Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 18 Dec 2015 20:22

So basically, Apart from your attempts to speak for the IA there is no evidence from your side about the Prahaar status. We have a direct statement from the developer, but hey they should all be ignored.

I'll wait for more reports, thanks much.

And now you are trying to imply a solid fuelled missile without terminal guidance, made in India, which will share a production run with another msystem intended for mass deployment, will be as expensive as a Brahmos with imported subsystems galore and a seeker. Why, because of comparisons to US made ATACMS and Hezb missiles whose cost was of course known to you. Talk about creative interpretation.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 18 Dec 2015 21:01

the prahaar is a slightly bigger missile of around same length and range as the chinese A200 system. 6 rounds vs 8 rounds.

http://www.military-today.com/artillery/a200.jpg
http://www.military-today.com/artillery/a200.htm

cheen is working on a bigger version A300.
http://www.armyrecognition.com/april_20 ... dance.html
According Chinese military, the A300 is a two-stage artillery rocket designed based on the current A200 hybrid rocket system. China Aerospace Science and Technology Corporation has extended the attack range of the A300 to 290 kilometers from the A200's 200 kilometers.

It has a larger engine which can boost an unpowered second stage with vanes for lift and control fins directed by an inertial measuring unit-navigation satellite guidance system.

The A300 rocket is able to carry a 150 kg warhead. It has a maximum range of 300 km, a 30 to 45 meters circular error probable (CEP) and can engage eight targets in a 20 km by 20 km area.

The A300 uses a combination of inertial measuring unit and GPS guidance that gives the former a CEP of 30 m and the latter a CEP of 30 m when using a unitary warhead and 45 m with a "shaped-charge fragmentation cluster" warhead.

--

so while the specs may not uber-SBD3 standard or highly compact like the atamcs, they are a pragmatic race of people and will certainly use this concept in mass. already there is talk of the TSP being given some of its smaller brother A100.

we continue to sit on our thumbs as usual. no surprise there. there is something in the indian DNA or mindset that is imcompatible with the sinic/russi idea of taking something reasonable that is in our hand, mass producting it in tranches and putting it to good use in various models.

we dream only of khanish uber-kit with a indian budget

John · Post by **John** » 18 Dec 2015 21:25

Karan M wrote:So basically, Apart from your attempts to speak for the IA there is no evidence from your side about the Prahaar status. We have a direct statement from the developer, but hey they should all be ignored.

I'll wait for more reports, thanks much.

And now you are trying to imply a solid fuelled missile without terminal guidance, made in India, which will share a production run with another msystem intended for mass deployment, will be as expensive as a Brahmos with imported subsystems galore and a seeker. Why, because of comparisons to US made ATACMS and Hezb missiles whose cost was of course known to you. Talk about creative interpretation.

Problem is you keep making ridiculous statements on cost with no way claims to backup it you keep making the same claim ever year on Prahaar and spin a different story. So far my original prediction was correct regarding on whether it will be inducted come back to me when that changes.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 18 Dec 2015 21:30

well can you both agree to disagree and move on .... ?

John · Post by **John** » 18 Dec 2015 21:36

Singha wrote:well can you both agree to disagree and move on .... ?

Never

Anyway Pinaka cost about 5000 for 1388 crore. Can someone confirm it?

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 18 Dec 2015 21:44

John,

Nobody can give you a price of Prahaar. At least not while it is in development. We can guess its price to be somewhere between a Pinaka missile ($0.7M) and a ATACMS ($1M) missile. But there is no way that single stage solid fueled semi ballistic missile is equivalently priced to procure or maintain as a liquid fueled air breathing land-skimming supersonic missile ($3M).

If I want to pound the enemy and pound it with some accuracy, guided artillery does go a long way. Israel did understand this and developed the LORA system. But I am sure that a well read person like yourself does not need these introductory lessons. What you could ask is that when will have a have guided Pinaka rockets like the GMLRS? I fainlty remember reading that IMI and DRDO are working on the same.

