Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

member_28840 · Post by **member_28840** » 26 May 2016 18:48

Was there a missile test or an ABM test in the vicinity of Chennai this morning.
We spotted two rocket / missile launches in differing directions that left contrails in the sky.
A coworker saw the missile and could spot the flame trails going straight up, so this is very likely not left by jets.

"Missile" one was launched north east to south east
"Missile" two was launched east to west. (this is what has me convinced it was a missile since east of Chennai is the Bay of Bengal and possibly a navy Dhanush / K4 / K15 launch)

Would love to know what this was, if anyone has any ideas please let me know.

here is a picture I took of the contrail crisscrossing in the sky about 10 minutes after the launch.

link to image: http://imgur.com/8OqNF7j

Kakarat · Post by **Kakarat** » 26 May 2016 19:11

The possibility of missile test near Chennai is very remote, since missile tests are never conducted in populated areas. Can you tell in which part of Chennai was the photo taken?

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 26 May 2016 20:53

India completes price negotiation for Israeli Spike ATGMs
IHS Jane's

India's Ministry of Defence (MoD) has completed price negotiations with Israel's Rafael Advanced Defence Systems for Spike anti-tank guided missile (ATGM) systems for the Indian Army for an estimated USD1 billion. Industry sources said on 26 May that the MoD's contract negotiation committee concluded consultations to acquire 275 launchers and 5,500 Spike missiles in completed and kit form along with an undisclosed number of simulators.

The deal also includes a technology transfer to India's state-owned Bharat Dynamics Limited (BDL) to build another 1,500 systems and around 30,000 additional missiles.

The contract for the manportable, fire-and-forget ATGMs featuring third-generation active/passive guidance systems, and a top-attack capability is likely to be confirmed before or during the visit of Israeli president Reuven Rivlin to India later this year, official sources said.

Deliveries are expected to be completed 48-60 months thereafter, while BDL will continue to licence-build the Spike for the next 20-25 years.

India's Kalyani Strategic Systems, which signed a joint venture with Rafael in February 2015, will also be involved in the Spike ATGM contract, supplying components and subassemblies from a newly erected facility in Hyderabad.

In 2009 the MoD approved the acquisition of 1,914 ATGM launchers and 37,860 missiles, including training rounds and 107 simulators, through direct imports and licensed manufacture to equip the Indian Army's 359-odd infantry battalions.

Rafael's Spike was the only ATGM to undergo user trials in 2010-11. Consequently over 50 of these guided missiles with a strike range of between 800 m and 4 km were tested and approved by the Indian Army.

The MoD has since continually deferred the Spike procurement on the grounds that it would be a single-vendor purchase, which since 2002 has largely been discouraged under successive editions of the Defence Procurement Procedure (DPP).

However, pressure from the army, which operates licence-built Soviet-era wire-guided 9M113 Konkurs as well as French MILAN and MILAN 2T ATGMs, fast-tracked their procurement.

Meanwhile, the Indian Army is also poised to acquire the shortlisted Rafael/Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI)-designed Spyder quick-reaction surface-to-air missile (QR-SAM) system following trials in 2013-14 that featured rival systems from Sweden and Russia.

Official sources said the army is seeking to acquire at least two Spyder regiments of around 1,000 missiles to supplement two regiments of the indigenously designed Akash (Sky) SAM system with around 2,000 missiles, which were inducted into the army in 2015.

The Spyder system, which comprises Python and Derby missiles, is likely to be employed by the army's four offensive formations or 'strike corps' to provide greater battlefield flexibility and better protection from aerial threats.

The Akash, on the other hand, would be tasked primarily with protecting static or defensive establishments, as it has limited mobility and a longer response time.

Once inducted, the Spike system is expected to supplement India's indigenously developed Nag (Snake) ATGM that the state-run Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) has been designing for nearly 33 years.

In 2010-11 the army only partially accepted the Nag, which has a 3-5 km range, and the accompanying tracked Namica vehicles from which it is fired. The army had ordered 443 Nags and 13 Namicas but their induction has been delayed by several years due to technological problems.

