All threads that are locked or marked for deletion will be moved to this forum. The topics will be cleared from this archive on the 1st and 16th of each month.
Hobbes wrote:As per Wikipedia the Indian Army is reported to have around 3000 Kornets.
And that is why you shouldn't take everything written in Wikipedia as accurate.
Kornets were planned for acquisition post Kargil. Many reports said they would be, could be etc. Yet to see them in IA use.
Indian Army had a few dedicated ATGM battalions under Guards Regiment. But it seems most have been converted to Reconnaissance & Support (R&S) Battalions. These are of two types - Wheeled and Tracked. Tracked have the BMP-2 while Wheeled have the BRDM + Mahindra Jeeps. And the Wheeled R&S battalions seem to use Milan ATGM and not the Kornet. I doubt if any dedicated ATGM battalion exists in IA any longer.
That is why NAG is unique - it has no counterpart in IA.
IIRC Kornet was being trialed against Javelin and Spike as late as 2013. Some 16 years after Spike was originally recommended in 1997 and some 12+ years after Kargil. Its now being proposed for the BMP upgrade.
More than Nag itself, IMO, its significance will lie in variants once that seeker package and guidance system get proven and accepted for service.
Also, appreciate if you could shed some light on the IA classification & requirements for LSVs vs "jeeps" vs light bullet proof vehicles. Why has LSV tended not gone ahead?
Karan M wrote:IIRC Kornet was being trialed against Javelin and Spike as late as 2013. Some 16 years after Spike was originally recommended in 1997 and some 12+ years after Kargil. Its now being proposed for the BMP upgrade.
More than Nag itself, IMO, its significance will lie in variants once that seeker package and guidance system get proven and accepted for service.
Weight of Kornet is not in the same league as Javelin or Spike. And is not a natural successor for a Milan category of man-portable ATGM. It's more in the TOW category, though not as heavy.
Not a natural successor true, but an IA desperate for newer solutions would take what comes.
After all, Kornet was first proposed for IA troops at Kargil to take out sangars and bunkers since the laser guided round would not have the same wire snagging issues as the Milan-2 and Konkurs. It was proposed with blast warheads.
Thereafter talk shifted to Pakistani T-80UDs with ERA and hence Kornet-E again fit the bill (tandem warhead).
Now, we do have Milan-2T and Konkurs-M (both tandem warheads), so IA has more "breathing space" to take an optimal solution (eg proper MANPATS) rather than force fit what it acquires into the ORBAT somehow.
Kornet can be acquired for BMP upgrade alone (and replace the Konkurs) though ideally it would be great to have one system across all/most of the fleet, Spike or variants. Javelin etc. Though that's unlikely to happen and hence the BMP-Konkurs type upgrade is likely to go ahead (Russian firm with Punj LLoyd or some Indian firm for MII etc).
Also, appreciate if you could shed some light on the IA classification & requirements for LSVs vs "jeeps" vs light bullet proof vehicles. Why has LSV tended not gone ahead?
<SNIP>
RCL were phased out long time back. ATGM became the standard tank killer in the IA.
Mahindra Jeep that you see in the picture is the standard 4 x 4 vehicle of the IA. Maruti Gypsy is more for admin duties and ferrying officers and families around. In fact, Gypsy was introduced to save on fuel in peace locations as Nissan Jonga had a horrendous mileage. Something like 4-5 kmpl on petrol engine! And I don't know how many know this but the famous 1-ton vehicle of IA (also phased out) and Jonga shared the same engine.
As for LSV - I don't think any such vehicle presently exists in the IA. Mahindra Jeep is not exactly a true successor for Jonga because Jonga was an amazingly powerful vehicle (4,000 cc engine) which would never let you down.
From what I've read about LSV, the payload requirement is 900 - 1,200 kg. This is more in the 1-ton class which IA had and were phased out. And for which there was not replacement. It was a troop carrier and used for all sorts of stuff from ambulance to Signals.