You are right that IA has shown no interest in it. My question is why? Especially, because it employs the Smerch, and has asked DRDO to extend Pinaka development into a 120 km Smerch equivalent. So, it is not like the use case does not exist. And frankly, your view point of price does not pass muster with me.

Rampy · Post by **Rampy** » 18 Dec 2015 22:05

not sure if this was posted here, how authentic is this? No wonder that Pigeon so angry with this NGOs

http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/12/16/ind ... stan_barc/

"India Is Building a Top-Secret Nuclear City to Produce Thermonuclear Weapons, Experts Say"

member_29172 · Post by **member_29172** » 18 Dec 2015 22:43

NGOs, especially western ngos are fronts for evanjihadis and western intelligence agencies. They are used for information gathering and disruptions using local stooges every now and then. Conveniently the morons in our judiciary have nulled the decision to revoke green piss and other moronic western ngo licenses repeatedly.

This country is overflowing with traitors.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 18 Dec 2015 23:29

^^^ There is a reason why nobody from the govt., defense or scientific community acknowledges or reacts such articles. You all will do well to follow suit. Work will get done.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 19 Dec 2015 00:01

John wrote:Problem is you keep making ridiculous statements on cost with no way claims to backup it you keep making the same claim ever year on Prahaar and spin a different story. So far my original prediction was correct regarding on whether it will be inducted come back to me when that changes.

You are the one making pointlessly silly comparisons about cost, prahaar and the topic every year without a shred of evidence. Each and every point you were claiming was rebutted with evidence. Brahmos being cheap, prahaar being easy to intercept etc etc.

Your statements simply make no sense and further, as you now admit, despite your posturing, you were basically speculating.

Spare me the statements about prediction as well. Just a while back you were busy trying to conflate QRSAM with SRSAM and when Thakur corrected your statements, out came more claims from your side but nary an admission you were confused to begin with.

If you have no evidence bar your own opinion, which has gaping holes in it logically, don't throw a fit that others don't buy into the speculation. Have you been able to rebut any of the pertinent points I raised? No.

Instead you are making more and more profound claims about things like Brahmos-M and claiming to know even its costs, when there is not even a single series unit flying.
Next you will tell us hypersonic Brahmos is cheap, because, gasp, solid fuelled missiles are expensive.

That is the sum total of your arguments. You have zero actual cost data on any of these programs. All you have is your opinion, which doesn't even fit in place logically

So you want to be convincing? Show what's so cheap on the Brahmos vs the Prahaar. Explain how the Prahaar does not fit into the IAs doctrine. Provide credible details on what would replace it as versus the original plan mentioned by Chander that Prahaar would replace the 150km ranged Prithvi variants. Do this, rather than fulminating about Hezb. At least then you would have made some case, and the IA s decision will come as it may, rather than insisting what you have with zero details.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 19 Dec 2015 00:30

the top secret part is total BS . it has been well published it will be joint AEC-DRDO-HAL-BEL-xyz campus due to lack of space in other lab cities like hyd, mum, blr...everyone who needs space for expansion and test rigs will get it there.

Aditya G · Post by **Aditya G** » 19 Dec 2015 14:19

This thread could do with some pics...

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 19 Dec 2015 17:01

Full details on the Pinaka from the developer

http://www.drdo.gov.in/drdo/English/dpi ... Oct_08.pdf

abhik · Post by **abhik** » 19 Dec 2015 21:49

indranilroy wrote:John,

Nobody can give you a price of Prahaar. At least not while it is in development. We can guess its price to be somewhere between a Pinaka missile ($0.7M) and a ATACMS ($1M) missile. But there is no way that single stage solid fueled semi ballistic missile is equivalently priced to procure or maintain as a liquid fueled air breathing land-skimming supersonic missile ($3M).
...

Each Pinaka rocket costs 700K USD? I think it should be A LOT cheaper.