Accordingly, the DRDO has approached Rafael in a bid to procure seeker heads for fitting onto the Nag. The move came after France's Thales, which had previously supplied them, declined to transfer technology to India to locally manufacture the crucial component.

Procuring Spike systems is another priority for the army, as it is seeking to mount them onto around 1,000-odd Russian BMP-2/2K 'Sarath' infantry combat vehicles (ICVs), which are awaiting an upgrade.

The Israeli ATGM is also likely to be fitted onto the army's Future Infantry Combat Vehicle (FICV), which is in the early stages of being indigenously designed.

srai · Post by **srai** » 27 May 2016 02:19

^^^

Given the IA's past practices, once it gets it hands on a foreign import (that too in volume) indigenous efforts get put on "hold" with endless rounds of trials and limited orders. There is now no need for MANPAT that DRDO has been working on. Even need for NAG/NAMICA is questionable. So while the purchase of Israeli Spike ATGM is good for the IA it is not so for various indigenous anti-tank missile efforts.

srai · Post by **srai** » 27 May 2016 06:14

...

Meanwhile, the Indian Army is also poised to acquire the shortlisted Rafael/Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI)-designed Spyder quick-reaction surface-to-air missile (QR-SAM) system following trials in 2013-14 that featured rival systems from Sweden and Russia.

Official sources said the army is seeking to acquire at least two Spyder regiments of around 1,000 missiles to supplement two regiments of the indigenously designed Akash (Sky) SAM system with around 2,000 missiles, which were inducted into the army in 2015.

The Spyder system, which comprises Python and Derby missiles, is likely to be employed by the army's four offensive formations or 'strike corps' to provide greater battlefield flexibility and better protection from aerial threats.

The Akash, on the other hand, would be tasked primarily with protecting static or defensive establishments, as it has limited mobility and a longer response time.
...

Looking at the launch vehicles, can anyone tell me why a Spyder system would be more mobile than an Akash one?

Previous T-72 variant:

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 27 May 2016 06:54

Because SPYDER is imported and Akash is not.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 27 May 2016 09:20

Was the Akash system designed to be mobile with an attacking Indian force? What about Spyder?

The reason for choosing the Spyder appears to be because the Akash is suitable for staic targets like Army/Air Force bases.

Does anyone know?

member_28840 · Post by **member_28840** » 27 May 2016 09:27

Kakarat wrote:The possibility of missile test near Chennai is very remote, since missile tests are never conducted in populated areas. Can you tell in which part of Chennai was the photo taken?

Saidapet, Chennai.
One usually can see Sriharikota launches from here, and I suppose it could have been a sounding rocket if it came from that direction.
But the problem is the contrail of the second launch starts a little to the south east. Which could only suggest naval launch.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 27 May 2016 09:55

shiv wrote:Was the Akash system designed to be mobile with an attacking Indian force? What about Spyder?

The reason for choosing the Spyder appears to be because the Akash is suitable for staic targets like Army/Air Force bases.

Does anyone know?

Having followed Akash program since IGMDP days , Akash from day 1 was designed as mobile system , it was similar to the cancelled US corpsam program. Hence you find Akash systems on BMP tracked chassis and latter they even moved to wheeled system like truck , Army asked for better mobility hence T-72 chassis. The delay in Akash program which was suppose to come in early , mig-90's was due to its PAR which was something new DRDO develop from scratch and later the requirement for mobility was also changed for armed forces. IIRC the Akash missile was ready much earlier and that itself has went through some changes , Remember in late 80's Akash was a much fatter missile then what is it now

I dont know what was Spyder system but the key difference is their Guidance system , Akash is command guidance system which guides the missile till the end of engagement while Spyder has both Active and Passive IIR guidance system which makes it some what autonomous

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 27 May 2016 10:06

for what it brings to table akash is cheap due to no onboard seeker. spyder system has IIR and radar seekers which drive up per missile cost while saving on ground radars.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 27 May 2016 10:08

On mobility of Akash, I agree with Austin. The launchers built by Tata Power SED are mounted on 8x8 Tatra trucks supplied by BEML. The IAF version of Akash does not need mobility as it has to defend fixed targets like airports, hangars etc while the Army version needs mobility to support advancing columns against air attack.