So, LSV might not be a replacement for Jeep category but additional segment between Jeep and larger 3+ ton vehicles. But which is optimized for reconnaissance and other such tasks.
brar_w wrote:The Barak 8 has no direct US counterpart the european aster/ Aster+ is available now with enhancements a decade out but would have been substantially higher in cost and would have most likely not given similar co-development opportunities. The SM2 is not longer produced with the production having shifted to the SM6 which is an extra-long range weapon (With now a demonstrated ABM capability with the DI version), while the ESSM is on the lower end although the upcoming block adds some performance. SM6 is quite an affordable ($3-$3.5 Million a shot) weapon for its performance thanks to the rate production and a large order which will peak at 125 interceptors a year (is at 113 per year at the moment) with 1800 interceptor orders to fulfill. With the deal for the B-8 it was the entire package, that includes the radar and the interceptor...there are very few companies around the world that will work on a project like this and even fewer that would meet your demands for local involvement. By most accounts it looks like an extremely impressive partnership to field a radar-weapon combination through a JV. The more I look at the system the more I begin to doubt the long term need for the S400.
Originally Barak-8 was envisioned to be between Aster 15 and 30 in terms of performance but i suppose improvements in design and propellant increased its range. As for SM-2 it was offered back in around 09 along with SPY-1 i suppose even if production had stopped there is more than enough stockpiles to fullfill any further customers, i doubt SM-6 would be opened up for export soon may be to close Allies.
Yes i agree with S-400, Barak-8 more or less fulfills the needs for long range AD and in combination with AAD can take care of endo atmosphere BMD. It is critical for DRDO to show some more urgency is AAD program it is been in test for over a decade. Time to push for its induction and work on a naval variant ASAP. I have feeling if they miss the window this year Navy will likely go for Barak-8 ER and IAF in other hand will procure S-400..
I think that 106mm RCL should be upgraded with laser range finders and brought back for use by CI forces and for IAF & Army base defense. It would be cheap and effective in this role.
brar_w wrote:The Barak 8 has no direct US counterpart the european aster/ Aster+ is available now with enhancements a decade out but would have been substantially higher in cost and would have most likely not given similar co-development opportunities. The SM2 is not longer produced with the production having shifted to the SM6 which is an extra-long range weapon (With now a demonstrated ABM capability with the DI version), while the ESSM is on the lower end although the upcoming block adds some performance. SM6 is quite an affordable ($3-$3.5 Million a shot) weapon for its performance thanks to the rate production and a large order which will peak at 125 interceptors a year (is at 113 per year at the moment) with 1800 interceptor orders to fulfill. With the deal for the B-8 it was the entire package, that includes the radar and the interceptor...there are very few companies around the world that will work on a project like this and even fewer that would meet your demands for local involvement. By most accounts it looks like an extremely impressive partnership to field a radar-weapon combination through a JV. The more I look at the system the more I begin to doubt the long term need for the S400.
Originally Barak-8 was envisioned to be between Aster 15 and 30 in terms of performance but i suppose improvements in design and propellant increased its range. As for SM-2 it was offered back in around 09 along with SPY-1 i suppose even if production had stopped there is more than enough stockpiles to fullfill any further customers, i doubt SM-6 would be opened up for export soon may be to close Allies.
Yes i agree with S-400, Barak-8 more or less fulfills the needs for long range AD and in combination with AAD can take care of endo atmosphere BMD. It is critical for DRDO to show some more urgency is AAD program it is been in test for over a decade. Time to push for its induction and work on a naval variant ASAP. I have feeling if they miss the window this year Navy will likely go for Barak-8 ER and IAF in other hand will procure S-400..
Barak-8 is not designed or optimized for the BMD work. For better or worse, we will need both AAD and Barak-8.
Need of our is cheaper missile (say Astra based; at Akash price level) for close in work & taking out short range targets.
Also to create a family of AAMs/ PGMs for IAF. Fancy S-4XX level stuff can wait I'd say as with Maitri/QRSAM/Akash/Barak variants we will be fairly ok viz SAMs.
