Karan M wrote:... In the STUFF below for instance, there is not even a basic understanding of how & what the Akash's architecture is set up for. Its a different thing if he had cribbed about how the Strike Corps or X unit requires a true fire on the move, much smaller system which will have to be developed from scratch!
Taking a look at what he has written would make you think that every SAM the IA can get is some sort of uber mobile system. Anything but.
So far the Russians are testing the latest version of Pantsir to fire on the move. How mobile is it exactly? It will move slowly and carefully when it does so (no charge across the desert sands in a "mobile role").
So why is the Akash non mobile and static when required to be deployed? Its because of the high power radar units which far outperform those on the Pantsir and other systems. There is a 150km - 200 km ranged 3D CAR (outranging every radar that IA has had in service so far), and a 100km+ ranged BLR Rajendra, which is a massive phased array system, deliberately chosen to ensure its very hard to jam and enables true multitarget tracking. These are significant challenges to stabilize - do so, as was done with the Revathi and you suddenly need bigger and larger vehicles. Good luck managing all that with a T-72 based compact platform.
These high power radar choices were made keeping both IA & IAF in mind & the fact that lack of other sensor assets in both services meant that the SAM system itself would act like a quasi sensor net with a huge coverage. It also means the Akash has significant growth potential, since the missile at 25km is far outranged by its sensor support system.
And he is cribbing that these systems are not "mobile" and have to be used in "static positions" without even acknowledging that the system is designed for quick deployment and packing and then redeployment again, which [b]ALL SAM systems with such long range sensor systems utilize, S3XX for instance.[/b]
Will the LRSAM be able to be fired on the move? Hardly. Its MFCR will have to be deployed, the SAM, C3I nets will all have to be linked together with datalinks once the onboard data position sensors accurately punch in the data. Even a few meters error in the position of the SAM systems and sensors can make a huge difference. Hence the Russians used combined missile + radar systems on one vehicle. However, guess what, its vulnerable to ARMS now.
It is possible to provide continuous AD coverage with systems like Akash when it operates in a Group mode (i.e. multiple batteries under one group command (equivalent to a regiment in IA's terminology comprising of 6 Akash batteries)). While some batteries move up and set up in a forward location, the other batteries in the group can remain in position to provide SAM coverage. Then when the forward batteries are ready, the ones in rear can relocate forward and so on. When the group radars/command need to relocate, each battery can operate in an autonomous mode. An Akash group with 4 batteries can protect a huge area in itself: 62km x 62km in box formation, 98km x 44km in linear array configuration, and in trapezoidal configuration 5000 square km. LRSAMs will cover an area even larger. So the reasons for these systems to "fire-on-the-move" seem unwarranted.
Besides, how "fast" will a strike corps move especially under the Cold Start doctrine, which envisages of movement of limited depth? Doesn't the IA already have short-range systems like Tunguska and Shilka for AD of those really forward elements? Those systems could be updated or replaced with newer systems.