Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

[Kanson]

Avinash Chander says DRDO takes only 5 yrs from drawing board to delivery

It has been the case for many projects. Here is another instance of such delivery planned, maintaining the same 5 yr period.

DRDO chief Dr VK Saraswat, and missile programme chief Dr Avinash Chander, say the Agni-6 project has not been formally sanctioned. However, the missile's specifications and capabilities have been decided and development is proceeding apace. Once the ongoing Agni-5 programme concludes flight-testing, the defence ministry (MoD) will formally okay the Agni-6 programme and allocate funding.

"The timeframe for developing a new missile system is about five years and the DRDO has mostly achieved this in the Agni programme," says Chander. Calculating five years from April 2012, when the Agni-5 had its debut launch, the first test of the Agni-6 could happen in 2017.

[Thakur_B]

it will be a welcome addition to the IA and IAF since we cannot afford any more spyders.

remains to be seen if it will fill a naval role vs the Maitri aka the green painted vl-mica that MBDA would have on table.

even if the principal ships got for maitri, there are a lot of ships down to Saryu class that could use boxes of the desi missile.

http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report-in ... vy-2077488

the drdo tender seems to be for the same reported above.

QRSAM is different from SRSAM(maitri)

[John]

Think you got confused SRSAM tender is different tender than QRSAM. There is far too many firms and event joint venture such as SAAB/Ashok Leyland competing for that. However SRSAM is something being pushed for by IA which is not interested in waiting for maitri/drdo alt. This leaves navy out.

[Thakur_B]

Think you got confused SRSAM tender is different tender than QRSAM. There is far too many firms and event joint venture such as SAAB/Ashok Leyland competing for that. However SRSAM is something being pushed for by IA which is not interested in waiting for maitri/drdo alt. This leaves navy out.

You are getting confused here. Army is not interested in SRSAM(maitri) while navy is. QRSAM is not maitri, it is a locally made system.

[John]

Think you got confused SRSAM tender is different tender than QRSAM. There is far too many firms and event joint venture such as SAAB/Ashok Leyland competing for that. However SRSAM is something being pushed for by IA which is not interested in waiting for maitri/drdo alt. This leaves navy out.

You are getting confused here. Army is not interested in SRSAM(maitri) while navy is. QRSAM is not maitri, it is a locally made system.

You have a source? QRSAM is maitri: Here is news release link on SAAB proposal for IA SRSAM. It looks like drdo with its own plan for qrsam. This whole thing is a mess.

http://www.army-technology.com/news/new ... me-4172980

Also hindu article on orginal tender for Maitri notice it clear states qrsam

http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp ... 282633.ece

[Thakur_B]

You have a source? QRSAM is maitri: Here is news release link on SAAB proposal for IA SRSAM.

http://www.army-technology.com/news/new ... me-4172980

Also hindu article on orginal tender for Maitri notice it clear states qrsam

http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp ... 282633.ece

QRSAM is an ab initio effort. The Army SRSAM RFI isn't moving forward.

The Akash and the Sosna procurements have meant that the IA now has the space to consider the the indigenous QRSAM being developed by DRDO's Defence Research and Development Laboratory (DRDL) to replace the 50 plus OSA-AK SAM units it has in the AD core. In 2012, the defence acquisition council had given the IA the go ahead to issue request for proposals to foreign vendors who had responded to its RFI for a QRSAM with a range of not less than 15 km, altitude capability of not less than 6 kms, reaction time of 6 seconds or less, guidance package consisting of an onboard seeker and the ability to engage targets flying at 0-500 m/s as well as hovering helicopters. Up to eight regiments of this QRSAM were sought to be procured. For this particular tender, DRDO was expected to bid with the Maitri missile that was slated to co-develop with MBDA. It is believed that the Israelis would have offered the Spyder SR and the Russians the TOR-M2KM mounted on a Tata vehicle.

