Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 20 Mar 2016 13:44

You can make out the political nature of the article via the repeated snide refernces to Modi and Make In India. The glee at Modi somehow getting shown up is incredible. And everyone and his donkey knows IA wants a light SRSAM which is more mobile and complements the Akash. But will come with some performance restrictions.
Check out the comment on notable successes. What an idiotic comment and shows the gutter mentality of this chap.

Writetake used to be the defence person for NID and articles were higb quality. Now this chap is driving it down.

Kakarat · Post by **Kakarat** » 20 Mar 2016 13:51

GIF of DRDO Akash missile firing at Iron Fist 2016

https://twitter.com/kakarat2001/status/ ... 2107685888

Gyan · Post by **Gyan** » 20 Mar 2016 14:02

My estimate of costs:-

Akash Missile Squadron = Rs 714 Crores (with around ~ 125 missiles per squadron)

Barak-2 fake JV Squadron = Rs. approx Rs 2000 crores (with only ~55 missiles per squadron)

SRSAM imported squadron = Rs 1000 crores (with only ~55 missiles per squadron)

srai · Post by **srai** » 20 Mar 2016 14:40

Akash's engagement range between 3km and 30km doubles as a SR and MR SAM. So most of the SRSAM requirements are being met through Akash. LLQRSAM is another category for which a new system is needed and both the IA and IAF have RFI out there.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 20 Mar 2016 15:10

Those systems are a big deal because latest gen of missiles are IIR and dont get attracted to flares. R73E is older gen but still very capble two color seeker IIRC so conceivably Russians sold us flares which are designed for it. For IiR seekers only real targets will do.

shiv wrote: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?

srai · Post by **srai** » 20 Mar 2016 15:17

Flares are also evolving too.

John · Post by **John** » 20 Mar 2016 16:32

srai wrote:Akash's engagement range between 3km and 30km doubles as a SR and MR SAM. So most of the SRSAM requirements are being met through Akash. LLQRSAM is another category for which a new system is needed and both the IA and IAF have RFI out there.

Not quite you just illustrated the need for SR SAM, Akash has minimum range of 3 km which limits its point defense capability. This is quite valuable in protecting assets from PGM and low flying missiles.

Of course few missile system like barak 8 have a very small minimum range so its moot point. But you can make an argument barak 8 will be quite expensive you will still need SR SAM.

member_29350 · Post by **member_29350** » 20 Mar 2016 16:47

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.

This part had me chuckling at his profound ignorance.

And did you see the call to disband DRDO in "relevance and affordability of the country’s premier defence research agency"?

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 20 Mar 2016 17:29

A few paragraphs from the recent Janes write up Hypersonic hustle

INDIA: THE NEW KID ON THE BLOCK

India's BrahMos missile programme commenced in 1998 following an agreement for joint development with Russia. Under this agreement, the principal partners are Russia's NPO Mashinostroyeniya and India's Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO).

The first variant - a supersonic, radar-guided cruise missile - features a two-stage design and utilises solid-rocket propulsion in the first stage that accelerates the missile to supersonic speeds, while the second stage employs a liquid-fuelled ramjet that takes the missile to Mach 2.8. In effect it is an Indian-made variant of the Russian Yakhont missile.

While BrahMos has been delivered to India's air force, army and navy, the decision to undertake development of the hypersonic version of the missile - BrahMos-II - was not taken until 2009, and again is a joint venture between the original partners.

BrahMos-II (Kulam) is being developed to fly at speeds in excess of Mach 6 and offer increased precision over BrahMos A, it will have a maximum range of 290 km - this is limited by the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR), to which Russia is a signatory and restricts it from developing missiles with a range of more than 300 km for partner nations. To enable the high speed, BrahMos-II will utilise a scramjet engine and according to a number of sources Russian industry is developing a bespoke fuel formula for the engine.

A key design decision was for BrahMos-II to maintain the physical parameters of the earlier variant, therefore enabling the new missile to utilise the launchers and other infrastructure already developed.

The target set outlined for the new variant is hardened targets, such as underground bunkers and weapon storage facilities.