Karan M wrote:Barak-8 is not designed or optimized for the BMD work. For better or worse, we will need both AAD and Barak-8.
Need of our is cheaper missile (say Astra based; at Akash price level) for close in work & taking out short range targets.
Also to create a family of AAMs/ PGMs for IAF. Fancy S-4XX level stuff can wait I'd say as with Maitri/QRSAM/Akash/Barak variants we will be fairly ok viz SAMs.
^ Agree! with a more detailed reply in the int. aerospace thread. Barak 8 is of course not an BMD system but there is plenty of stuff in the partnership that can be leveraged to create some BMD capability by incorporating a new interceptor if one is required prior to AAD induction. Astra types are not only important for short range targets but also for long range cruise missile and low flying targets where medium ranged and long range missiles slaved to engagement radars will struggle as these targets find the gap in coverage by going slow and low. As they say, Ballistic Missiles stress the interceptors while cruise missiles stress the sensors...
@brar_w i will reply to your post regarding Barak-8 and SM2/6 in intl. Aero thread.
Karan M wrote:Barak-8 is not designed or optimized for the BMD work. For better or worse, we will need both AAD and Barak-8.
Need of our is cheaper missile (say Astra based; at Akash price level) for close in work & taking out short range targets.
Also to create a family of AAMs/ PGMs for IAF. Fancy S-4XX level stuff can wait I'd say as with Maitri/QRSAM/Akash/Barak variants we will be fairly ok viz SAMs.
I will talk more about Barak-8 in intl Aerospace thread. Yes i mentioned i agree we need AAD but it has been in development for over 10 years. And it has been what 5 years since DRDO chief proclaimed the BMD system is close to induction, i can live with delays for PDV due to changes that have happened and complications of exo atmospheric intercept. But AAD is another story, Looks like early January test for AAD got scrapped and there is no deadline or any indication from DRDO when the missile will be "ready". I can't fault IAF for looking at alternatives at least they doing it without pointing any fingers.
Domestic ABM program is irreplaceable for any nation looking at credible ABM defense since no one will customize their interceptors for the sort of decoys your own intelligence determines your enemies has access to, nor would you like to share your own intelligence with someone else so that better capability can be developed and exported potentially without your permission. This is even more true for Exoatmospheric interceptors. Secondly, ABM elements are tough to procure or export. You can get systems but a C2C but broad synergies with early warning and higher frequency sensors are best built from the ground up at home.
John, do you have any details that Barak-8 can match/meet AAD performance? The developers state both are meant for different roles. At the very least it would have to be modified. As regards tests etc, reports note the Phase1 BMD is near ready for deployment. The deadlines for AAD/BMD etc not being known..that stuff is following the same as the other ones..after new GOI has come into power we have zero publicity on most programs. Seems to be a deliberate strategy to keep the media at bay.
@Karan M: also, after the new GoI came to power, we are seeing an inexplicable slowdown in ballistic missile testing. No Agni V test for the last year when media reports were claiming that 3 would be done over the next year. No K4 test since the new GoI came. No missile (not dummy) firing from the Arihant. Talk of getting LSA/CISMOA/BECA done with the U.S. The signs are not good. Hope Dr. Chander's dismissal did not backfire and prove to be a step that killed a horse that was running.
Gyan wrote:I think that 106mm RCL should be upgraded with laser range finders and brought back for use by CI forces and for IAF & Army base defense. It would be cheap and effective in this role.
Gyan, 106mm RCL was phased out long back. No more ammo is available. Having said that maybe the 84mm RCL which is there in large numbers can be upgraded to improve accuracy.
Has anyone done a comparison of the 84mm vs 106 mm RCL performance?
^^^106 mm RCL had a huge back blast from letting out the gases from the shell. Is a dead give-away of the location. One of the biggest weaknesses of the system. Not to mention the concealment bit and open position to fire the weapon.