The six rounds fired in two consecutive days in the April 2016 tests by the Army were a resounding success when all of them hit bulls eye. “There were different missions in different altitudes and different ranges. Starting from approaching and receding to crossing at small range, high range, lower altitude and higher altitude, the missile had a wonderful demonstration,” Project Director of Akash G Chandramouli claimed.

In c. 2014, a deal was signed between DRDO and Honeywell Corp. to install the latter’s TALIN 2000 (Tactical Advanced Land Inertial Navigator) which can guide a weapon to hit a designated target with near-zero error.

So, I don't know why Spyder now.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 27 May 2016 10:15

Singha wrote:for what it brings to table akash is cheap due to no onboard seeker. spyder system has IIR and radar seekers which drive up per missile cost while saving on ground radars.

true , Akash is suppose to be cost-effective mass produce missile , the ramjet also makes it effective in dealing in end game because it is propelled all the way and does not resort to coasting.

srai · Post by **srai** » 27 May 2016 14:14

shiv wrote:Was the Akash system designed to be mobile with an attacking Indian force? What about Spyder?

The reason for choosing the Spyder appears to be because the Akash is suitable for staic targets like Army/Air Force bases.

Does anyone know?

If the Akash wasn't designed to be mobile then why all the mounting of its radars, command vehicles and missile launchers on high mobility vehicles from its inception (i.e. BMP-2 -> T-72 -> Tatra 8 x 8 )? The IAF version too is pretty mobile being mounted on easily transportable trailer configuration.

Akash is an area weapon when deployed in a Group mode (2 to 4 troops/batteries) supported by 150km 3-D CAR and 60+km TCRs. Those ranges should be enough for 10-15 sec reaction time for missile launches at targets flying within 30km from it. (An aircraft would have traveled maybe at most around 5-7km during those 15 seconds and it would be tracked from 150km onwards ... firing solution is at 30km and is fully automated. Isn't that plenty of time for the operator to have "chai-biscuit" before getting around to pressing the big red "MARO" button? ) Given an Akash Troop could be as far as 30km from a Group CC with 3-D CAR and can also operate autonomously with its own TCC and TCR, it would be possible to provide continuous coverage of a formation in a group mode where part of the group move up and setup while other troops stay put and provide coverage. That's how most SAM systems operate. If one wants a really "track-and-fire-on-the-move" SAM system then those would be more like 2K22 Tunguska tracked SP AA.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 27 May 2016 14:18

I have seen nowhere that Elta radar on SpyDer can track or search on move either.
IA I suspect will come up with statements on "quick to deploy" etc, since its after all only one radar (that too a short range one) as versus the complex systems on Akash.

sum · Post by **sum** » 27 May 2016 14:43

^^ So all the user tests which IA made DRDO come up with few months back at ITR still didnt satisfy them enough?

kit · Post by **kit** » 27 May 2016 14:46

Karan M wrote:I have seen nowhere that Elta radar on SpyDer can track or search on move either.
IA I suspect will come up with statements on "quick to deploy" etc, since its after all only one radar (that too a short range one) as versus the complex systems on Akash.

maybe one radar provides more mobility than multiple redundant ones ?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 27 May 2016 15:47

kit wrote:Maybe one radar provides more mobility than multiple redundant ones ?

That is certain

One radar is fewer targets for the enemy and less logistics and maintenance issues. However it also means only 1 ARM is needed to knock it out. A networked set of "Low intercept probability" radars would be more defendable -- I guess..

fanne · Post by **fanne** » 27 May 2016 16:26

It is an easier explanation. Indians have never won a medal in mobility in Olympics where as Israelis have, no point for guessing system build by which country is mobile.

A Sharma · Post by **A Sharma** » 27 May 2016 17:34

BrahMos supersonic missile’s land version successfully test-fired by Indian Air Force

New Delhi: The Indian Airforce successfully test-fired an advanced version of BrahMos land-attack supersonic cruise missile on Friday.

