Four quick points on Astra as SRSAM

1. Astra is not yet ready for its primary role.
2. The missile is but a component of the SRSAM system.
3. Trishul system failed even while Akash system succeed. Moreover success in Akash system did NOT help Tirshul system evolve. We must never forget that.
4. Going from Akash-1 to Akash-2 and Pinaka-1 to Pinaka-2 is taking time i.e to say even simple *sounding* iterations are neither simple nor quick.

Am not saying that Astra based SRSAM system cannot be built BUT the key question is how long can we afford to wait for it to succeed. That only DRDO/Navy/MOD together can answer.

Here is some guesswork on the topic from me..

Generally speaking arms exporters are allowed by their respective governments to sell "defensive systems". It is offensive systems that are the problem. Hence SAMs are sold relatively freely. BVRAAMs are IMO systems that easily fit into "offensive mode" - given their ability to kill silently from afar after being launched from an aircraft. So I am guessing the priority will be to put a BVRAAM in the IAF's hands that does not suffer from sanctions and the possibility that information about weaknesses will be supplied to an enemy in wartime. Making Astra into a SAM I am sure is feasible and will be done. Eventually.

pankajs · Post by **pankajs** » 31 Mar 2015 20:30

Makes sense docji and I am all for homegrown solutions for all our defense needs but for now we cannot ignore the gaps in our tech landscape.

IIRC, DRDO has stated that we should be able to close all such gaps in missile domain by 2022 but given the nature of tech. business I would still be happy if the gaps are closed by 2025 and all systems fielded after 2030 are homegrown.

Saurav Jha ‏@SJha1618 6m6 minutes ago New Delhi, Delhi

Astra will enter production in a couple of years. There are considerations w.r.t to warhead size, acceleration and range before

Saurav Jha ‏@SJha1618 9m9 minutes ago New Delhi, Delhi

ground launched role can be envisioned.

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 31 Mar 2015 20:36

^^ My personal choice for SR-SAM would be a "cut-down" LR-SAM. Simpler to develop than Astra.

Its guidance algorithms are optimized for over water operations.

That is where Trishul missed the mark. That is where Akash development effort took the longest time. Remember the misses & hit cycles of Akash missiles. Remember how many times Akash missed, and the developers doggedly learnt from each failure and the next trial thereafter was a success. Then a new scenario would be iteratively tested.

Its not about the hardware, making software for Astra seeker to pick a fast maneuvering missile at near sea level will be the toughest part of the development cycle.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 31 Mar 2015 20:38

Pankajs wrote:Four quick points on Astra as SRSAM

1. Astra is not yet ready for its primary role.

Almost ready. The missile is in its final stage of developmental trials.

2. The missile is but a component of the SRSAM system.

Yes, but that's a moot point since all the other items for the SRSAM were to come from India anyhow (C3I, radars, launchers) and many items to base SRSAM off of, already exist.

3. Trishul system failed even while Akash system succeed. Moreover success in Akash system did NOT help Tirshul system evolve. We must never forget that.

Err...never forget what exactly? The penultimate Akash trials demonstrated success in tackling the exact issue which stopped Trishul induction, i.e. multipath reflection over the sea. Trishul BTW was ready for IA/IAF for land ops. They didn't take it because they wanted fire and forget VSHORAD systems at the time, eximport.

4. Going from Akash-1 to Akash-2 and Pinaka-1 to Pinaka-2 is taking time i.e to say even simple *sounding* iterations are neither simple nor quick.

Apples to oranges because Akash 2 was not exactly a priority program with AF/Army only recently on board. Pinaka-2 almost doubles the range of the Pinaka and keeps everything else the same (for cost/logistics). Hence the complexity.

Am not saying that Astra based SRSAM system cannot be built BUT the key question is how long can we afford to wait for it to succeed. That only DRDO/Navy/MOD together can answer.

It'll take the same amount of time as developing a brand new Mica derivative with MBDA controls as the SRSAM.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 31 Mar 2015 20:41

tsarkar wrote:Well, atleast for BrahMos, seeker ToT has been done. Infact, we built a better seeker.

Original seeker - http://www.granit-electron.ru/en/produc ... hont_head/
Much improved desi seeker - http://www.datapatternsindia.com/produc ... p?catid=10
.