Karan M wrote:John, do you have any details that Barak-8 can match/meet AAD performance? The developers state both are meant for different roles. At the very least it would have to be modified. As regards tests etc, reports note the Phase1 BMD is near ready for deployment. The deadlines for AAD/BMD etc not being known..that stuff is following the same as the other ones..after new GOI has come into power we have zero publicity on most programs. Seems to be a deliberate strategy to keep the media at bay.
So far we are just starting to get information about Barak-8 even the range was all speculation till now. From what we know Israeli media has stated the missile is capable of defeating Yakhont and threat it posses to the off shore rigs. Yakhont when used against static targets like oil rigs will fly in likely ballistic flight path to maximize range and damage potential, Yakhont as you aware is capable of flying ballistic flight path as well in which case it is equivalent to Scud missile in terms of speed and it can maneuver as well. So that gives some understanding of what it is capable of. I doubt it can intercept higher end of SRBM like AAD. IMO Barak-8 ER might have that capability if the booster is able to increase its range and push it to a higher altitude faster.
I don't mind the lack of news if there is progress but so far there has seem to be any with AAD. I have feeling S-400 will be procured in a year or so and there will be some "Made in India" provision and everyone including the government will brag about the accomplishment...
Last edited by John on 19 Jan 2016 01:25, edited 1 time in total.
I wonder if the Barak was tested against Brahmos (because that's what we would have used) in all modes or only sea skimming? Israelis too want protection against Yakhont/Brahmos variants. I agree that for dedicated BMD we need AAD style specialized missiles.
From what i understand I think it was just drone simulating a sea skimming missile but if they are confident it can handle Yakhont they might have done some targets atleast against simulated targets in various flight paths. Also as per Janes even Barak-1 fitted in INS Lahav has been upgraded to intercept short range ballistic missiles with MF Star providing guidance. So i would suspect mixture of Barak-1/8 would be providing that missile defense coverage for Israeli navy.
Anti ship ballistic missiles do come with a boatload of hype.. That said, the ones that get the most attention and are likely to have serious funding associated with the concept are in the 1500-2000 km range (DF-21 and its offshoots), with the range moving on to 3000+ km with newer variants expected in the future (DF-26 that was rolled out as having an anti ship variant recently). Any nation that has the technology to develop a credible Anti ship ballistic missile would/should target at much harder and complex speeds and intercepts given that that sort of investment would most likely be geared towards defeating extremely well defended targets which in the case of China is an AEGIS protected carrier strike group. Scud ranged weapons would not pose a very serious threat imho...If 3000-3500 km ranged Ballistic missiles do come to be a significant threat..then the best way would be to knock them out in the mid course using land based interceptors to cover large swaths of distance or use dedicated BMD ships that are far far away from the carrier or other high value target to protect it...Developing both a Terminal and midcourse capability may end up costing an arm and a leg...
^ US main intention is to stall Indian programs and prevent export competition, while keeping them dependent on US tech. They should be avoided in every project where there are other options.
Chakra.in wrote:^ US main intention is to stall Indian programs and prevent export competition, while keeping them dependent on US tech. They should be avoided in every project where there are other options.
Time to get out your tin foils..
In all seriousness they have no clue or don't give a damn about Nag, all US def companies like all corporations are in it to make $$ and even then they are very short term focused. Heck US corporations have moved their production lines to china knowing they are signing own death warrants. Just so they can increase profit margins while years down the road chinese companies have cloned the products and driven them to bankruptcy in the mean time CEO have made it out nicely.
brar_w wrote:Anti ship ballistic missiles do come with a boatload of hype.. That said, the ones that get the most attention and are likely to have serious funding associated with the concept are in the 1500-2000 km range (DF-21 and its offshoots), with the range moving on to 3000+ km with newer variants expected in the future (DF-26 that was rolled out as having an anti ship variant recently). Any nation that has the technology to develop a credible Anti ship ballistic missile would/should target at much harder and complex speeds and intercepts given that that sort of investment would most likely be geared towards defeating extremely well defended targets which in the case of China is an AEGIS protected carrier strike group. Scud ranged weapons would not pose a very serious threat imho...If 3000-3500 km ranged Ballistic missiles do come to be a significant threat..then the best way would be to knock them out in the mid course using land based interceptors to cover large swaths of distance or use dedicated BMD ships that are far far away from the carrier or other high value target to protect it...Developing both a Terminal and midcourse capability may end up costing an arm and a leg...
