Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 17 Mar 2016 19:49

This is the ECIL Seeker, mentioned as now being ready for testing. Can be used for Brahmos and Nirbhay
https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-jItpKvRvrvM/ ... &+LRCM.jpg

Current Brahmos seeker.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 17 Mar 2016 19:53

K-4 test looks awesome.

Arun_S can check low loft, max range what was the apogee?

Yes front end motors add velocity increment also and thus act as a 1/4 stage if not half a stage.

----
KaranM, So IMR is Imaging Monopulse Radar seeker!

---

arun_S, did check the ranges and the configuration. Front end rocket overcomes the gravity and acts as a partial stage(Zero Stage) and then First stage ignites and onwards to Second stage.

Varoon Shekhar · Post by **Varoon Shekhar** » 17 Mar 2016 19:56

"According to sources, apart from several other new technologies, a top-end rocket technology involved in the weapon system is an innovation and initial boost velocity is a plus in this system."

Could this be that material developed by IISc back in 2008, which reduces the 'drag' on a missile, and hence increases its speed/range? Still no reports of that technology actually being applied anywhere.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 17 Mar 2016 19:58

BTW the range is mentioned as "only" 20km, but note the PAv, only 170W. That's very low power for a seeker of this class and should truly add to LPI capability, especially if it can image once, pass that info onto the nav system and quiet down until its again required for a terminal pass.
Lets see if it passes tests.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 17 Mar 2016 19:58

Ramana, you are right. M = Monopulse.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 17 Mar 2016 20:05

Varoon You jest surely?
Have you seen the early k-4 launch video. Its there in plain sight.
Top end rocket is front end rocket which prasannasimha calls nose pull system!
Not top notch.

What to do not all are Wren and Martin qualified.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 17 Mar 2016 23:18

LOL Maha bunkum master parsoon does browse this forum. Moment i posted the above i thought he;d blog with a cooked up story and so he did. Claiming the Siva testbed for the PJ-10 is a pod by itself.

Kakarat · Post by **Kakarat** » 19 Mar 2016 16:48

GIF of Astra being fired by Su-30MKI at Iron Fist 2016

https://twitter.com/kakarat2001/status/ ... 0017922048

JTull · Post by **JTull** » 19 Mar 2016 23:09

Is there a K-4 launch video from last week? Can someone post it again please?

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 19 Mar 2016 23:16

If Astra goes into serial production then that's automatically the SRSAM segment addressed as well.

kvraghavaiah · Post by **kvraghavaiah** » 20 Mar 2016 00:25

I have no idea why it takes decades for each milestone for defense equipment in India.

what is stopping DRDO and IAF from firing Astra against a real target, finish the testing and user trails and then induct?

USA and Soviet Union sent men in to space hardly with in about a decade of making their first rocket.

member_22733 · Post by **member_22733** » 20 Mar 2016 00:45

Let me try to explain:
A manned space vehicle is a system of subcomponents (like many other things). Each of those sub-components must be tested, independently and found to work in conditions that are far worse than anything it would be expected to encounter. Each of those things must be tested destructively to figure out failure modes. Finally once the system integration is complete, the system itself has to go through such tests so that it could be understood better by everyone involved.

Assuming about 1000 sub components, and a team of about 30 engineering resources and 10 non-engineering resources supporting each sub-component. Assume takes about 10 years per subcomponent to mature. Assume each component needs atleast 10 - 15 crores per year in support infrastructure (test rigs, labs, real estate).

Assume each resource taking about 40 lacs per annum average (including salary, IT, housing, pension, TA/DA etc). What would you think the budget allocation for 10 years would be?

Compare that with what ISRO is getting and you would know why its taking such a long time. I am actually amazed at how far we got with such a meagre budget.

member_28108 · Post by **member_28108** » 20 Mar 2016 00:47

Certification of a missile is not so simple. Why can't they fire at a live target getting the forces to supply one is not so easy as one may think.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 20 Mar 2016 00:54

kvraghavaiah wrote:I have no idea why it takes decades for each milestone for defense equipment in India.

what is stopping DRDO and IAF from firing Astra against a real target, finish the testing and user trails and then induct?

USA and Soviet Union sent men in to space hardly with in about a decade of making their first rocket.