We didn't get any TOT for Brahmos seeker. That's a fully homegrown Indian program (DP seeker) being run as a competition between Alpha, Bangalore and DP, Chennai with DRDO, ECIL and others providing subsystems, tech. The seeker/s will be used across multiple missiles like Brahmos, Nirbhay etc.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 31 Mar 2015 20:45

tsarkar wrote:^^ My personal choice for SR-SAM would be a "cut-down" LR-SAM. Simpler to develop than Astra.

Its guidance algorithms are optimized for over water operations.

That is where Trishul missed the mark. That is where Akash development effort took the longest time. Remember the misses & hit cycles of Akash missiles. Remember how many times Akash missed, and the developers doggedly learnt from each failure and the next trial thereafter was a success. Then a new scenario would be iteratively tested.

Its not about the hardware, making software for Astra seeker to pick a fast maneuvering missile at near sea level will be the toughest part of the development cycle.

Akash challenges were not about missile guidance as much as its troubled ramjet development. The guidance schema for Akash was more straightforward and implemented well, also because the radar system was completely local and could be customized for it as versus managing the missile to the existing radar (Trishul/Flycatcher combo). Engagement over sea was a small component of the average Akash system, IA/IAF Trishuls (required only for sea facing installations) whereas for Naval Trishul, it was critical.

Picklu · Post by **Picklu** » 31 Mar 2015 21:04

tsarkar wrote:
Its not about the hardware, making software for Astra seeker to pick a fast maneuvering missile at near sea level will be the toughest part of the development cycle.

This has to be done for the naval LCA regardless of its further re-use of SAM. So, once done for air launch mode, should be relatively easy in terms of guidance. Of course the stabilization etc for vertical launch from ship will be a challenge to overcome but we do have prior experience in that in terms of Brahmos, LRSAM etc

pankajs · Post by **pankajs** » 31 Mar 2015 22:28

Karan M saar I will not break it up as things get scattered over multiple quotes and create a mess,

On 1st point > Astra is at least 2 years away from FOC (or whatever is the equivalent thing). The GOI can split the current team or bring in a new team to begin work in parallel to adopt it to SRSAM requirements. To me both are sub-optimal solutions. Splitting the team would hamper the current development at such a crucial phase. Bringing a new team would have its own dynamics in getting the team up to speed on the current development. The ideal scenario would be to finish the current iteration before embarking on modification to get it ready for a different mission profile and platform.

Per Wiki, VL MICA has been tested from a *navalised* launcher against a low flying target drone over the sea. The French claim that the VL MICA is ready for ship instillation. Even if claims are exaggerated it still could save us a couple of years worth of the development.

2nd point > *Assuming* all the rest of the system is DRDO supplied it does not matter which missile is chosen. Lets agree that the integration time penalty will be similar in both cases.

3rd point > Simply that success with one kind of missile does not garuntee success with another kind and/or adapting a missile built for a specific mission profile for another mission profile is not easy and/or adapting a missile for platform other than its original mission is not easy.

4th point > In Astra's case it is going to be a hard (Not impossible but time consuming) to modify it for a different mission profile and platform.

So it all boils down to

Karan M wrote:[>>quote="pankajs"]Am not saying that Astra based SRSAM system cannot be built BUT the key question is how long can we afford to wait for it to succeed. That only DRDO/Navy/MOD together can answer.[<</quote]

It'll take the same amount of time as developing a brand new Mica derivative with MBDA controls as the SRSAM.

Given that Astra is still a couple of years away and VL MICA has progressed far enough to be tested against a low flying target drone over the sea, it seems to me that a MICA based system has an advantage over an Astra based system of at least a couple of years.

However, as I have stated before, if the urgency demands a quicker induction of SRSAM I will be happy with a fully imported system ready to be tested and installed.

srin · Post by **srin** » 31 Mar 2015 22:52

If VL MICA already exists, then why go through the charade of joint development ? Let's just procure it off the shelf. If we want to have joint development, what are we going to contribute and what are we going to gain (in terms of technology) ?

The goals of development are slightly different from the goals of procurement.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 31 Mar 2015 23:08

They need a JV because they are not importing VL-Mica as is. They are putting in Indian parts wherever possible. So they have to undergo the process of integration and testing. Since all the parts are individually ready, they say they can achieve this in 3 years.

One question, who is going to be the system integrator, DRDO or MBDA?

Karan, when do you feel that we could put in an all desi system?