However the Maitri project is now as good as dead because both the IA and the Indian Air force feel that its specifications would lie more or less within the capabilities of the Akash Mk-I itself and the IA's fire on move requirements are being met by the Sosna-R. So at the moment an indigenous QRSAM option is being pursued in earnest with elements of this system already starting to coming together in the form of both new radar as well as IIR seekers under development at DRDO's Research Centre Imarat (RCI) Laboratory and a stabilized electro-optical sight (SEOS) developed by DRDO's Instruments Research and Development Establishment (IRDE). IRDE's SEOS has two-axis stabilisation and integrated automatic video tracker facility. Three electro-optical sensors-3rd generation 3-5 μm (640 x 512 FPA) thermal Imager (TI) with optical zoom, colour day TV with optical zoom camera and eye-safe laser range finder (ELRF). The day TV camera and TI are having a narrow field of view (NFOV) of 0.8° x 0.6° and wide field of view (WFOV) of 5° x 4° with additional 2 X electronic zoom in TI. These sensors provide a recognition range of 7 km for a NATO type of target. ELRF provides range of the target from 200 m to 9995 m with an accuracy of ± 5 m. The SEOS will complement the Ka-band radar that will guide the QRSAM in dense ECM environments.

http://ibnlive.in.com/blogs/sauravjha/2 ... tures.html

[John]

As i said it looks like mbda has been shoved aside, it is basically an indigenous qrsam. That article is an editorial not a news article so take it with a grain of salt.

[member_28911]

Think you got confused SRSAM tender is different tender than QRSAM. There is far too many firms and event joint venture such as SAAB/Ashok Leyland competing for that. However SRSAM is something being pushed for by IA which is not interested in waiting for maitri/drdo alt. This leaves navy out.

Indian Army has quashed the SRSAM tender in favour of Akash SAM. So Indian Navy is now going alone on this with proposed DRDO-MBDA Maitri SAM.

[Thakur_B]

As i said it looks like mbda has been shoved aside, it is basically an indigenous qrsam. That article is an editorial not a news article so take it with a grain of salt.

Maitri has not been shoved aside, the SRSAM program still exists for Navy as Barak-1 is a little long in the tooth. The original plan was Maitri SRSAM for all three forces, its now QRSAM for army and Airforce and SRSAM for navy. The programs are similar with overlapping capabilities, but not same. The french will like that to be SRSAM for all three forces while most on BR would like it to be QRSAM for all three forces.

[John]

IN req calls for pdms not SRSAM. The program that meets Tri service req was called Maitri/QR SAM. What the current status is or whether it is scarpped is all speculation, too many contradictory reports to seperate facts from gibberish.

[Klaus]

Thx Kanson. If its a 2 m diameter for a proposed sub launched version, then it means a different design for VLT's & hence a new class of SSBN, after S4 & S5.

Same would apply for land silos too.

[Thakur_B]

IN req calls for pdms not SRSAM. The program that meets Tri service req was called Maitri/QR SAM.

Stop getting confused between procurement process names and project names John, Maitri was never called QRSAM. The project name for Maitri has been SRSAM from day 1. It has been offered for tri services requirements (PDMS for Navy, SRSAM, QRSAM etc.). Project QRSAM is not Project Maitri (SRSAM).

What the current status is or whether it is scrapped is all speculation, too many contradictory reports to seperate facts from gibberish.

Navy has not yet backed away from Maitri, Army and Airforce have and most reports are consistent with it. Army and Airforce can wait for QRSAM because they have Akash. QRSAM is heading into fabrication stage while Maitri still mostly exists on paper (although with significant backend done already). Both systems will end up using LRDE radars and the development will be in parallel.

[Kanson]

"If its a 2 m diameter for a proposed sub launched version, then it means a different design for VLT's & hence a new class of SSBN, after S4 & S5."

As per the available information, SSBN in construction or proposed for construction can hold *greater than* 2 m dia missile.

[ravip]

"If its a 2 m diameter for a proposed sub launched version, then it means a different design for VLT's & hence a new class of SSBN, after S4 & S5."

As per the available information, SSBN in construction or proposed for construction can hold *greater than* 2 m dia missile.

2.3 meters is the present diameter of silos in INS Arihant class.

[John]

Stop getting confused between procurement process names and project names John, Maitri was never called QRSAM. The project name for Maitri has been SRSAM from day 1. It has been offered for tri services requirements (PDMS for Navy, SRSAM, QRSAM etc.). Project QRSAM is not Project Maitri (SRSAM)

You seem to be the one getting confusing with editorials and blogs for actual info, that news article from 08 which has RFI clearly states QRSAM is Maitri. This is a moot argument whether who is right but it is clear QRSAM has been referred to as Maitri, unless you have source that states otherwise it is hard to refute an news article from 2008.

Navy has not yet backed away from Maitri, Army and Airforce have and most reports are consistent with it

Article from couple months ago stated Navy is moving away from Maitri. The article was posted here titled "India Navy May walk way from French Missile Deal". Janes just recently reported MBDA is concerned the deal is on verge of slipping. Please unless you have sources don't report opinions as facts.