As per reports, the supersonic cruise missile was test-fired at 1200 hrs at the Pokhran field firing range in Rajasthan's Jaisalmer district.

The flight conducted today met its mission parameters in a copybook manner and the weapon hit and annihilated the designated target, officials confirmed.

BrahMos is the world’s fastest anti-ship cruise missile developed jointly by India and Russia.

BrahMos is a short-range ramjet supersonic cruise missile that can be launched from submarines, ships, aircraft or land. The name BrahMos is a portmanteau formed from the names of two rivers, the Brahmaputra of India and the Moskva of Russia.

The missile has a range of 290 km, has a maximum velocity of 2.8 Mach and cruises at altitudes varying from 10 metres to 15 km, claims BrahMos.

The land-attack version of BrahMos is fitted on an mobile autonomous launcher. The mobile land-based configuration of has achieved several advancements over the years in the form of Block I, Block II and Block III variants.

It is also capable of being launched from submarine from a depth of 40-50 metres. In 2013, it was successfully launched from a submerged platform. Meanwhile, BrahMos air-launched version is getting ready to be soon be test-flown from the Su-30MKI fighter of the IAF.

srai · Post by **srai** » 27 May 2016 17:35

Looks like the SPYDER-SR launch vehicle may also have its own ELOP.

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 27 May 2016 19:16

It is the product of media frenzy. It is a Perfect case of much ado about nothing, and a case study to see how lifafa mechanism works.

Right from the beginning, IA has two set of requirements.

One set which is titled as SRSAM is met by Akash.

Another set which is titled as QRSAM, expects cross-country mobility along with, pls note, active or passive seekers. This is specified from day 1 when the request was floated.

Becoz of seeker requirement, you see, right from day 1 Akash is not meant for QRSAM. Then,how can media claim IA chose something over Akash for QRSAM requirement. Either they should be ill-literate or with twisted mind following their own agenda.

If Akash even qualify for QRSAM requirement of IA, why should drdo is working on a separate project named QRSAM.

It is becoz of the seekers
that IA has chosen Sypders.

Mobility, stability and any -ty are just media's confability.

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 27 May 2016 19:36

xave wrote:Was there a missile test or an ABM test in the vicinity of Chennai this morning.
We spotted two rocket / missile launches in differing directions that left contrails in the sky.
A coworker saw the missile and could spot the flame trails going straight up, so this is very likely not left by jets.

"Missile" one was launched north east to south east
"Missile" two was launched east to west. (this is what has me convinced it was a missile since east of Chennai is the Bay of Bengal and possibly a navy Dhanush / K4 / K15 launch)

Would love to know what this was, if anyone has any ideas please let me know.

here is a picture I took of the contrail crisscrossing in the sky about 10 minutes after the launch.

link to image: http://imgur.com/8OqNF7j

Contrails look so low. How do you know it is missile/rocket and not just jets, any visual identification or just sound.
But I agree with you. Many times, down south of Sriharikota, people along sea shore witnessed such events.

Kakarat · Post by **Kakarat** » 27 May 2016 20:10

xave wrote:
Kakarat wrote:The possibility of missile test near Chennai is very remote, since missile tests are never conducted in populated areas. Can you tell in which part of Chennai was the photo taken?
Saidapet, Chennai.
One usually can see Sriharikota launches from here, and I suppose it could have been a sounding rocket if it came from that direction.
But the problem is the contrail of the second launch starts a little to the south east. Which could only suggest naval launch.

Saidapet is in almost middle of the city and the possibility of missile test or even sounding rocket flying over it is impossible, Satellite launches could be seen because of the height at which they fly and even they don't fly over the city

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 27 May 2016 21:58

kit wrote:
Karan M wrote:I have seen nowhere that Elta radar on SpyDer can track or search on move either.
IA I suspect will come up with statements on "quick to deploy" etc, since its after all only one radar (that too a short range one) as versus the complex systems on Akash.
maybe one radar provides more mobility than multiple redundant ones ?