Re the Prahaar, IMO it might have some disadvantages being derived from an high performance ABM missile. Its thrust vectoring etc likely adds to the cost while not bring any appreciable benefit. Second its slim 7+m length form factor might make it relatively unwieldy, compared to the short and stubby shape of most missiles of this class.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 19 Dec 2015 22:07

Abhik, from CAG:

The order on OFB was placed by the Army to supply 4752 rockets at a total cost of Rs767.28 crore during the period 2007-12.

Comes around to Rs 16.5L per rocket or Rs 1.65Mn or $27,500 per rocket.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 19 Dec 2015 22:11

abhik wrote:Re the Prahaar, IMO it might have some disadvantages being derived from an high performance ABM missile. Its thrust vectoring etc likely adds to the cost while not bring any appreciable benefit.

The Thrust vectoring allows for it to shape its trajectory which is very important.
Note: The missile system has capability of deployment in stand-alone mode or centralised mode. its effective and intelligent end trajectory maneuvreing, Pragati defeats detection by any weapon locating radar.

Second its slim 7+m length form factor might make it relatively unwieldy, compared to the short and stubby shape of most missiles of this class.

Tochka, which can be used for a similar role is 6.4mtrs long. ATACMS is short and stubby. In short, the limitation is likely not of length but how cross country capable the truck taking it around is.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 19 Dec 2015 23:07

brar_w wrote:
Karan M wrote:BrarW
http://www.hindustantimes.com/india/cen ... euDVK.html

Although the military had earlier projected a requirement of a dozen S-400 systems, the defence ministry is clear that only five systems are sufficient to take care of the future airborne threat from across India’s borders. The S-400 is a proven antiaircraft system, and is widely considered the most advanced of its kind in the world, with the capability of engaging missiles as well as aircraft. It comes with a mobile launcher and a threat detection radar-cum-command centre. The deal includes purchase of some 6,000 missiles from Russia.
6000 missiles for 96 launchers looks quite strange bit of mix to me.

For 112 launchers for the Akash, with only 3 missiles to a launcher, services ordered 2500 missiles. S-400 typically has 4, so for an Akash style deployment, the numbers could have been similar with 96 launchers to the S-400. However, the Akash is made in India. The services have the luxury of repeat orders at will. The S-400 is being procured for a strategic purpose + conventional capability both for select zones. Hence, to ward off surge attacks and still retain capability, the number of missiles ordered could well be higher. Also note the S-400 has multiple different kinds of missile, hence stocks + reserves for each of the major types ordered could add upto a large number especially if additional systems for a layered defence are not ordered and the S-400 itself acts as a single node with a relatively static fixed mast radar + large numbers of missile rounds to even take out ARMs or low flying missiles.

Wiki wrote:The 40N6 very long range missile is capable of destroying airborne targets at ranges up to 400 km (250 mi). Active radar homing head. (expected in 2012)[33] To engage targets out of sight from the ground (for homing missile can) is designed to find the target.[24] System S – 400 can hit targets at a height of 185 km.[34]
The 48N6DM long range missile is capable of destroying airborne targets at ranges up to 250 km (160 mi). Semi-active radar homing head.
The 48H6E3/48H6E2 – The 250/200 km, target speed 4,800 metres per second (17,000 km/h; 11,000 mph; Mach 14)/2,800 metres per second (10,000 km/h; 6,300 mph; Mach 8.2), rocket speed 2,000 metres per second (7,200 km/h; 4,500 mph; Mach 5.9).[12]
The 9M96E2[35] extended range missile is capable of destroying airborne targets at ranges up to 120 km (75 mi), flying altitude 5 m to 30 km,. It has the highest hit probability against fast, manoeuvrable targets such as fighter aircraft. Weight 420 kg. Active radar homing head. The probability for single missile to destroy the target without taking into account the operational reliability is: (piloted stealth / UAV) of is actively maneuvering = 0.9 / 0.8.[10]
The 9M96E medium range missile (40 km), flying altitude 20 km, weight 333 kg. Active radar homing head.[36]

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 19 Dec 2015 23:20

Karan, thanks for the correction. Seemed high to me too.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 19 Dec 2015 23:28

In short, for layered defense with multiple systems - for select AFB/defense nodes - either all of below or select units
SpyDer @15km + Akash@25km + MRSAM @70-100km + ABM (if required)
Future:
QR or SRSAM @15km, Akash Mk2@ shade below MRSAM, MRSAM @ 70-100km, VLRSAM (if cleared) + ABM

For S-400 alone:
Mix of launchers with 40km, 120km, 250km and 400km missiles.