Read a bit more about the test process. The IAF wants nothing but the best system to take into combat. AAM is its primary means of attack, nothing to compromise about. Each and every thing needs to be tested and then verified and validated for series production.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 20 Mar 2016 01:05

kvraghavaiah wrote:I have no idea why it takes decades for each milestone for defense equipment in India.

what is stopping DRDO and IAF from firing Astra against a real target, finish the testing and user trails and then induct?

USA and Soviet Union sent men in to space hardly with in about a decade of making their first rocket.

Here is a pointer about what you can find.
http://pib.nic.in/newsite/PrintRelease. ... lid=117420

India’s Beyond Visual Range (BVR) air-to-air missile ASTRA was once again successfully test fired today by the Indian Air Force off the coast of Odisha near the Integrated Test Range, Balasore. The missile has been indigenously designed and developed by the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO). In today’s test flight an ASTRA missile carrying telemetry equipment in place of the warhead was fired from a Sukhoi-30 aircraft against a Lakshya (Pilotless Target Aircraft) target. The target was successfully engaged and it was captured by Telemetry and Electro-optical tracking stations.

A successful trial of ASTRA, conducted yesterday, was also launched from a Sukhoi 30 aircraft, which was aimed at confirming missile’s capability to undergo manoeuvre involving very high gravitational forces upto the order of 30 ‘g’. These fourth and fifth launch campaign were coordinated by Air Headquarters including the flight of Lakshya target.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 20 Mar 2016 06:25

this is a govt report from 1988 on the mighty amraam. in short 5 launches mean nothing - we are looking at atleast 5 more years of tests before it is FOC if all goes well and then LRIP production will take another 2 to stabilize into volume production.

http://www.gao.gov/assets/150/146657.pdf

The Air Force had planned to complete 89 live-fire tests-64 developmental
to demonstrate missile requirements and 25 operational-before
the Defense Acquisition Board’s review of the program in May 1988.

However, it completed 48 developmental and I1 operational tests.
Although tests had demonstrated some critical performance requirements,
the more difficult and operationally realistic tests had not been
conducted. For example, the Air Force had not conducted any operational
tests of a full-capability prototype missile. Nonetheless, the tests
that were conducted identified performance issues that the Air Force
had not resolved. Also, the Air Force changed parameters on some tests,
which improved the missile’s probability of success. The test delays,
problems, and parameter changes increased the risk that the missiles
placed in operational inventory will not be effective or reliable

Some of the more difficult and realistic tests had not yet been conducted
at the time of the second low-rate production review. These included
tests to demonstrate AMRAAM'S performance against the sophisticated
electronic countermeasures that an enemy would use to confuse the missile’s
guidance.

Completed Tests Have
Identified Problems
Although tests conducted through April 1988 demonstrated many performance
requirements such as maximum speed, range, and altitude and
autonomous guidance, they also identified some problems that had not
been fully resolved. For example, the missile was not successful against
a very small target intended to demonstrate AMF&&S capabilities
against a cruise missile.

The AMRAAM program experienced substantial schedule slippages and
cost increases during development. In January 1986, the Secretary of
Defense expressed concern over the program’s schedule delays and escalating
costs and ordered a complete program review to determine if and
how program costs could be reduced. This review resulted in a restructuring
of the AMRAAM program and the initiation of a producibility
enhancement program to reduce production costs by redesigning several
missile components.

Even with the producibility enhancements, the program’s estimated
development and production cost increased from $3.4 billion for 20,000
missiles to $8.2 billion for 24,335 missiles in 1984 dollars. The program’s
full-scale development phase was extended from 54 to 79 months, and
the initial operational capability date changed from 1986 to 1989.

The AMRAAM test plan provides for a combination of live missile firings,
captive flight tests, and simulations to demonstrate required performance.
In the first category, missiles are fired from manned aircraft under
planned launch conditions against remotely piloted target aircraft. Captive
flight tests involve missile hardware attached to an aircraft, which
is flown from a simulated launch point toward a target along a path
similar to the one a missile in free flight would follow. Captive flights
can be used to ensure that the missile’s guidance is working properly
before each live-fire or to obtain reliability data by carrying the missiles
on routine training missions.