[Karan M]

John, you are completely mistaken.

Maitri is SRSAM, not QRSAM. SRSAM is being restarted since Navy wants it.
IAF and Army are on board for indigenous QRSAM and Akash Mk2.

Check both to understand that SRSAM was stalled and Akash was deemed sufficient by the IA and IAF. Note that Maitri is clearly mentioned as SRSAM.

http://www.defensenews.com/article/2014 ... ssile-Deal
http://www.livefistdefence.com/2015/02/ ... ce-in.html

So why QRSAM? Track on move capability. The IA wants a lighter system to be able to accompany its MBTs & scan for targets concurrently.

Chander goes on record noting Akash Mk-2 design efforts & QRSAM effort. Track on the move is to enable the SAMs to be mobile with the strike corps and to be an improvement on Akash in terms of mobility.
http://ibnlive.in.com/blogs/sauravjha/2 ... ister.html

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

Akash Mk-2 is also being worked on, but not funded yet as a formal program. It would enhance existing Akash and fit in between the Akash/QRSAM and LR/MRSAM categories.

If even this is not sufficient, look at Page 17 of the Standing Committee on Defence's report for 2014,15
QRSAM has a budget of Rs 476 Crores and is already underway.

The SRSAM aka Maitri has been resuscitated for the Indian Navy requirement in the recent trip to France. Navy wants a missile to take down low flying CM in sea clutter & believes MBDA assistance would speed it up. Also political reasons to keep relations with France on a good footing.
Fundamentally both QRSAM and SRSAM are SRSAMs (short range SAMs). Specifications of missiles will differ and configuration as well.

[Karan M]

IN req calls for pdms not SRSAM. The program that meets Tri service req was called Maitri/QR SAM.

Stop getting confused between procurement process names and project names John, Maitri was never called QRSAM. The project name for Maitri has been SRSAM from day 1. It has been offered for tri services requirements (PDMS for Navy, SRSAM, QRSAM etc.). Project QRSAM is not Project Maitri (SRSAM).

What the current status is or whether it is scrapped is all speculation, too many contradictory reports to seperate facts from gibberish.

Navy has not yet backed away from Maitri, Army and Airforce have and most reports are consistent with it. Army and Airforce can wait for QRSAM because they have Akash. QRSAM is heading into fabrication stage while Maitri still mostly exists on paper (although with significant backend done already). Both systems will end up using LRDE radars and the development will be in parallel.

Correct!

[Thakur_B]

You seem to be the one getting confusing with editorials and blogs for actual info, that news article from 08 which has RFI clearly states QRSAM is Maitri. This is a moot argument whether who is right but it is clear QRSAM has been referred to as Maitri, unless you have source that states otherwise it is hard to refute an news article from 2008.

You did not read my post. Maitri was pitched for LLQRM/QRSAM procurement of Army, the project was never named QRSAM and has always been referred to as SRSAM by the DRDO.


QRSAM is a new project of DRDO and the same is listed under MoD's statement to standing committee on defence as a new project.
http://164.100.47.134/lsscommittee/Defe ... ence_5.pdf
As far as Saurav Jha's credibility goes, it is hard to find a better defence journo in India. QRSAM is a hush hush project with a separate project division in DRDL Kanchanbagh, separate from the SRSAM division. The stabilised electro optic sight (SEOS) developed by IRDE is also linked to the QRSAM project to enable optical tracking of the targets.

Article from couple months ago stated Navy is moving away from Maitri. The article was posted here titled "India Navy May walk way from French Missile Deal". Janes just recently reported MBDA is concerned the deal is on verge of slipping. Please unless you have sources don't report opinions as facts.

Big difference between may and already has. In fact Navy's persistance has been the reason why Maitri project is being pulled out of the dumps. The talks to revive SRSAM were taken up during Modi's visit to France.

[Kanson]

I think little more info will help in sorting this confusion of SRSAM/QRSAM/Maitri rigmarole (as far as I could discern).

All three armed forces requirements for this Short Range missile are more or less same and all are by function specified to have Quick Reaction capabilities- But each forces named their requirement by different names.

Airforce called it as LLQRM - Low level quick reaction missile

Army called it as SR/QRSAM - while QRSAM(Quick Reaction SAM) is spec for cross-country mobility, SRSAM is for road mobility with more or less same spec.

And Navy called it as SRSAM.