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 01 Apr 2015 09:49

PankajS wrote:Karan M saar I will not break it up as things get scattered over multiple quotes and create a mess,

On 1st point > Astra is at least 2 years away from FOC (or whatever is the equivalent thing). The GOI can split the current team or bring in a new team to begin work in parallel to adopt it to SRSAM requirements. To me both are sub-optimal solutions. Splitting the team would hamper the current development at such a crucial phase. Bringing a new team would have its own dynamics in getting the team up to speed on the current development. The ideal scenario would be to finish the current iteration before embarking on modification to get it ready for a different mission profile and platform.

Per Wiki, VL MICA has been tested from a *navalised* launcher against a low flying target drone over the sea. The French claim that the VL MICA is ready for ship instillation. Even if claims are exaggerated it still could save us a couple of years worth of the development.

But the SRSAM won't be a VL Mica. Reports noted it would be a new missile with VL Mica derived tech and some fancy stuff decided upon by both sides. This BTW will cost a huge amount and which is why the French are pushing for it. Its a very lucrative deal. Question is whether paying that is justified as versus the penalty (time) in developing it ourselves.

I don't see why we can't continue to use Barak-1 and work on a VL-Astra or a SLAM-Astra (see SLAMRAAM) for all our future requirements.

2nd point > *Assuming* all the rest of the system is DRDO supplied it does not matter which missile is chosen. Lets agree that the integration time penalty will be similar in both cases.

The plan was always to use radars, C3I and launchers from DRDO/Indian industry for this program.
See under my posts for MMSR (that's what I'd wager will be used here) and the LRSAM C3I made by Tata Nova or the Akash C3I.

3rd point > Simply that success with one kind of missile does not garuntee success with another kind and/or adapting a missile built for a specific mission profile for another mission profile is not easy and/or adapting a missile for platform other than its original mission is not easy.

What is this specific mission profile stuff? Please do some research. The Mica you are quoting was developed for the A2A mission. It was quickly adapted for a SAM role. Ditto the AMRAAM. The SpyDers India are purchasing are none other than Derby & Pythons used by the IAI consortium for fighters.

In short, its long been proven that one can adapt fighter borne missiles for SAM roles & given the G's they are designed for, the mission profiles they face, these missiles can be modified/adapted with relatively lesser effort than developing a brand new missile.

4th point > In Astra's case it is going to be a hard (Not impossible but time consuming) to modify it for a different mission profile and platform.

As time consuming as developing a brand new missile.

No VL Micas are coming over for SRSAM. It will be a new missile. It will require a DRDL team, a MBDA team. And lots of money to MBDA. For getting us IP on stuff which we may not even need if we were to use Astra.

Given that Astra is still a couple of years away and VL MICA has progressed far enough to be tested against a low flying target drone over the sea, it seems to me that a MICA based system has an advantage over an Astra based system of at least a couple of years.
However, as I have stated before, if the urgency demands a quicker induction of SRSAM I will be happy with a fully imported system ready to be tested and installed.

Is that notional couple of years worth billions of dollars spent on a one time development of something we will be tied to MBDA's coat strings for even tomorrow?
I think not.

Astra being a couple of years away.. its probably going to be available next year if they can keep the test tempo going. The missile is developed, its integration with the WCS done, and what remains now are live fire tests against a range of targets (expensive) and user trials.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 01 Apr 2015 09:52

indranilroy wrote:Karan, when do you feel that we could put in an all desi system?

I think 4-5 years out for trials to begin if we use the best stuff we have in development as versus what we have today.
Eg MMSR vs Aslesha
Eg derivative of LRSAM/Akash C3I vs Trishul C3I
and so forth.

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 01 Apr 2015 09:52

Can anyone tell me what are Maitri's advantages over Barak -1 and Barak-8 which will be inducted in a few years and why Navy needs this ahead of these 2?

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 01 Apr 2015 09:55

Maitri is to be Fire & Forget and better able to handle surge attacks since terminal guidance will be by onboard seeker. Barak-1 is a command guided.
Barak-8 will be more expensive per round.

Yagnasri · Post by **Yagnasri** » 01 Apr 2015 10:46

What is number of Air to Air Missiles stocks are maintained by air forces like IAF. We face some 3000+ air crafts in the event of war in two fronts. How are we ensuring that we have required number of missiles after attrition due to our ground defenses etc taken into consideration. Are we going to have some 6000 missiles etc or there is any policy or system which takes care to maintain the required numbers? Is there any ratio of to be maintained between Radar and Heat seeking or WVR and BVR.