Its easy to pack up and move a less capable system. Compare this surveillance set up
http://www.iai.co.il/sip_storage/files/7/35407.pdf

To this:
http://www.frontline.in/static/html/fl2 ... 309803.jpg

Basically, the SpyDer gets away with using a less capable radar since the end game is done by the seekers.

Its no surprise that BAMSE got rejected. Its like a mirror image of the Akash model but with less capable systems.

Tor - IA probably doesn't want a SLOS/CLOS system but a fire and forget one.

But the SpyDer is by no means a truly mobile system.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 27 May 2016 22:08

One poster asks a genuine question about need for SPYDER and everyone else is trying to force fit what they know to somehow show the decision in poor light. From some outrageous comments to the usual 'Army prefers foreign product' BS. And again, except for one person, no one tried to understand the basic of the requirement for such a missile in first place.

There was a time when some of replies here would've invited outright bans but alas, this is the new and improved BRF were everyone is ahead of the curve!

Gyan · Post by **Gyan** » 27 May 2016 22:11

Akash missile has bigger foot print, longer range and 3 times cheaper missile than Spyder. But this requirement of seeker and reaction time has been created just like cabin height requirement for Agusta was created.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 27 May 2016 22:19

Bar the hyperbole, the discussion here is mostly accurate.

Gist is the IA has gone for a light system which is more mobile in terms of deployment than akash since it has seeker equipped missiles, which are less dependent on powerful radars. So less vehicles overall, less logistics.

On the cons side, expensive missiles & the SpyDer RF missile portion can be jammed more easily than say a powerful GBAD system. However, IA can get around that by using EO cueing & minimizing target awareness. Python-5 gives good redundancy.

Not a truly mobile system though, since it will need to fire from halt.

Just hope it works and we get a good logistics package to ensure what we buy remains viable.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 27 May 2016 22:23

Gyan wrote:Akash missile has bigger foot print, longer range and 3 times cheaper missile than Spyder. But this requirement of seeker and reaction time has been created just like cabin height requirement for Agusta was created.

The forum jester is back with this usual nonsensical rants!

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 27 May 2016 22:28

This is SAAB BAMSE.
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-YmI4sQP0I5Y/U ... 728226.jpg

Replace Giraffe with 3D CAR, and those little FCRs on the trucks with a centralized TLR, and this is basically the Akash design. Only pro is higher mobility/autonomy with each TELAR having the R, but less capable units than a TLR.

This is Tor.
http://www.military-today.com/missiles/tor.htm
Great mobility, armoured/tracked vehicle. But range of surveillance radar is less than that of BAMSE and SpyDer and it can't fire and forget. Neither can BAMSE, but SpyDer can.

SpyDer, a 60km surveillance radar, coupled with TELARs with no R but EO balls and fire & forget missiles. Probably that EO ball has a LRF (ranging).
Question is whether it can search or track on move. That I suspect, it can't.

Most probably needs feeds from other static systems such as this one, which IA may deploy behind moving units and try to feed the data to moving units.

Anyhow, clearly no system probably meets all of IAs needs. Unless IAI demonstrated search on move, track on move.

Hope IA shows sufficient foresight and works with DRDO/BDL for QRSAM for bulk of its needs.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 27 May 2016 22:41

Three windows. One will be IR, one will be CCD, one LRF. So yes, ranging. That is good.
Very few PLAAF/PAF fighters have LWRs anyhow.

Shorter footprint than Akash - 15km vs 25km, but this is IA, so its mostly directed against (I suspect), the LCH type threat.
Hellfire on PAF Choppers has range of 8km. So still ok.

quote="srai"]Looks like the SPYDER-SR launch vehicle may also have its own ELOP.

[/quote]

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 27 May 2016 22:41

Karan M wrote:Bar the hyperbole, the discussion here is mostly accurate.

Discussion here would've been accurate if people who like to throw around numbers about deployment and ORBAT would've bothered to check that Indian Army has few Mobile Air Defense (AD) Brigades. Brigades which are ORGANIC to Armored Divisions. And these are equipped with a mix of ZSU-23-4 and SA-8/SA-10 systems. Plus, the Tungushka. A few such Light AD Missile Regiments (SP) also exist outside of these mobile AD brigades.