Worthwhile to recall that all these are short range & quick reaction system requirements needed by three forces in different configurations.

Why Maitri is associated with Navy SRSAM:

While Army and Airforce filled the gaps by ordering SPYDER system and then by Akash, the need for Maitri vanished and Navy is the one left out without any such solutions. So Maitri moved exclusively as Navy oriented projected and became associated with tag SRSAM though spin-offs could spill over to other projects.

SRSAM tag becomes Maitri. Other projects are cleaved off and named such as QRSAM so as not to confuse with SRSAM.

For ex. check this.
Avinash Chander reply: The air force is extremely happy with the Astra. After the missile is tested next month on a live target, it will go onto a fast track. Similarly, the army says that with the supply of DRDO's Akash and Akash-2 surface-to-air missile, they are dropping the planned import of a short-range surface-to-air-missile (SR-SAM).

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

Regarding Maitri and VL-Mica connection:

Discussion on transferring tech for Radar and infra red seekers along with Hot launch system is a dead give-away that it is VL-Mica. But it is not going to be VL-Mica with made in India tag and it is going to be much more capable system.

[member_28932]

Questions arise about the underwater version of A6, will it have the same dimensions as the K4/K5? If not, then it means a new class of SSBN (similar to how the USN developed the Polaris, Poseidon class leading to the Trident class subs due to first-strike and counterforce compulsions).

Do not know about A6 version but A3 submarine launched version is in making.It will have 12 M length and 2 meter diameter same as A3 and A5. K4 has a 1.3 Diameter motor similar to A4. K series is a quasi ballistic trajectory missile and travel in depressed trajectory while A3 SLBM shall be a purely ballistic missile and will leave the earth atmosphere and reenter the atmosphere at target point.

[Klaus]

^^^ If 2.3 m dia is maintained for VLT's in all SSBN's (both Arihant class and subsequent ones), then its truly multi-role.

[srai]

Sounds like QRSAM is an incarnation of Trishul SAM R&D/requirement (take two but with newer tech/design)

[shiv]

Inspiring leadership in Pokharan

The year was 1989 and the Prithvi missile being developed by the DRDO was in its initial test phase then. A certain component in the missile head was to be evaluated for its operation and the Indian Air Force was asked whether the missile could be carried, under slung beneath a helicopter, and dropped from a height of four kilometers at the Pokharan firing range in the desert of Rajasthan. The requirement was indeed extraordinary, as such a mission had not come the Indian Air Force’s way earlier. The test team of our premier Aircraft Systems and Testing Establishment at Bangalore got down to doing the calculations and came up with an executable plan. The DRDO would need to make a 25 feet high stand to support the two odd tonne test vehicle; a Mi-17 helicopter would hover above it, pull it vertically out and then climb to the required altitude for the drop. This writer was fortunate to be asked to be the pilot and team leader for the trial.

[Karan M]

Nice!! I had posted this back in 2012.

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 3#p1291393

Singha,

There is incremental innovation at the system level, and then that extends to innovation at the platform level, and then there is disruptive innovation at the overall technology level itself (e.g. stealth as versus earlier systems, the introduction of radars etc).

The point is India has already moved up the curve @ level 1 and even at level 2. Level 3 - i.e. coming up with new concepts and technologies that are the first/define in their class is underway.

You mentioned Prithvi using LF engines from the earlier Project D which then used Indian variants of the SA-2 system. But also note the Prithvi's innovation in not being a conventional BM but able to maneuver to the target based on preloaded waypoints, rendering it a pain for even ABM. That makes the missile future proof to a large degree. The choice of a LF engine also compensated for the fact that then missile propellant tech. (solid) was a challenge in terms of moving over hard terrain & there were concerns about fracturing etc. So Prithvi used subsystem level innovation.

The same requirement is taken forward in the Shourya (avoiding future defences) but in an entirely new manner. Thats platform innovation.

Another example of subsystem level innovation is the Akash. While the basic airframe for the missile was inspired by the SA-6, using the earlier lessons from the SA-2 in mind (i.e. keep the airframe similar for logistics and handling concerns, change everything within!), take a look at the enabling equipment. Uses a PESA Rajendra (enabling multi target FCR capability with very high ECCM) and a long range surveillance radar. Which like the Rajendra went onto create a family of radars, with the latest Army TCR being a Rohini derived system. This means the original Dutch TCRs have been supplanted by Indian system. That too is innovation as it means the developers kept the long term view in mind. For the overall Akash, they replicated a simpler system but put in place enablers that made it potent even for the future.