To counter something like DF21 you need to be able to track it, i believe Vikrant will be fitted RAN-20L radar and hopefully even DDGs are fitted with that in the future.
106 mm RCL has serious limitations in conventional warfare but still has important role to play in CI & Base Defence because not only it is adequate for this role but better than 84 mm RCL and super super cheap compared to ATGM. Does 84 mm RCL and ATGM have huge back blast signature or not? SF attack by Pak forces or Naxal mass attacks / ambushes cannot be met by normal small arms and we need heavier weapons. Old does not mean useless.
To counter something like DF21 you need to be able to track it, i believe Vikrant will be fitted RAN-20L radar and hopefully even DDGs are fitted with that in the future.
Assuming you can track it you still need to intercept it for a mid-course interception, and if it works as advertised (a big IF), it isn't anything as easy as intercepting a scud (in the terminal phase). I don't think China will bother making SRBM's for anti-ship role they will stick in that IRBM and MRBM category simply because the target that warrants a BM strike is well worth the added price tag of the missile especially if you are launching from land. Also, if you have a confidence in your targeting and capability, why go back given the intention is to create an anti access area denial type of situation.
My point was if the hype lives up to what it is being made out to be (mind you saner voices still are quite calm) then nations looking to operate under this threat will need to fork out some serious cash. Developing a layered defense on a ship (irrespective the size) against a 3000 km ballistic missile will require some serious investment.
Paul wrote:Good move by IN to move RFI on Rafale. Americans will not be happy. and now this
I know of only one RFI issued by IN several years ago to a variety of manufacturers (incl. Boeing & LM). Has a new RFI being issued now? If so, when?
Chakra.in wrote:^ US main intention is to stall Indian programs and prevent export competition, while keeping them dependent on US tech. They should be avoided in every project where there are other options.
While UK/France/Russia's main intention is foster Indian programs and encourage export competition?
Chakra.in wrote:^ US main intention is to stall Indian programs and prevent export competition, while keeping them dependent on US tech. They should be avoided in every project where there are other options.
While UK/France/Russia's main intention is foster Indian programs and encourage export competition?
They view India as a customer, and if given enough money they will provide ToT, even if it means future export competition. The question is at what price they can be bought.
America is different, they view themselves as a superpower leading NATO and an international police force. America puts prohibitive weapons checks and demand Pentagon approval for certain systems like the landing craft sold to India. American tech is strings attached and with expectation to integrate Indian systems into American ones, just like they have done for UK, Germany, Japan, Australia, etc. along with joint logistics and other agreements their intention is to marry India into NATO in all but name, and US MIC. America wants India on a leash, others like Israel, France, Germany, etc. are just in it for the money, and they share none of America's globalist ambitions, or desire to 'contain' India. There is a massive difference between the two.
Paul wrote:Good move by IN to move RFI on Rafale. Americans will not be happy. and now this
Saurav Jha @SJha1618 Jan 19
Just as the Nag has turned the corner.
Lockheed Martin looks at reviving bid to sell Javelin missiles to India
People need to use some common sense before they peddle these conspiracy theories.
In what way will Javelin be a competition to Nag? Both the missiles are in different class all together...I could understand the concern if Americans were peddling latest version of TOW but why compare a man-portable missiles like Javelin with 45kg missile system like Nag?
^^ this is why, we can argue all we want about weight and range, but we know IA's fondness for ready made COTS product than working with local product for the last 10% gap.