A scale model of BrahMos-II was showcased at the Aero India exhibition in 2013, and testing of a prototype is set to commence in 2017. Speaking in August 2015, Brahmos Aerospace's CEO, Sudhir Kumar Mishra, said that the exact configuration is yet to be finalised and that a full prototype is not expected to be ready until 2022.

One of the main problems identified in the development of BrahMos-II is how to build the missile so it can withstand the extreme temperatures and forces generated during hypersonic flight. Among the challenges in this area is finding the most suitable materials from which to fabricate the missile.

The DRDO is believed to be investing around USD250 million in the development of the hypersonic missile, and work to date has included testing of the scramjet engine at the Hyderabad-based Advanced Systems Laboratory - where speeds of Mach 5.26 have reportedly been achieved in a wind tunnel. Further testing of the DRDO's Hypersonic Technology Demonstrator Vehicle - a technology demonstrator for the BrahMos-II - is taking place at the Indian Institute of Science in Bangalore, where a hypersonic wind tunnel is playing a key role in simulating the speeds necessary to test various elements of the missile's design.

It is understood that the hypersonic missile will only be supplied to India and Russia and not available for export.

shaun · Post by **shaun** » 20 Mar 2016 17:31

SR SAM can be catered with ground launched version of Astra. Is there any proposal already ??

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 20 Mar 2016 17:40

doubtful whether flares will work against a latest gen IIR missile...it goes by image processing of the aircraft planform and not heat signature alone...

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 20 Mar 2016 17:56

There is little doubt that the future of IR countermeasures in combat fighters (much like other aircraft) is directed. Flares will stay since they work against older systems but will also be a factor in working alongside directed options for maximum effect. The race is on to develop and integrate directed options with the integration posing significant challenges for supersonic, manuvering fighter aircraft.

http://aviationweek.com/defense/northro ... ammer-f-35

member_24684 · Post by **member_24684** » 20 Mar 2016 19:21

Gyan wrote:
Barak-2 fake JV Squadron = Rs. approx Rs 2000 crores (with only ~55 missiles per squadron)

How .. 40% of the parts in Barak 8 is from India, even it's not fully operational or we yet to start massive production

on the other side, Brahmos has only 35% of indigenous content, which was manufactured in India

member_28108 · Post by **member_28108** » 20 Mar 2016 19:53

Saurav Jha ‏@SJha1618
Astra's seeker has been successfully indigenized. Expect a major production run for this missile.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 20 Mar 2016 23:04

Shaun wrote:SR SAM can be catered with ground launched version of Astra. Is there any proposal already ??

QRSAM

Gyan · Post by **Gyan** » 20 Mar 2016 23:17

Akash has faster average speed due to Ramjet therefore it's effective kill range would be at least twice a conventional missile.

hanumadu · Post by **hanumadu** » 20 Mar 2016 23:28

prasannasimha wrote:Saurav Jha ‏@SJha1618
Astra's seeker has been successfully indigenized. Expect a major production run for this missile.

If we can make Astra's seeker, why cant we make Barak 8 or Brahmos seeker? IIRC G Sateesh Reddy claimed that India will be self sufficient in seeker technology in 2-3 years. Can't find the link to it, though.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 21 Mar 2016 00:07

Brahmos seeker progress is posted on prior page. Barak8 seeker is more powerful than Astra one.

srai · Post by **srai** » 21 Mar 2016 03:14

John wrote:
srai wrote:Akash's engagement range between 3km and 30km doubles as a SR and MR SAM. So most of the SRSAM requirements are being met through Akash. LLQRSAM is another category for which a new system is needed and both the IA and IAF have RFI out there.
Not quite you just illustrated the need for SR SAM, Akash has minimum range of 3 km which limits its point defense capability. This is quite valuable in protecting assets from PGM and low flying missiles.

Of course few missile system like barak 8 have a very small minimum range so its moot point. But you can make an argument barak 8 will be quite expensive you will still need SR SAM.

SAMs are not deployed in the manner where they sit right in middle of what they are protecting. With 30 Km range, an Akash battery and its launchers could be placed say 5km or 10km from the center of an airbase and that would give you the 0km minimum range you desire on top of that airbase

Besides, it is possible to engage a PGM (one that is non-low terrain hugging cruise missile like LGB or glide bomb) much further away.