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 01 Apr 2015 10:54

Karan M wrote:
tsarkar wrote:Well, atleast for BrahMos, seeker ToT has been done. Infact, we built a better seeker. Original seeker - http://www.granit-electron.ru/en/produc ... hont_head/
Much improved desi seeker - http://www.datapatternsindia.com/produc ... p?catid=10
We didn't get any TOT for Brahmos seeker. That's a fully homegrown Indian program (DP seeker) being run as a competition between Alpha, Bangalore and DP, Chennai with DRDO, ECIL and others providing subsystems, tech. The seeker/s will be used across multiple missiles like Brahmos, Nirbhay etc.

The original BrahMos Anti Ship seeker ToT was offered but we did not want it and decided to build an improved seeker with SAR/ISAR imaging. Here is BrahMos CEO speaking about the seeker types developed and in service http://www.brahmos.com/pressRelease.php?id=20

The propulsion system (engine) and airframe came from Russia, while the guidance and onboard electronic module came from DRDO's...

For guidance throughout the flight, BRAHMOS uses a combination of G3, namely US' GPS, India's Gagan and Russian Glonass systems for accuracy. It has a radar seeker which scans the area in front to find the target and then homes-in with Radio Frequency mono-pulse capability (This is Block I or Anti Ship Missile). Block-II version, developed for the Army, has an improved seeker with target discrimination capability (The SAR seeker), and Block-III version has steep-dive capability to hit vertically those targets hidden behind mountains.

two regiments with four launchers each have been raised with BRAHMOS Block-II LACM, while the third regiment with Block-III missiles is being delivered. This will be followed by another two regiments with Block-III capability.

there will be Block-IV LACM with a surround capability, to hit hidden targets laterally from the side of mountains."

Karan M wrote:
tsarkar wrote:^^ My personal choice for SR-SAM would be a "cut-down" LR-SAM. Simpler to develop than Astra. Its guidance algorithms are optimized for over water operations. That is where Trishul missed the mark. That is where Akash development effort took the longest time. Remember the misses & hit cycles of Akash missiles. Remember how many times Akash missed, and the developers doggedly learnt from each failure and the next trial thereafter was a success. Then a new scenario would be iteratively tested. Its not about the hardware, making software for Astra seeker to pick a fast maneuvering missile at near sea level will be the toughest part of the development cycle.
Akash challenges were not about missile guidance as much as its troubled ramjet development. The guidance schema for Akash was more straightforward and implemented well, also because the radar system was completely local and could be customized for it as versus managing the missile to the existing radar (Trishul/Flycatcher combo). Engagement over sea was a small component of the average Akash system, IA/IAF Trishuls (required only for sea facing installations) whereas for Naval Trishul, it was critical.

Akash had challenges hitting targets at low level, irrespective of land or sea. These were gradually rectified.
http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/new ... 126853.ece

The Indian Army has successfully test fired the Akash missile at a very low altitude near the boundary on June 18. The trial flight was the last among the validation trials being carried out by the Army, on the first-off production models of the Akash supersonic missile.

The supersonic missile intercepted a very small unmanned, fast moving Banshee aerial vehicle at 30 m altitude above sea level, proving the system capability against subsonic cruise missile. The sophisticated multi function radar, with built in features, tracked the low flying target continuously throughout its course.

Special algorithms and techniques developed by the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) for overcoming the multiple target reflections coming from the sea, worked perfectly in the mission, the DRDO said in a statement.

Picklu wrote:
tsarkar wrote:Its not about the hardware, making software for Astra seeker to pick a fast maneuvering missile at near sea level will be the toughest part of the development cycle.
This has to be done for the naval LCA regardless of its further re-use of SAM. So, once done for air launch mode, should be relatively easy in terms of guidance.

No, irrespective whether Astra is launched by Su-30 over land or sea, its radar software is designed to target aircraft and other targets flying at a certain altitude (typically 100 meters ASL), not sea skimming missiles maneuvering 3-5 meters ASL. Discriminating against Sea & Land clutter at that altitude will require new software & testing. Mating missiles to aircraft, among other things, integrates aircraft radar with missile datalink for mid course guidance. However, terminal guidance is agnostic to whichever aircraft the missile is mated to.

Propulsion & VL is relatively easier.