We need SRSAM/QRSAM to ramp up for cost effective close in defence. Even better get Bharat Forge etc to work on a gun based solution like Phalanx.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 19 Dec 2015 23:29

indranilroy wrote:Karan, thanks for the correction. Seemed high to me too.

Indranil for series production of follow on batches, the price may drop even further since a portion of that cost above definitely went to establish production facilities at OFB (plus more money later to expand production). Making locally definitely helps, expense wise.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 19 Dec 2015 23:37

Do you know the price of a Rohini RH-560 rocket? I think the cost of the Prahaar missile may be comparable.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 20 Dec 2015 00:02

45 crores for 150 sounding rocket flights, split across multiple types. Pages 81 and 141.
http://www.dst.gov.in/sites/default/fil ... report.pdf

RoyG · Post by **RoyG** » 20 Dec 2015 00:18

Karan M wrote:In short, for layered defense with multiple systems - for select AFB/defense nodes - either all of below or select units
SpyDer @15km + Akash@25km + MRSAM @70-100km + ABM (if required)
Future:
QR or SRSAM @15km, Akash Mk2@ shade below MRSAM, MRSAM @ 70-100km, VLRSAM (if cleared) + ABM

For S-400 alone:
Mix of launchers with 40km, 120km, 250km and 400km missiles.

We need SRSAM/QRSAM to ramp up for cost effective close in defence. Even better get Bharat Forge etc to work on a gun based solution like Phalanx.

I recall India also approving the purchase of the Sosna-R system. It's pretty sneaky in that it uses IR pod + laser illuminator to hit low flying aircraft including helicopters.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 20 Dec 2015 00:54

On the length part of Prahaar missile, Smerch vehicle itself is 12 meters. So, a 8 meter Prahaar missile + another 4 meter for driver/fire cabin is perfectly doable.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 20 Dec 2015 01:07

Looks like multiple classes of vehicles are under consideration.

Saurav Jha has mentioned in the past that Prahaar may get a sensor for precise targeting as well, possibly MMW. We really need to mature our sensors fast. They are the one remaining obstacle to mass production of local PGMs en masse.
http://www.ibnlive.com/blogs/india/saur ... 48397.html

The Prahar with an engagement envelope of 60-170 km is ideally suited to attack enemy command, control and communication (C3) nodes and ammunition dumps located in the rear. While its basic guidance package is a ring laser gyro based inertial navigation system (RLG-INS) capable of receiiving satellite updates to remove accumulated errors it may subsequently also carry an additional terminal homing seeker head such as a millimetric wave(MMW) sensor which would enable the Prahar to take on enemy armour as well.

The Prahar which flies at speeds of up to Mach 4 can be launched in both stand alone and centralized modes from a mobile launch system (MLS) that can be configured on high mobility vehicles (HMV) of the 12x12, 8x8 and 6x6 varieties to carry six, four and two missiles respectively. The 6 x 6 HMV carrying two Prahar missiles is of course suited for operations in mountainous areas. Being a quick reaction missile capable of launching in salvo mode, it is possible that a large number of Prahar batteries may be activated in centralized mode during a conflict with either Pakistan or China to start attacking missile storage sites etc.