Trishul - many innovative features. In fact, one too many, with the program becoming far too ambitious and hence unable to meet requirements in time. Even today, though, if it were to be fielded it would be a severe threat to any modern aircraft. The choice of radar (Flycatcher) driven in part by its hard to jam band, but coupled with a missile with dual thrust propulsion (which is now being used for LRSAM, as further developed). Plus the use of a single radar, launcher, missile combo. that could be used across all three services and handle all sorts of targets (instead of "navalizing" an existing system as was often the vogue earlier). Finally proven in trials, but by then the AF and Army wanted F&F systems.

Similarly - Agni. Which other nation, without even a single BM in production would have developed a missile with a MaRV.

The BMD program - again, pretty unique and tailored to Indian requirements. Instead of fielding multiple systems - US etc style, we just developed one & are extending it further to handle higher, faster targets. The hardware for the BMD, even with Israeli assistance is unique and we were the first to recognize the need for and develop a LRTR class system. The Israelis followed thereafter with the Super GreenPine.

Point is India with its recognized limitations (funding and technology-industrial base) has been innovating for quite a while now. A perfect example of desi-jugaad, when we wanted to test the Prithvi warhead/s for checking whether the design worked, we put them on a helicopter sling and dropped them to see what was what! Worked. Such innovation @ development level also exists.

Now, the final stage, where the US, Russia etc have been consistent at, the disruptive across the board game changing systems. We are getting there. The latest AWST (for once useful) carried a piece on India exploring multi static radars with the AWACS (follow on to the current EMB-145 system) networked with many other systems. In the recent past we have had repeated references to reusable hypersonic platforms/missiles which can deploy their own submunitions/payloads.

So the vision is there.

[Karan M]

Sounds like QRSAM is an incarnation of Trishul SAM R&D/requirement (take two but with newer tech/design)

Yes, but with a radar/FCS capable of track on the move and presumably fire on the move as well.

[Karan M]

No idea why its on their webpage now

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/sli ... 105668.cms

[thammu]

http://indianexpress.com/article/explai ... picks=true
Interceptor missile tested 7 times, DRDO’s Rajinikanth moment still far

[Karan M]

LOL, the usual suspects at it again. Matheswaran mr he who was not involved but has decided nobody in the IAF was either and hence bad bad everything & ever ready to do a bit of media-giri, some nobody knows who gent from the US, and of course Karnad - mr make enough bombs to split the moon.
Seriously, the Indian Express is the bottom of the barrel in trying to run against national interests & programs & clearly there are no dearth of eggsperts who can be counted on to provide soundbytes.

[ramana]

What is Rajnikanth about BMD? its serious program being pursued all over the world.

Why not check on track record of US BMD program?

by reporter's own admission DRDO had 2 out of 7 failures and 1st one was the target missile.

So its 1 out of 7. Track that on probability paper to get the stats.
Besides this launch was from a canister.
In other words its beyond technology demonstrator(TD) phase and is in deployable configuration.

And who is Dr Gopalaswamy sitting in US and ridiculing DRDO? Was he former employee for he brings in Dr Saraswat's name needlessly?

Also the good AVM Matheswaran should keep quiet about he doesn't know. E.g. BMD is really rocket science and not flying planes!

BTW designing unstable planes(LCA) is also rocket science.

[Karan M]

Not only are they not satisfied with having made a mess earlier of critical national programs, post retirement, everything else is also fair game for their misguided salvos. Note that DDM is ever ready for these soundbytes to distract from critical programs and the likes of Mr Matheswaran are clearly ever ready to oblige. Its very hard to be appreciative of his "efforts", apart from his attempts to scuttle the LCA, now his next target is the BMD or for that matter any R&D program. Looks like he has decided he will carry over his earlier acrimony on the LCA to each & every thing so as to get his own back

As if the Govt of the day needs his sagacity to be informed of the BMD (somebody inform the Govt, he says), when the father of the program is sitting in the VIF which acts as an adviser to the GOI. Seriously with such strategic experts, India needs no external problems, since these gents will gladly play along to scuttle such programs.

[VibhavS]

So the man does have a back ground in space technologies and has worked for ISRO and EADS. Though in my humble opinion the man however knowledgeable is only serving interests of certain lobbies which do not want to see India become self sufficient in such technologies.