Coming back to topic, DRDO & IN decide what goes into SR-SAM. Whether Astra modified or Astra as-is or Maitri JV or VL-MICA as-is.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 01 Apr 2015 11:14

tsarkar wrote:The original BrahMos Anti Ship seeker ToT was offered but we did not want it and decided to build an improved seeker with SAR/ISAR imaging. Here is BrahMos CEO speaking about the seeker types developed and in service

What he is saying to the media needs to be parsed carefully..

guidance and onboard electronic module - none other than the G3OM and INS systems. Seeker is and was from Granit with some software contribution from DRDO for the land attack variant. The local seekers are still in development and not in production yet.

Check if DP or ECIL or Alpha and see if they have anything different to add. They wont.

Akash had challenges hitting targets at low level, irrespective of land or sea. These were gradually rectified.
http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/new ... 126853.ece
The Indian Army has successfully test fired the Akash missile at a very low altitude near the boundary on June 18. The trial flight was the last among the validation trials being carried out by the Army, on the first-off production models of the Akash supersonic missile.

The supersonic missile intercepted a very small unmanned, fast moving Banshee aerial vehicle at 30 m altitude above sea level, proving the system capability against subsonic cruise missile. The sophisticated multi function radar, with built in features, tracked the low flying target continuously throughout its course.

Special algorithms and techniques developed by the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) for overcoming the multiple target reflections coming from the sea, worked perfectly in the mission, the DRDO said in a statement.

Again, where does this say that Akash had challenges of hitting targets at low level, irrespective of land or sea? All the link says, which we all know about, is that validation trials were conducted for a specific scenario, ie low flying cruise missiles which was tested and verified. These BTW are Army validation trials. AF ones were conducted earlier.

The second report about multipath reflection BTW is exactly what I had posted about how the final Trishul holdout was fixed.

tsarkar wrote:No, irrespective whether Astra is launched by Su-30 over land or sea, its radar software is designed to target aircraft and other targets flying at a certain altitude (typically 100 meters ASL), not sea skimming missiles 3-5 meters ASL. Discriminating against Sea & Land clutter at that altitude will require new software & testing. Propulsion & VL is relatively easier.

Speculation ...

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 04 Apr 2015 13:40

India to Test Fire Three Missiles This Month - Hemant Kumar Rout, New Indian Express

In a bid to strengthen its fire power and form the triad of a credible nuclear deterrence, India has planned at least four tests of three indigenously built nuclear capable missiles off the Odisha coast this month.

A reliable source at the Integrated Test Range (ITR) at Chandipur here said while an updated version of Advanced Air Defence (AAD) interceptor missile has been scheduled to be test fired against an electronic target on April 6, the weapon system will be fired to intercept an actual target, mimicking a modified Prithvi missile on April 22.

The ballistic interceptor missiles will be flight tested by the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) at endo atmospheric zone (below the altitude of 40 km) and a successful trial will propel its induction in the armed forces. Prior to it, Strategic Forces Command (SFC) will carry out user trials of Dhanush missile on April 9 and Agni-III on April 16.

According to defence sources, the nuclear capable Dhanush missile will be test fired from a war ship to be positioned at an undisclosed location in Bay of Bengal off Paradip coast and the China specific Agni-III missile will be launched from the Wheeler Island off Dhamra coast.

Preparation is near completed for the AAD test from Wheeler Island on Monday while Dhanush team has begun integrating the missile with the ship and initiated all logistic arrangements.

After the Dhanush trial, there will be elaborate preparation for Agni-III test followed by the AAD trial against an actual target missile. ‘Dhanush’, the indigenously developed naval version of the ‘Prithvi’ short-range ballistic missile (SRBM) has a striking range upto 350 km and can carry single warhead, conventional or nuclear up to 500-kg. Similarly, 3,000-km range Agni-III missile can carry both conventional and nuclear warheads weighing around 1,500-kg.

Developed by the DRDO under its ambitious Integrated Guided Missile Development Programme (IGMDP), while Dhanush missile is about 8.53 metres in length and 0.9 metre in diameter besides its launch weight of about 4.4 tonnes, Agni-III is 16.7 metres tall with an overall diameter of 1.8 meters and it weighs 48.3 tonnes.

The 7.5 metre tall AAD interceptor is a single stage solid rocket propelled guided missile equipped with an inertial navigation system, a hi-tech computer and an electro-mechanical activator totally under command by the data up-linked from the ground based radar.

The missile weighs around 1.2 tonnes and has a diameter of 0.5 metre. While both Dhanush and Agni-III have already been inducted into the Armed Forces and are under production after the successful completion of their developmental trials, AAD missile would be inducted very soon.