Picklu · Post by **Picklu** » 20 Dec 2015 02:18

[400% mushrador speculation alert]
About high number of S-400 missiles, it is also possible that the new def-min is in favor of bulk purchase at lower cost.
The complete execution would take at least a decade and with spread out delivery, very little chance of simultaneous obsolesce of entire missile stock.
[/400% mushrador speculation alert]

Picklu · Post by **Picklu** » 20 Dec 2015 02:18

double-post ......... vishut

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 20 Dec 2015 02:23

That, plus the fact that you would need adequate stocks of each type. Akash is only one type, made locally and we ordered some 2500 missiles. Russia would ask for orders upfront rather than piecemeal because otherwise Russian orders would take over, since they have bulk demand for S-400 too.

Yagnasri · Post by **Yagnasri** » 20 Dec 2015 04:28

Jingo/Mango alert

May be we wish to kick some paki a&& soon and spend some stock in that. Hence big stock of missiles.

nirav · Post by **nirav** » 20 Dec 2015 04:35

Yagnasri wrote:Jingo/Mango alert

May be we wish to kick some paki a&& soon and spend some stock in that. Hence big stock of missiles.

Mind boggling numbers of mijjiles to stick up PAFs musharraf.

I'm eagerly waiting for the deal to be "official".

Can then troll Pakis - we will shoot down all yuar bAnders and F solahs the moment they take off.

PAF tactics for countering S400 - yell AoA loudest on the radio.

srai · Post by **srai** » 20 Dec 2015 05:18

Picklu wrote:[400% mushrador speculation alert]
About high number of S-400 missiles, it is also possible that the new def-min is in favor of bulk purchase at lower cost.
The complete execution would take at least a decade and with spread out delivery, very little chance of simultaneous obsolesce of entire missile stock.
[/400% mushrador speculation alert]

True. India is not going to get all 6000 missiles at the get go. These take time to be produced and budget need to be set aside. At 500 missiles per year (really high number), it would take 12 years to complete the order. Shelf life of a wooden round missile is around 10-years with another 10-years through life extensions.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 20 Dec 2015 10:36

most probably it is a typo 600 initially instead of 6000. we are not known for keeping a high reserve stock of any form of munition let alone expensive big SAMs.
5000 pinaka is a big deal here , never mind a week of heavy firing will deplete that to rock bottom.

during the cold war, ussr had built up a stock of 100,000 SAMs across all types , some 55000 tanks (warsaw pact total) and tens of thousands of heavy artillery pieces.

srai · Post by **srai** » 20 Dec 2015 11:07

Pinaka is 5000/year up from 1000/year. Give it a few years of production run at that level and the reserves will be there.

5,000 Pinaka rockets to be produced every year

Thakur_B · Post by **Thakur_B** » 20 Dec 2015 12:35

srai wrote:Pinaka is 5000/year up from 1000/year. Give it a few years of production run at that level and the reserves will be there.

5,000 Pinaka rockets to be produced every year

That's old news. We don't know whether the target has been achieved yet. What's more encouraging is the massive spare capacity to ramp up production when required.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 20 Dec 2015 14:36

Singha wrote:most probably it is a typo 600 initially instead of 6000. we are not known for keeping a high reserve stock of any form of munition let alone expensive big SAMs.
5000 pinaka is a big deal here , never mind a week of heavy firing will deplete that to rock bottom.

For Akash initial orders alone are no less than 2500 SAMs for 112 launchers, each with 3 missiles. Thats 22 rounds per launcher.

So we can rule out 600 rounds. That's completely impractical for a system being ordered at $6.5 Billion. double the size of the PRC order.

The S-400 deal comes to approximately 100 launchers, with 4 missiles each indicating at least 2-3K missiles using Akash as a proxy.

However, Akash is made locally and repeat orders can be placed easy, not so much for S-400. Russia has told China in the past to order S-3XX at one go given its facilities are running at full capacity for local orders, and the same is true today for the S-400 which is replacing older S-300 PMU and other types in Russian service.

Plus there are 4 different kinds of missiles for different target sets. Hence, 6K is feasible considering we need a mix of missiles for both missile and aircraft targets. So 60 rounds per launcher.

Lets take a look at a few other orders as a proxy.