For cruise missile defense, there is that need for low-level quick reaction missile (LLQRM) and for which there are separate tenders issued out there. There are also gun-based defences like C-RAM mounted on trucks or stand-alone units, and these would be a more cost-effective solution for point defence against swarm PGM attacks.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 21 Mar 2016 08:27

srai wrote:<SNIP> SAMs are not deployed in the manner where they sit right in middle of what they are protecting. With 30 Km range, an Akash battery and its launchers could be placed say 5km or 10km from the center of an airbase and that would give you the 0km minimum range you desire on top of that airbase <SNIP>

IAF air bases have prepared sites or designated areas where the SAM missile are placed. It is pretty easy to make that up by looking at satellite image of most air bases.

Second, the launcher configuration of IAF Akash version clearly isn't meant to travel beyond paved roads. So, the argument of placing them x km from the base does not hold. Unless, the position has been prepared well in advance to support the deployment.

srai · Post by **srai** » 21 Mar 2016 10:17

^^^

Yes, the IAF airbases usually have an area with prepared SAM sites. That was for static Pechora SAM deployment with very limited mobility. Static sites are vulnerable to DEAD attacks since the location is well know. Even then, I've seen photos of Pechoras deployed to what seems like outside airbases.

Given that each IAF SAM squadron is made of two flights (plus a technical one), it is highly likely one of them would be deployed in the surrounding vicinity along threat axis. While Akash AAFL may not be a true all-terrain vehicle, it is still a lot more mobile than a Pechora system. Surrounding areas would be accessible. An Akash battery can be located at a maximum distance of 30km from GCC (or SCC). But like most SAM systems (and artillery systems), ground scouting and some ground preparation will be required ahead of time.

Here's a video of AAFL undergoing mobility testing (some of it is on dirt roads and 100mm corrugated test track) with the launchers rotating. Wondering if they can fire directly from the trailer or not? Edited later: Yes watch @7:08. Launchers still on the truck/trailer when missile fired.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 21 Mar 2016 14:31

The news of Akash being shot out of the sky is hilarious as on the same day news hits us about thoussands of crores about to be spent on setting up a new missile testing range for the DRDO at Chitradurga. We will spend thousands upon thousands of crores on dveeloping new missiles...like Akash,only for them when they eventually arrive to be bought in minute quantities if at all!

Yagnasri · Post by **Yagnasri** » 21 Mar 2016 14:42

Chitradurga? I thought it is going to be in AP north coast. Chitradurga is not having any sea coast.

member_28108 · Post by **member_28108** » 21 Mar 2016 21:23

Challakere in Chitradurga district.

kit · Post by **kit** » 21 Mar 2016 21:48

@ Brar .. isnt the US airforce now looking at hard kill options to defeat the future Russian and Chinese AAM s ? Quite probably the defensive ECCMs and flares may not live to its potential !

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 21 Mar 2016 21:55

kit wrote:@ Brar .. isnt the US airforce now looking at hard kill options to defeat the future Russian and Chinese AAM s ? Quite probably the defensive ECCMs and flares may not live to its potential !

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=7088&p=1995630#p1995630

member_29190 · Post by **member_29190** » 21 Mar 2016 23:37

srai wrote:^^^
Given that each IAF SAM squadron is made of two flights (plus a technical one), it is highly likely one of them would be deployed in the surrounding vicinity along threat axis. While Akash AAFL may not be a true all-terrain vehicle, it is still a lot more mobile than a Pechora system. Surrounding areas would be accessible. An Akash battery can be located at a maximum distance of 30km from GCC (or SCC). But like most SAM systems (and artillery systems), ground scouting and some ground preparation will be required ahead of time.

If I place the missile batteries 20KM forward of the GCC, the missile can hit at 35+20KM from the GCC. The missile will suddenly pop when the target is even at 55KM from the radar.

I dont if there is a "boot time" for Akash radars, but If Akash batteries are interconnected then you can have a string of GCC creating a on/off mechanism with the target not sure where the missile will come from.

For a BUK system, given that the radar & missile are on one place, being 40KM from the radar is pretty safe. But not in the Akash.

If DRDO extends it further by linking Akash with bigger radars, then it can be really deadly.

Imagine 300KM ranged radars queing akash and each target allocated 3-4 missiles ! Our own little S400...