FIRE POWER

AAD Interceptor test against electronic target – April 6
Nuclear capable Dhanush missile test – April 9
China specific missile Agni-III test – April 16
AAD Interceptor test against actual target – April 22

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 04 Apr 2015 14:07

https://www.ibcworldnews.com/2015/04/04 ... e-covered/

Govt plans Nuclear Shield in Delhi; Mumbai next in line to be covered
Posted on Apr 4 2015 - 1:55pm by IBC News Bureau
Modi Sarkar has taken the first real step in giving India’s capital city, Delhi, a security cover that cities such as Beijing and Washington already have — a nuclear missile shield. Two long-range missile-tracking radars have been placed in the national capital region.

When completed, the shield will be able to intercept missiles fired from as far as 5,000 km away. Senior government officials familiar with the matter told ET placing the radars is the beginning of an accelerated process in creating a missile cover for major Indian cities. The next Indian city to be covered is Mumbai.

Major cities around the world such as Washington, Beijing, Paris, London and Tel Aviv all have missile shields.

India’s missile shield program has fallen behind over the past two years. The program started in real earnest in 2006 and 2009-12 saw many tests. However, say senior officials, 2013 and 2014 were lull years for the program. There was a failed test in April 2014.

Officials said the Modi government had ordered a major acceleration of the missile shield program immediately after coming to power last May. Placing the long-range radars — Swordfish, developed with Israeli assistance, and capable of tracking incoming missiles from a range of 800 km — is a first big step that will be followed by placing missile interceptor units by 2016.

Missile tests will be held regularly, officials said. Next Monday will see an air defence missile test from Wheeler Island, off the Odisha coast. Wheeler Island is India’s main missile testing location.

The missile shield system will require several dozen missiles to be produced annually in the first phase. Missile defence systems in India use both long- and short range interceptors. Officials said India was better prepared in developing short-range interceptor missiles. The long range system will require more tests.

(My note: Gyan on better prepared for short range yada yada is because of Akash, long range more tests will be likely PDV)

Officials say the Modi government’s view is that given the growing sophistication of nuclear arsenal in India’s neighbourhood, the lack of a missile defence system was a major security gap. The missile shield is even more critical for India given its ‘no first use’ policy for nuclear weapons, a doctrine that Pakistan doesn’t follow.

A major project cleared by the Modi government in its first months in power was to approve setting up a $1-billion facility in DRDO to manufacture vital seeker systems. Seeker systems direct missiles in the final phase of targeting. The facility, expected to come up near Hyderabad, is critical for missile shield.

dinesha · Post by **dinesha** » 04 Apr 2015 17:51

India capable of developing ICBM beyond 10,000 kms range, says DRDO
http://indianexpress.com/article/india/ ... says-drdo/

India is capable of developing intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM) which can hit targets beyond the range of 10,000 kms, Chairman of Armament Research Board, Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO), Dr S K Salwan said on Saturday.

“India has successfully test fired nuclear capable Agni V missile recently which has a range of 5,000 kms. But we are capable of developing ICBM that can hit targets beyond the range of 10,000 kms,” Salwan said on the sidelines of 6th National Conference themed ‘Emerging Vistas of Technology in 21st Century’ held in Vadodara. At the conference, organised by a city-based educational group, Salwan said such seminars should be held by academic institutes across the country so that there is a greater interaction between students, academicians and other stakeholders with the scientific institutions.

He also suggested that the HRD Ministry, UGC should organise such seminars and conferences. Salwan said beside the Agni-VI’s ground version, the DRDO is simultaneously working out on its underground variant. He said that after ban on import of components for laser technology, imposed by the USA, UK and other countries, India has indigenously developed laser technology and has become self-sufficient. “We adopt synergic approach towards national needs and priorities in the field of armaments, yet keeping in focus the global advancements in order to develop competence in key areas,” he said.

On the role of Armament Research Board, he said it helps in creating self-sufficiency in critical technologies needed for development of competitive armament stores and put the armament discipline at the fore-front in global scenario.“The Board’s objective is to lead to technological innovations useful for combat multiplier, both for the near term and future,” he said. During the conference, he spoke on anti-defence missiles, electronic warfare and cyber security.

Over 750 delegates from various cities attended the conference and over 343 research papers were presented. Discussions were held on topics strengthening research and development, advancements in the field of engineering and technology among others.

member_23370 · Post by **member_23370** » 04 Apr 2015 19:59

What about the swordfish-2 with a range of 1500 km? Isn't that required to counter 5000 km range BM's.