"Dr. Gopalaswamy holds a PhD in mechanical engineering with a specialization in numerical acoustics from Trinity College, Dublin. In addition to his studies abroad, he has previously worked at the Indian Space Research Organization's High Altitude Test Facilities and the EADS Astrium GmbH division in Germany."

Articles like this are written to tell us Indians that we are no good at high tech. ISRO goes to Mars we see articles like this, we launch IRNSS sats we see these articles. We talk about ICBMs we are told we have no enemies who need ICBMs. Arjun comes out on top and we start seeing articles about how great Russian new gen platform is. Though this tells me one thing - "they are shivering in their pants, they know we are close to success and would no longer need to buy AD and BMD systems from the Russians nor the Americans. Now they are trying to create a negative picture of a program which probably cost 1/100th of the American THAAD system."

[Rakesh]

What is Rajnikanth about BMD?

In his movies, Rajnikanth defies all laws of physics known to mankind. They want the BMD to do the same.

[Karan M]

Articles like this are written to tell us Indians that we are no good at high tech. ISRO goes to Mars we see articles like this, we launch IRNSS sats we see these articles. We talk about ICBMs we are told we have no enemies who need ICBMs. Arjun comes out on top and we start seeing articles about how great Russian new gen platform is. Though this tells me one thing - "they are shivering in their pants, they know we are close to success and would no longer need to buy AD and BMD systems from the Russians nor the Americans. Now they are trying to create a negative picture of a program which probably cost 1/100th of the American THAAD system."

You are right on the dot here. Plus there is the fact that BMD reduces the favorite munna's negotiating power making it more expensive for its benefactors to prop it up. BMD is also a pathway to technologies the likes of Matheswaran neither understand nor care about. His much vaunted TOT from the MMRCA proved a flop. If India still get AESA, it will be via the LCA another program he disparages. And that AESA is linked back to the BMD program.

[member_28108]

The best and sure sign of success is when detractors start singing negatively.

[VibhavS]

So some consultations with Google Chaachaji returned the following on the American Efforts -
$100BN spent on perfecting Hit to Kill Tech, essentially all the money spent on BMD efforts.
THAAD Dev Cost - $3.8BN
THAAD ER Dev Cost projected or allocated by Lockheed - $1BN
Cost of a Single Battery -$800MN - Battery Composition - 3 Launchers, 1 Search Radar, 1 FC Radar, Communications Platform.
Sources:
Missile Defense Agency (Battery Composition): http://www.mda.mil/system/thaad.html
Aviation Week: (Cost of Development): http://aviationweek.com/defense/thaad-er-search-mission

Seriously after throwing that much of Money at it I think the Americans should be able to intercept the next Armageddon Asteroid Headed our way. ICBMs are piddling stuff.

[ramana]

What is Rajnikanth about BMD?

In his movies, Rajnikanth defies all laws of physics known to mankind. They want the BMD to do the same.

BMD is pure physics. So there itself the core point of Ind Express is refuted.

VibhavS, You will be surprised at what was achieved and what is planned.

[VibhavS]

Ramana Sir, agreed. I was working on a list of all BMD tests conducted by the Khan and the target type. Also to ascertain the ranges achieved. I believe they are testing lasers against ballistic targets as well.

My point only being that with that kind of money being spent. They should have $100BN worth of capability. SM6 and Aegis, THAAD, Patriot PAC3 and the Israeli Arrow system all must be included in that figure.

Today the Americans, followed by the Israelis are the world leaders in the tech because they spent time, money and effort. It is just galling that Indian's who learn their trade in India go abroad and start writing lifafa articles about focusing on poverty and forget BMD. We are 3rd in that list in my opinion since the Russians are quite far behind since they do not have the money anymore. The Chinese still working on stolen Russian Tech can be considered 5th in that list.

We need to retain the momentum and keep up the work. Naysayers are a dime and dozen.

[ramana]

VibhavS, Read the Ind Express article and cross out the malafide comments.

DRDO is ready after just six tests to canisterize the vehicle. That's some achievement.
And this is buried in the hyped headline.
And the quotes of two naysayers.

[VibhavS]

So time for a newbie to be a newbie and ask a question - Canisterizing would mean we are close to a production standard for the missile?

[member_28332]

IMO ... Canisterization is an important step before deploying the missiles on submarines and road/rail mobile launchers. However, until the missile is successfully tested from an actual submarine and it can consistently lift-off and reach any point within the specified range, it cannot be considered as having reached production standard. Canisterization could have been achieved, in parallel, with hitting any of the other parameters of the missile.