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 22 Mar 2016 02:33

Extreme long range radars don't work optimally when terrain and/or enemy isn't very cooperative, particularly when you are protecting a wide area. They are great however for fending off tactically important areas at stand off ranges with the right interceptors for such a role. With Short-medium ranged defenses, it is wiser to go with multiple dispersed radars that can overcome the horizon issues and cover more area plus provide a significantly more complicated Anti access challenge.. At 3m (radar antenna), for a target flying at 10,000 ft. the radar horizon is under 250 km..its even less if you are flying lower or have terrain to help you out..If you want to target using a radar/SAM combo an aircraft from 300 km, that aircraft (assuming a radar is 3m above the ground) needs to be above 15,000 ft. Even if triple the radar mast you would still need a similar altitude for the target aircraft. This is obviously before we get into targeting and how a particular missile/SAM and acquisition radar work together. Unless there are other plans, having a sensor radar coverage many many times that over the SAM is a rather poor allocation of resources (unless one has other uses for the radar such as ballistic missile defense) when protecting an infrastructure asset or even defending an air-base for example...

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 22 Mar 2016 06:53

nit wrote:
If I place the missile batteries 20KM forward of the GCC, the missile can hit at 35+20KM from the GCC. The missile will suddenly pop when the target is even at 55KM from the radar.

What is forward and what is back? Intruders can fly around an attack from the back or sides

Prem Kumar · Post by **Prem Kumar** » 22 Mar 2016 09:03

Sorry if this sounds ignorant. But what exact benefit does the QRSAM or LLQRSAM offer that the Akash doesn't? Isn't Akash somewhere between an SRSAM and an MRSAM + mobile?

Even for the Navy, if Barak-8's min engagement envelope is very low, what's the need for a new missile type? Is it for ships which will not have the Barak installed?

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 22 Mar 2016 09:14

Saurav Jha ‏@SJha1618 18h18 hours ago New Delhi, India

The Air force withdrew its hand in the Maitri SR-SAM project because it felt that the Akash fulfills its SR AD needs anyway.
9 retweets 6 likes

Sid · Post by **Sid** » 22 Mar 2016 09:15

shiv wrote:
nit wrote:
If I place the missile batteries 20KM forward of the GCC, the missile can hit at 35+20KM from the GCC. The missile will suddenly pop when the target is even at 55KM from the radar.
What is forward and what is back? Intruders can fly around an attack from the back or sides

To fly around they should know where it is in the first place. All they can passively detect is the surveillance/tracking radar. IAF air defenses are not stationary. Fly too low and Ack ack will get them, fly too high and SAMs will knock them down.

Only US has shown complete mastery in achieving air dominance during start of their campaigns. But they have platforms to support this vision, JSTARS/AWACS/Apache/

srai · Post by **srai** » 22 Mar 2016 11:36

shiv wrote:
nit wrote:
If I place the missile batteries 20KM forward of the GCC, the missile can hit at 35+20KM from the GCC. The missile will suddenly pop when the target is even at 55KM from the radar.
What is forward and what is back? Intruders can fly around an attack from the back or sides

With mobile system like Akash, each battery can be placed anywhere within 30km (geography permitting) from GCC, which can control 4 to 8 batteries. Each AF Akash squadron consists of 2 combat flights (or batteries). These could be moved around for element of surprise and placed in most likely ingress and egress points for maximum effect.

In the Falklands war, the Royal Navy used SAM pickets, consisting of a destroyer (w/ LRSAM) and a frigate (w/ SRSAM), to deadly effect. They would place them at likely egress point where the Argentinian aircraft after their low-level attack on RN landing ships would gain altitude (in order to conserve fuel) for their return home journey. That is when the RN's destroyers armed with long-ranged Sea Dart would shoot them down. Argentinians had to make concerted efforts to take these SAM pickets out.

srai · Post by **srai** » 22 Mar 2016 11:56

Prem Kumar wrote:Sorry if this sounds ignorant. But what exact benefit does the QRSAM or LLQRSAM offer that the Akash doesn't? Isn't Akash somewhere between an SRSAM and an MRSAM + mobile?

Even for the Navy, if Barak-8's min engagement envelope is very low, what's the need for a new missile type? Is it for ships which will not have the Barak installed?