In simulations, the missile seeker is exposed to a target signal in a laboratory
environment. Simulations are conducted before each live missile
firing to predict how the missile will perform. Simulations are also used
to examine other engagement possibilities too costly, and sometimes too
dangerous to perform with manned aircraft. Data from the live tests are
used to validate and refine the simulation models.

The AMRAAM test plan outlines a large number of flight tests that
increase in difficulty as the missile design matures. For example, an
early development test demonstrated that one missile could guide to a
target at relatively short range. Tests much later in the program, however,
involve multiple missile launches at multiple targets employing
various tactics, maneuvers, and electronic countermeasures intended to
confuse the missiles’ guidance and to degrade their effectiveness. This
building-block approach is common to test plans of complex defense
systems.

Although there was no single overriding reason for delays in completing
the flight tests, there were a number of causes that can be linked to
either the maturity of the missile design or the availability of test
resources. In the design area, for example, about one of every five missiles
the contractor delivered to the test sites could not be launched
because it did not pass prelaunch tests. These missiles were either
returned to the factory for additional testing and repair or repaired at
the site by contractor technicians.

For several weeks in 1987, flight tests were suspended to investigate the
cause of successive flight test failures, Even though the causes of the
failures were found, the test program was delayed during the period of
investigation.

At other times, delays occurred because the missile’s soft-,
ware had to be revised before the test. For example, tests were delayed
because the preflight tests showed the missile’s software could not correctly
process electronic countermeasure information and respond
appropriately.

Missile delivery delays also contributed to test program
slippage. For example, tests of the full-capability missiles were delayed
because the first missile was not delivered until February 1988-7
months later than planned.

Air Force officials responsible for conducting the guided flight tests told
us that competition for test resources such as delivery aircraft, test
ranges, and target aircraft also contributed to delays. For example, in
1985 the Air Force decided to establish an initial operational capability
for the AM&LAM on the F-15, instead of the F-16. The only F-16 aircraft
available had to be shared between the AMRAAM flight test program and
the program to upgrade the aircraft’s fire control system. Additional
time was lost

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 20 Mar 2016 06:29

good thing is IAF is desperate for astra, they very well know the aa12 and aa11 will face increasing reliability issues - so they will not be foot dragging on this.
emergency buy of aa10 has been made to tide things over.

aa11 missing a gently floating turkey of a flare in iron fist from 2km away is not a good sign imo. imagine a strike pilot with just 2 small AAMs..he can never be sure if they will work and thats all he has to defend with.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 20 Mar 2016 06:43

Singha wrote:good thing is IAF is desperate for astra, they very well know the aa12 and aa11 will face increasing reliability issues - so they will not be foot dragging on this.
emergency buy of aa10 has been made to tide things over.

aa11 missing a gently floating turkey of a flare in iron fist from 2km away is not a good sign imo. imagine a strike pilot with just 2 small AAMs..he can never be sure if they will work and thats all he has to defend with.

The reason AAMs have proximity fuzes and fragmentation warheads is because they were never designed to hit pinpoint targets like flares. I am not making excuses for missies but it is misinformation to imagine that pinpoint targets will be hit. The entire concept of "CEP" arises from this fact - a CEP of even 1 meter which we all praise as being "fantastic TFTA accuracy" for the punySDB hitting static ground targets means 50% will fall outside 1 meter. A one meter miss for an AAM will miss any flare any day.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 20 Mar 2016 06:48

Singha wrote:this is a govt report from 1988 on the mighty amraam. in short 5 launches mean nothing - we are looking at atleast 5 more years of tests before it is FOC if all goes well and then LRIP production will take another 2 to stabilize into volume production.

http://www.gao.gov/assets/150/146657.pdf

The Air Force had planned to complete 89 live-fire tests-64 developmental
to demonstrate missile requirements and 25 operational-before
the Defense Acquisition Board’s review of the program in May 1988.

I don't mean to be difficult and I see your point, but I ask this question in the context of the wah wah wah I hear about Chinese advances. In the absence of information that the Chinese have been so vigorous (as mentioned in your post) in their testing standards for their long range AAMs do they deserve the sort of ooh and aah we award them when we bash down our own work comparing with USA, China, France, Iran etc saying the latter are all good and we need to buck up?