Javelin Joint Venture Demonstrates Vehicle-Mounted Missile Launch
ORLANDO, Fla., July 29, 2014 – The Raytheon Company (NYSE: RTN) and Lockheed Martin (NYSE: LMT) Javelin Joint Venture recently fired a Javelin missile from a remote weapon station integrated onto a wheeled vehicle at Redstone Arsenal in Huntsville, Alabama. The test demonstrated Javelin’s vehicle-launch capability to an international customer that has expressed interest in purchasing vehicles integrated with Javelin.
The Javelin missile launched successfully and hit a T-62 tank target from a range of 1,000 meters. Immediately after missile launch, the remote weapon station engaged an alternate target with its ballistic weapon, demonstrating a seamless Javelin integration that supports the warfighter’s requirement to quickly transition between multiple weapon systems.
“This demonstration highlights the ability to mount Javelin on a vehicle,” said Richard Benton, Javelin Joint Venture vice president and Javelin senior manager at Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control. “The international customer already uses the combat-proven Javelin for dismounted troops, but this test demonstrated the Javelin’s versatility and how easily it can be integrated with the vehicle to enhance mission capability.”
“This effort demonstrates the Javelin Joint Venture’s commitment to expand Javelin’s capability beyond the current man-portable role,” said Michelle Lohmeier, vice president of Raytheon Missile Systems’ Land Warfare Systems product line. “We are working closely with end user customers and industry partners to provide the warfighter with an effective system for improving vehicle lethality and enhancing survivability.”
unlike the Nag it can be bolted in the 2-tube config on the sides that many western IFVs already use for ATGMs to give 4 ready rounds, with more manual reloads in the troop compartment in the "raider" config with additional cannon ammo and ATGMs instead of troops in the back. Many M3 Bradleys operated in this config in iraq wars.
Singha wrote:^^ this is why, we can argue all we want about weight and range, but we know IA's fondness for ready made COTS product than working with local product for the last 10% gap.
<SNIP>
If it is IA's fondness that you're worried about, than at least make an effort to look up the performance envelope of Spike which has been ordered. It already has variants which can take on the role Nag is supposed to fill. Javelin is already out of the race; its 1,000 meter range means nothing when the current crop of Milan ATGM can hit targets beyond that.
Javelin Missile Demonstrates Extended Range and Versatility During Tests
ORLANDO, Fla., June 16, 2015 – The U.S. Army and the Javelin Joint Venture, comprising Raytheon Company (NYSE: RTN) and Lockheed Martin (NYSE: LMT), recently conducted successful live-fire Javelin missile engagements against tank targets from different launcher and platform configurations as part of a demonstration to current foreign military sales users.
Each of the three Javelin missiles used during the tests at Redstone Arsenal in Huntsville, Alabama, was fired from a different launcher or platform – from a Command Launch Unit (CLU); from a vehicle using a Remote Weapon Station (RWS); and from the U.S. Army’s recently deployed Containerized Weapon System (CWS), also using a RWS. The CLU-launched missile hit a target at 4,000 meters, while the vehicle-launched and CWS-launched missiles hit targets positioned at 1,100 meters and 700 meters, respectively.
“The Javelin Joint Venture is committed to expanding Javelin applications beyond the current man-portable role,” said John Halvey, Javelin Joint Venture president and Javelin program director at Raytheon Missile Systems. “We will continue to work with our customers to provide an effective system that improves platform lethality and enhances survivability.”
“Javelin is the world’s most versatile and lethal anti-tank weapon system,” said Richard Benton, Javelin Joint Venture vice president and Javelin program director at Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control. “Its capability to engage targets at ranges beyond the current specification is validated, as is the ability to use one weapon from various platforms to address multiple missions.”
2500m is the claimed effective range. Beyond that no guarantee, if you hit, you hit. Even that how it works in extreme climatic conditions is subject to interpretations. Only Indian systems are designed to work all along its claimed range and hit the target in extreme temperatures. In a way when that Indigenous missiles crosses all that hurdles and finally the Army has to accept it, there will be no such missiles in the world which is comparable. Every aspect of such a missile will match or exceed each and every capability available with any other missile of its class in the world.