The very same Strike Corps which earlier used SA-6 in their AD Missile Groups also used SA-8/10 in mobile AD Bdes with their armored divisions.

Just because you're rooting for a home-grown system does not mean you can neglect the ground realities.

Gist is the IA has gone for a light system which is more mobile in terms of deployment than akash since it has seeker equipped missiles, which are less dependent on powerful radars. So less vehicles overall, less logistics.

Gist is, IA has gone for replacing old system(s) which had the exact characteristics for their day and age which you mention above. If 'experts' on BRF are ignorant of realities on the ground, the fault lies within.

On the cons side, expensive missiles & the SpyDer RF missile portion can be jammed more easily than say a powerful GBAD system. However, IA can get around that by using EO cueing & minimizing target awareness. Python-5 gives good redundancy

Everything has plus and minus. You go with the best fit!

Not a truly mobile system though, since it will need to fire from halt.
Just hope it works and we get a good logistics package to ensure what we buy remains viable.

No system is truly mobile. Even SA-8/SA-10 fire after coming to stop. Point is this - these organic missile systems provide immediate AD bubble over the assets they're protecting. And their mobility is their ability to keep pace with their assets - the mechanized formations in this case.

Larger AD picture for early warning can be fed to these AD units through IAF long range radar network. As well IA's own 3D-CAR which come with Akash. Imagine Akash providing AD coverage to Corps HQ and its front/FEBA from depth. And its 3D-CAR also feeding info to mobile AD assets with maneuver formations.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 27 May 2016 23:25

rohitvats wrote:Discussion here would've been accurate if people who like to throw around numbers about deployment and ORBAT would've bothered to check that Indian Army has few Mobile Air Defense (AD) Brigades. Brigades which are ORGANIC to Armored Divisions. And these are equipped with a mix of ZSU-23-4 and SA-8/SA-10 systems. Plus, the Tungushka. A few such Light AD Missile Regiments (SP) also exist outside of these mobile AD brigades.

The very same Strike Corps which earlier used SA-6 in their AD Missile Groups also used SA-8/10 in mobile AD Bdes with their armored divisions.

Just because you're rooting for a home-grown system does not mean you can neglect the ground realities.

Point is people are going by what media is reporting and what folks like Katoch said.

If they mislead folks, then the issue is equally with them.

IA should speak up and clarify the topic while folks claiming to speak on their behalf throw out slurs on local programs. They should do that, otherwise vested interests in media will make hay.

Gist is, IA has gone for replacing old system(s) which had the exact characteristics for their day and age which you mention above. If 'experts' on BRF are ignorant of realities on the ground, the fault lies within.

The reports by Katoch et al, make an equivalence between Akash & SpyDer. So the fault is not BRFs alone that it gets thrown or confused by these remarks.

Anyhow, the trials by IA also show wide disparity in competing systems.

2 are CLOS, one is F&F. One is on armoured, tracked vehicles, two arent. And so forth.

Everything has plus and minus. You go with the best fit!

Agreed.

No system is truly mobile. Even SA-8/SA-10 fire after coming to stop. Point is this - these organic missile systems provide immediate AD bubble over the assets they're protecting. And their mobility is their ability to keep pace with their assets - the mechanized formations in this case.

Larger AD picture for early warning can be fed to these AD units through IAF long range radar network. As well IA's own 3D-CAR which come with Akash. Imagine Akash providing AD coverage to Corps HQ and its front/FEBA from depth. And its 3D-CAR also feeding info to mobile AD assets with maneuver formations.

You are missing the point here. The issue was whether the systems on the move can continue to get radar data. Typically this issue would be resolved with multiple units on overwatch. One set monitoring & the other mobile. Media made it appear as if this is an insurmountable issue. Whereas reality is so far all of other IA sets seem to be similarly "static".

Akash with 25km range is not sufficiently long range to "cover" the advancing SpyDers. IMHO, we'll see IA go for MRSAM once it proves itself.

So the question remains, whether the SpyDer can track/search on the move.

The Tor M2 can track, search on move. This is what was quoted by Katoch as his big statement about why Akash etc were not suitable and SpyDer was great.