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 20 Mar 2016 08:26

the AA11 and Iglas which "missed" did not explode nearby . they do explode with proximity fuse as we saw in earlier edition.....so lets not find fig leaves in the desert...so either fuse did not work or they missed by a wider than designed margin so fuze remained off by design. either way not a happy situation.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 20 Mar 2016 08:46

it seems the r73 had failed to explode even in yavu shakti 2010

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 20 Mar 2016 08:52

a bvr missile will have a big test plan but even a chota mota kutta like aim9x you can see the kind of a2a tests needed - not cheap or simple. it detonate using proximity fuse near a QF4 drone and in one test scores a near miss or hit despite the QF4 releasing a set of flares.

if we want to be charitable let us say the R73 is designed to reject flares and not waste itself exploding on it, but why does it home to the flare in the first place. is there a test missile or test mode which makes it attracted to flares?

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 20 Mar 2016 09:08

Havent seen any of the SAM or AAM exploding it warhead , think even Astra didnt , likely its a training round minus the warhead

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 20 Mar 2016 09:11

Singha wrote:
if we want to be charitable let us say the R73 is designed to reject flares and not waste itself exploding on it, but why does it home to the flare in the first place. is there a test missile or test mode which makes it attracted to flares?

It is only designed to go towards a heat source. Discrimination between flares and engine heat is possible but I have no idea how far the R-73 goes in that direction. Newer flares are designed to take that into account and I recall reading -they can generate different IR wavelengths to act as decoy's for newer missiles.

It is a well known fact that back in the 60s and 70s heat seeking missiles could be made to head towards ground heat or even the sun. Things must have improved by now - but the fog around this business makes me unsure that things are that good. If things were so good why do they keep on making "improvements" on heat seeking missiles and keep talking about more missiles is better or that firing 2 missiles increases the chances of a hit. We in India have probably been hoodwinked by phoren suppliers about AA-2, R-60, R-77, and probably Matra Magic and as well. The reason why Amrikis make public statements about all the testing they do is precisely because the technology is difficult to perfect. I am sure SDREs can also understand that.

I have videos of about 4 separate AAM demos and only one has ever hit a flare. I had put that video up on BRF a long long time ago before the days of YouTube and broadband. That page is gone but I have the video somewhere.

member_22733 · Post by **member_22733** » 20 Mar 2016 09:14

Austin wrote:Havent seen any of the SAM or AAM exploding it warhead , think even Astra didnt , likely its a training round minus the warhead

I thought the test rounds would be instrumented and be full of data recording equipment. Telemetry can work to great extent, but nothing better than getting data from onboard sensors. Exploding a test missile is wasting data, i think.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 20 Mar 2016 09:23

Austin wrote:Havent seen any of the SAM or AAM exploding it warhead , think even Astra didnt , likely its a training round minus the warhead

Austin I have seen Chandipur on sea videos of Akash exploding

Here is a vayushakti 1999 video of an R-60 exploding on hitting a flare. It's the only AAM vs flare success video I have
(Animated gif on Twitter) - link below
https://twitter.com/bennedose/status/711416148873482240

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 20 Mar 2016 09:31

We make a big deal about missile launch warning systems and self protection systems that include jammers and flares. Why does anyone in the world use flares at all if IR missiles were not distracted by them.

I think it is probably a very human error to think that and IR sensor "sees" a flare as a pinpoint target to aim for. The resolution is not that high. The seeker "sees" a hot blotch. Speaking of hot blotches - let me repost this photo of MiG 29 flying faster than sound as seen by UAV IR camera at Vayushakti 2016 and ask questions
1. Why is the aircraft seen as a blotch and not as something we see with our eyes?
2. Why are those shockwave cones visible at all?

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 20 Mar 2016 09:31

shiv wrote:
Austin wrote:Havent seen any of the SAM or AAM exploding it warhead , think even Astra didnt , likely its a training round minus the warhead
Austin I have seen Chandipur on sea videos of Akash exploding

Here is a vayushakti 1999 video of an R-60 exploding on hitting a flare. It's the only AAM vs flare success video I have
(Animated gif on Twitter) - link below
https://twitter.com/bennedose/status/711416148873482240

Yes I have seen both the incident and very well recollect it but I am referring to Vayu Shakti specifically. R-60 is the only one seen so far with live warhead.