Low-level Quick Reaction Missile (LLQRM) are designed more specifically to take on terrain-hugging cruise missiles (and possibly other low-flying aircraft) that show up on the radars much closer to their intended targets. The reaction time for defensive system is not much. They need to have reaction time (detection/lock-on/firing) of less than 5-10 seconds. I think Akash's reaction time is around 10-15 seconds.

Secondly, the LLQRM needs to be able to intercept targets flying very very low (less than 30 meters [100 feet]). The minimum engagement height of Akash is around 30 meters. To increase effectiveness, LLQRM would need to have some of its sensor assets on a aerostat-type of platform with look-down radars.

As far as Navy goes, Barak-8 will be installed on larger platforms, such as destroyers, frigates and aircraft carriers, with long-ranged sensors. SRSAM would be installed on smaller-sized ships i.e. corvettes. Like Barak-8, they would also need to be able to intercept sea-skimming anti-ship missiles. Due to its smaller footprint, SRSAM could also double up on destroyers and frigates as secondary SAM system.

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 22 Mar 2016 14:29

Doesnt the Akash Fire control radar Rajendra have a 64KM range for locking on to a target, so technically an Akash battery can launch a missile being placed around 39Km from the Rajendra radar.

member_29190 · Post by **member_29190** » 22 Mar 2016 15:07

shiv wrote:
nit wrote:
If I place the missile batteries 20KM forward of the GCC, the missile can hit at 35+20KM from the GCC. The missile will suddenly pop when the target is even at 55KM from the radar.
What is forward and what is back? Intruders can fly around an attack from the back or sides

In a general scenario, I agree.

I was having the Indo-Pak border in my mind when I said forward. Missiles closer to the border, radar much further back.

In theory Akash should not have to chase a target. Most of the time it will in-coming.

member_29190 · Post by **member_29190** » 22 Mar 2016 15:11

brar_w wrote:Extreme long range radars don't work optimally when terrain and/or enemy isn't very cooperative, particularly when you are protecting a wide area. They are great however for fending off tactically important areas at stand off ranges with the right interceptors for such a role. With Short-medium ranged defenses, it is wiser to go with multiple dispersed radars that can overcome the horizon issues and cover more area plus provide a significantly more complicated Anti access challenge.. At 3m (radar antenna), for a target flying at 10,000 ft. the radar horizon is under 250 km..its even less if you are flying lower or have terrain to help you out..If you want to target using a radar/SAM combo an aircraft from 300 km, that aircraft (assuming a radar is 3m above the ground) needs to be above 15,000 ft. Even if triple the radar mast you would still need a similar altitude for the target aircraft. This is obviously before we get into targeting and how a particular missile/SAM and acquisition radar work together. Unless there are other plans, having a sensor radar coverage many many times that over the SAM is a rather poor allocation of resources (unless one has other uses for the radar such as ballistic missile defense) when protecting an infrastructure asset or even defending an air-base for example...

Wouldn't this be a problem for systems like S-400 as well.

How about AWACS cueing Akash?

Given that Akash is command guided/ datalinked, it is a really good option against mass targets like Cruise Missiles. If an AESA AWACS( or any radar which is able to lock on multiple targets) is able guide Akash from sort of pre-stored missile repositories, it will be a force multiplier.

jamwal · Post by **jamwal** » 22 Mar 2016 16:26

From Iron Fist 2016

srai · Post by **srai** » 22 Mar 2016 16:35

Aditya_V wrote:Doesnt the Akash Fire control radar Rajendra have a 64KM range for locking on to a target, so technically an Akash battery can launch a missile being placed around 39Km from the Rajendra radar.

AFAIR, Akash launcher to Rajendra FCR can be a max distance of 0.5km. But Rajendra FCR to GCC can be up to 30km away.

RoyG · Post by **RoyG** » 25 Mar 2016 08:44

Read somewhere that a secondary guidance mode is being considered for Akash along with a range increase to 30-35 km.

An IR TV Camera was installed onto later versions of the Straight Flush radar on the Sa-6 system. That way you could fire the missile while under jamming or threat from anti-radiation missiles.

Wondering if this could be added onto ours.

What are the advantages/disadvantages of command guidance of Akash vs SAH on the Sa-6?