BTW, India ordered around 21K ATGM rounds from MBDA. Equivalent numbers of Konkurs etc from Russia, 25,000. For some 1600 T-90s, we ordered 25,000 AT-11 missiles, so 15 missiles per tank. This is BTW many times the loadout planned by erstwhile Soviet Union! So using Russia itself as a proxy for some of our decision making is not going to be necessarily accurate.

Spike plans- 8356 missiles for 321 launchers. A multiplication factor of 26x.

Ok, but SAMs are more expensive.

SIPRI estimates 3000 Barak-8 rounds for 18 systems. That's a factor of 42 rounds per launcher, assuming 4 "launchers" or eqvt per system. So that's for "medium range targets".

For 8 squadrons of SpyDer, 1500 rounds (equally split between Python and Derby). We have 6 launchers per squadron. Thats 32 rounds per launcher. For short range targets.

So if a single S-400 squadron is expected to handle multiple classes of targets, from 40km to 380 km, you will have to invest in substantial numbers of different missiles. Hence 60 rounds per launcher is hardly beyond the realms of possibility.

If you want the S-400 to handle the entire medium-long, aircraft-UAV-SRBM-IRBM task, then you will have to buy missiles in sufficient number because all your opponent can do then is attrit by launching surge attacks.

DRDO estimates for highest Pk, 4 missiles per target in ABM mode, 2 exo and 2 endo. So, even assuming S-400 only uses 2 of the endo class, a combined Pak/PRC inventory of 1500 missiles would "consume" 3000 S-400 rounds.

Aditya G · Post by **Aditya G** » 20 Dec 2015 15:10

^ The numbers indicate that maximum benefit from 'Make in India' will be in the kinetic component of the weapon systems. We need to induct at least 1 Indian system in each class of missile in all services.

At least one Indian ATGM, SAM, Torpedo, AAM etc and some classes can continue to be imported.

IN has made better progress in this area, with Maareech, Kavach and ASW rockets. There is some success in torpedos as well, but not sure. LRSAM will be partially manufactured by BDL. Not to forget the Brahmos.

Astra, Nag and HELINA should be inducted as well.

I hope one day a Astra based SRSAM can also be developed to square off all areas.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 20 Dec 2015 18:59

Aditya, there are two SRSAM programs in progress. One is Maitri aka SRSAM which has MBDA tech for the missile but DRDO radars, C3I developed for the Navy. Perhaps will be made available for the AF as well, though with Akash the IAF reportedly lost interest in SRSAM programs. The SRSAM will reportedly leverage tech from the VLS Mica including the seeker.

Then there is the QRSAM being developed specifically for the IA in mind since it addresses the mobility aspect lacking with the Akash with its large ramjet missiles and huge 100km + radars, and is intended to track on the move. Perhaps the missile design will be common for both unless the QRSAM program, which is supposedly based on Astra has already progressed far ahead.

Interestingly the DAC also cleared the Pinaka Mk2 program.

Paul · Post by **Paul** » 20 Dec 2015 19:18

For Akash initial orders alone are no less than 2500 SAMs for 112 launchers, each with 3 missiles. Thats 22 rounds per launcher.

Launcher has three missiles so 7 reloads per launcher

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 20 Dec 2015 19:28

Yes, I just mentioned the overall number of rounds. If you look in terms of reloads, its 7 per launcher. The S-400 will be approx double, but as mentioned probably split across multiple types so it may be equivalent or even lesser.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 20 Dec 2015 19:32

Interestingly the 9 squadrons, 18 firing units plus radars/C3I and the initial set of 450 missiles for the MRSAM are 10,000 crore. That's ~450 missiles (not considering reloads). Each MRSAM firing unit has 3 launchers each with 8 missiles, so 24 per firing unit, translating to 432 for 18 firing units. So 450 apparently including reserve/test articles.
Truly a moneyspinner for Israel, if we don't make the radars locally. We'll have to sign follow on orders for reloads as well.