I think they are just being cautious with so many VIP's around even LGB drop was aborted due to weather but in real war situation they would be less hesitant.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 20 Mar 2016 09:40

As far as I know it they use up date expired munitions for these demos. The missiles are too expensive to be thrown away in demos to farting/snoring state governors. That said, all the dumb bombs used did explode - from Su-30s, Mirage, Jag and Hawk. So did the rockets.

I expect the Astra had no warhead and I am certain it was monitored by telemetry.

Gyan · Post by **Gyan** » 20 Mar 2016 11:11

A small missile also has a warhead with many times the explosive and fragmentation power of 155mm shells.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 20 Mar 2016 11:12

Singha wrote:good thing is IAF is desperate for astra, they very well know the aa12 and aa11 will face increasing reliability issues - so they will not be foot dragging on this.
emergency buy of aa10 has been made to tide things over.

aa11 missing a gently floating turkey of a flare in iron fist from 2km away is not a good sign imo. imagine a strike pilot with just 2 small AAMs..he can never be sure if they will work and thats all he has to defend with.

5 launches before the IAF trials commence. Check the other programs. There will be user assisted trials, user trials. Pre acceptance trials. Then post acceptance trials. Then servuce firings. In short, astra will be fired a lot but the first few trials will be the most d3cisive and carefully orchestrated with compkex testpoints. Also before these fligh trials significant subsystem testing in HILS.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 20 Mar 2016 11:15

Also five years more of tests is wrong. Ibdia will not spend st that rate for hardware for each test point. We cant afford it. We test multiple items per test flight and if thibgs go wrong it does make fault ID complex but it saves a lot.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 20 Mar 2016 11:20

Not at all sure that the R-73 missed. A piece of the flare breaks off when the missile passes by very close
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RPYFa_x1Lao

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 20 Mar 2016 11:24

And in fact i had posted all this way back about the extensive trials already done..

"But mk1 with aero performance roughly equal to R77 (range specs) & upgraded electronics.

Dec 12 - breakthrough tests
http://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/techno ... 236048.ece

April 13, August 13 - more tests in April, and captive trials continued in August. Captive trials with 3 phases to them.

http://www.sps-aviation.com/exclusive/? ... n-Su-30MKI

TOI snippet in July'13:
Quote:
"Finally, we changed the entire missile configuration. It has now undergone three successful ground trials. It then underwent captive flight trials in a Sukhoi-30MKI this April. We are over the hump now. We hope to actually fire it from a Sukhoi-30MKI by year-end," said Chander.
With these "developmental flight trials" slated to soon kick off, which will involve a battery of tests covering the entire flight envelope, the aim is to make Astra ready for induction by mid-2015 "if there are no further surprises", added the DRDO chief.

Dec 13, captive trials continue on Su-30, and these are the final ones before firing in 2014
http://www.sps-aviation.com/exclusive/? ... n-progress"

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 20 Mar 2016 11:36

I guess caution is used for IR missiles which go feral moment they are off the rails - a bad one could go anywhere even a vehicles engine heat vs a radar guided one where the launch plane can hold the leash and safely direct it. I think probably they use deactivated warhead for IR demos like this.

to avoid confusion they should mention this in the announcement.

srin · Post by **srin** » 20 Mar 2016 11:55

Singha wrote:I guess caution is used for IR missiles which go feral moment they are off the rails - a bad one could go anywhere even a vehicles engine heat vs a radar guided one where the launch plane can hold the leash and safely direct it. I think probably they use deactivated warhead for IR demos like this.

to avoid confusion they should mention this in the announcement.