This entire business of "mobility", "track on move" was set up by him & vested media houses.

Looks like none of them either did a study of SA-8/10 co-existing with SA-6.

Sid · Post by **Sid** » 28 May 2016 06:56

Is comparison of SPYDER with ZSU/SA-8/Tungushka even valid? TOR-M1 is much closer to these existing systems then SPYDER, which shares their capabilities like great cross country mobility, shoot-on-move and ability to work as a stand alone system.

SPYDER (system) is more like Akash. Israelis are just trying to get their foot in the door with SYPDER-SR version. Next step will be to paddle SPYDER-MR units which basically overlaps the Akash engagement range. It's a natural progression and Mr. Parrikar won't be DM forever.

With SPYDER-SR/SPYDER-MR/MRSAM, Israelis will have complete control/monopoly on Indian SAM market.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 28 May 2016 07:30

afaik the massive american armoured corps on the move do not have any fire-on-move SAMs at all (if you discount MANPADS like stingers fired by bradleys, hummers and humans)...they field multiple patriot batteries in a line, and while some are on the move, some others setup and provide a bubble and then roles swap again...they do not use anything beyond this and depend on air force for cover.
the patriots again cover fixed targets like bases.

they most certainly cannot fire on the move. and the radar is trailer mounted and needs to be static.

if the army is really worried of the threat to columns from low flying CAS types , they should invest in more LCH with more AAMs.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 28 May 2016 07:35

i will say it again - israel is not our benefactor despite the needlessly +ve press they get in india and brf too. they are as commercial and cunning as the french / rus/ amrika and DRDO is perceived as a mortal enemy by both.

there are no "friends" in the weapons industry. not with billions of $$ at stake.

our only real friend is the DRDO itself.

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 28 May 2016 07:44

Shouldn't the army be more concerned with lack of SPH for its strike corps than mobile SAMs?

On one hand per Akshay and others its depending a lot more on IAF for fire support and then its wanting SAMs.

I would first get SPHs, wheeled AFVs etc before looking for "mobile" SAMs

Kersi D · Post by **Kersi D** » 28 May 2016 09:59

rohitvats wrote:One poster asks a genuine question about need for SPYDER and everyone else is trying to force fit what they know to somehow show the decision in poor light. From some outrageous comments to the usual 'Army prefers foreign product' BS. And again, except for one person, no one tried to understand the basic of the requirement for such a missile in first place.

There was a time when some of replies here would've invited outright bans but alas, this is the new and improved BRF were everyone is ahead of the curve!

Rohit Vats.
Can you let us know the the real requirement of IA for this type of SAM ?

vaibhav.n · Post by **vaibhav.n** » 28 May 2016 11:22

Karan,

The Spyder is highly unlikely to have fire on the move. Mobility you are right could also constitute a smaller logistic footprint.

More importantly the Spyder would naturally replace the SA8 Gecko.

Folks conveniently forget the role in which the Gecko was used and had TV cameras fitted to enable the system to remain in action even if the radar is being jammed or forced to shut down because of the threat of anti-radiation missiles. The Spyder's Electro-optic pod provides similar capability with an IIR missile.

member_29190 · Post by **member_29190** » 28 May 2016 11:50

Singha wrote:afaik the massive american armoured corps on the move do not have any fire-on-move SAMs at all (if you discount MANPADS like stingers fired by bradleys, hummers and humans)...they field multiple patriot batteries in a line, and while some are on the move, some others setup and provide a bubble and then roles swap again...they do not use anything beyond this and depend on air force for cover.
the patriots again cover fixed targets like bases.

they most certainly cannot fire on the move. and the radar is trailer mounted and needs to be static.

if the army is really worried of the threat to columns from low flying CAS types , they should invest in more LCH with more AAMs.

Another aspect is friendly fire. Given the reaction time being discussed is 4-5 seconds & short range, it is a very short window to let someone confirm if the target is Cobras or LCH before it's missiles hit you.

If it is set to auto, it will shoot down anything that flies...

Add to this IAF will refuse CAS to IA, if there is threat to it's jet from IA SAMs !