That explanation makes a lot of sense. It is inconceivable to me that IAF wouldn't have rehearsed this or would have targeted the R-73 at the flare if it is incapable of working (eg: radio proximity fuse not detecting the flare).

member_28880 · Post by **member_28880** » 20 Mar 2016 12:09

Deleted

kit · Post by **kit** » 20 Mar 2016 12:14

Thats one question i had been meaning to ask for a while .. why use flares at all if modern imaging IR seekers can discriminate between the the target and the decoy flares ? .. now the new trend to use dual seekers like IIR and radar in new Israeli and Chinese AAM .. is it because they have a higher probability of intercept ?

member_28880 · Post by **member_28880** » 20 Mar 2016 12:19

Guys another farticle spotted.

http://www.newindianexpress.com/thesund ... 336062.ece

By Pradip R Sagar
Published: 20th Mar 2016 05:48:00 AM
NEW DELHI: There it is, the sound of another prestigious ‘Make in India’ product being blasted out of the sky. After 32 years and over `1,000 crore later, the Akash missile system, crafted by India’s white elephant DRDO to protect the country from possible aerial threats, has been declared a dud by the Indian Army.

Now, the army is shopping for a suitable alternative abroad by terming the indigenously developed missile as ‘inadequate to meet the army’s requirement in a desired time frame’.

The move not only exposes India’s missile defence vulnerability but also reveals the weakness in Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s pet ‘Make in India’ push. To counter Akash, Pakistan has recently inducted its FM-90 air defence missile system, procured from PLA China, while on eastern front, China has HQ-7.

This also brings into the shadow the fate and capability of India’s missile programme worth over Rs 70,000 crore, and over a dozen missiles. It also raises the question of relevance and affordability of the country’s premier defence research agency whose only notable successes have been packaged pickles or neem-based vaginal contraceptive cream.
Army headquarters is in process of acquiring nearly 2,000 air defence missiles to raise its two regiments with an estimated cost of `10,000 crore. On the basis of technical evaluation, three firms from Russia, Israel and Sweden are in competition to supply short-range missiles. In reply to The Sunday Standard, Army headquarters has claimed that the “targeted short-range surface-to-air missile (SRSAM) system is technologically and operationally superior to the Akash missile system, which DRDO took almost five years to develop.” Further, the cost of the targeted SRSAM project is 70 per cent of the Akash missile system.

In contract, in May 2015, Army Chief General Dalbir Singh Suhag was all praise for Akash missiles.

The cost of the targeted SRSAM project that the Indian Army is planning to acquire from abroad is 70 per cent of the Akash missile system.

In contract, in May 2015, Army Chief General Dalbir Singh Suhag, while inducting two regiments of Akash missiles, had said: “It is a matter of great pride for the nation that today indigenous state-of-the-art ‘Akash’ air defence weapon system is being inducted into the Indian Army. The capability that we have with this system will ensure that it takes care of vulnerability of our assets. Akash is a step towards self-realisation of indigenisation”.

Akash is an indigenously developed supersonic short range surface-to-air missile system with the capability to engage a wide variety of aerial threats like aircraft, helicopters and unmanned aerial vehicles up to a maximum range of 25 km and up to an altitude of 20 km.
The system, which has 96 per cent indigenisation, is capable of simultaneously engaging multiple targets in all weather conditions and is capable of providing comprehensive short-range missile cover to the vulnerable assets in the field force of the Army.

Akash is one of the five core missile systems of the integrated guided missile development programme, launched by DRDO in 1984.

The Army had initially ordered two Akash regiments, with six firing batteries of a project cost of `19,500 crore. But in less than a year, it has changed its opinion on the home-made missile.

“Army has proposed a composite approach of procuring SRSAM from globally and simultenously technological improvement of Akash missile system,” Army headquarters told The Sunday Standard.

When contacted, DRDO officials refused to comment on the army’s claim.

But if we go by facts Akash has already been inducted to Army and its not short range SAM, its a medium one.we have increased it's productivity to 100/mo recently. How and when the army gained the audacity to overturn a IAF's choice, when air defense is concerned.
How can ppl publish such atrocious thing in a national publication
The writer Pradip R Sagar had very old rancor against DRDO.

member_28802 · Post by **member_28802** » 20 Mar 2016 13:19

DDM. Paid journalism at its best. If you google you will find just 4 days ago there was an announcement that India is planning to double production of Akash SAM. If there was no demand, why the defense ministry will do that. And I guess this article is factually incorrect. Akash is not a SR SAM , it is almost in the boundary of a MR SAM. I guess defense lobbies are really upset on the news of doubling annual production of Akash.

http://indianexpress.com/article/india/ ... per-month/