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 28 May 2016 12:57

Karan M wrote: Point is people are going by what media is reporting and what folks like Katoch said.

If they mislead folks, then the issue is equally with them.

IA should speak up and clarify the topic while folks claiming to speak on their behalf throw out slurs on local programs. They should do that, otherwise vested interests in media will make hay.

What Katoch said and what people are saying on this forum are two completely different things. Katoch said SPYDER being bought because Akash not mobile in the required sense and people are trying to present arguments as to why Akash fits the bills. And hence, SPYDER is not required.

Katoch is wrong in his assertion and so is everyone here who's trying to give convoluted arguments ranging from usual to more sophisticated.

If BRFites are wrong because no one bothered to do their research, then the onus is on them.

The reports by Katoch et al, make an equivalence between Akash & SpyDer. So the fault is not BRFs alone that it gets thrown or confused by these remarks.

Katoch is not a BRFite. And people are at complete liberty to read or ignore him. But him being wrong does not mean BRFites use that as an excuse to put forth wrong arguments.

Anyhow, the trials by IA also show wide disparity in competing systems.
2 are CLOS, one is F&F. One is on armoured, tracked vehicles, two arent. And so forth.

Well, everyone gets invited to our circus for that is the nature of procurement program. What matters is we get o pick up the best system with reasonable price.

You are missing the point here. The issue was whether the systems on the move can continue to get radar data. Typically this issue would be resolved with multiple units on over-watch. One set monitoring & the other mobile. Media made it appear as if this is an insurmountable issue. Whereas reality is so far all of other IA sets seem to be similarly "static".

This is a more complicated issue than how you've put forth above.

The requirement for larger AD picture does not come into being only when you've crossed into enemy area.

It also arises when you're:
(a) deploying to your forward areas within your own border.
(b) When you're moving from Point A to Point B inside enemy's area. This involves canal/river crossing exercises.
(c) When you're static inside enemy areas
(d) When you're in contact with the enemy and have to be prepared for CAS from other side.

Organic self-propelled AD assets are required to provide cover in immediate over-head to the formations they're assigned to.

The question here is two fold:

(a) providing these AD assets with larger AD picture. For example, the radar on SPYDER has 60 km range. Other assets have even lesser range. But can I feed the AD picture to these units about enemy a/c when they're 100+ km away from them? Or, even farther?

This used to be done, or done even today through R/T. Remember old IAF videos showing ATC officers plotting the a/c location on transparent mounted map? Something like that.

But IA is working on Air Defense Control & Reporting System (ADC&RS). Here is the link from BEL website:
http://www.bel-india.com/?q=ADC-RS

ADC&RS (Air Defence Control & Reporting System) is a system for tactical command & control Army Air Defence. Its prime purpose is to reduce the effectiveness of attack by hostile target far off from the vulnerable assets / points by optimal utilisation of available weapons. It also controls air space primarily for ARMY's area of responsibility.

As no single weapon system can adequately protect critical assets against the innumerable of airborne threats, solution based upon integrated firing capabilities of individual Air defence weapon systems used by Army. ADC&RS will support automated means to organise, store, process,integrate and transmit the information required for tactical air defence by the commanders.

It provides linkages from firing platform level to the highest level of army air defence control facilities. It also provides dedicated high volume voice and data exchange throughout the network in real time thus increases the capability of Army Air Defence battlefield and act as a force multiplier.

The ADC&RS is categorized into 4 following hierarchal levels:

1. Weapons & Radars: This is the first level and consists of weapons including fire control radars, guns, tracked vehicles etc. This includes a point-to-multipoint real data communication over VHF and serial omnibus.

2. Command post: For the active control of weapon. These will be directly attached to the VA/VP and area of Responsibility (50 km X 50 km approx).

3. Operations Centre: Next in the hierarchy and will have a larger area of responsibility (100 kmsx100 kms).4. Divisional Air Defence Centre: The AD battle of a full division will be orchestrated from this centre. The Area of Responsibility (AOR) is 200 kms x 200 kms and is mounted on a TATRA 6x6 Vehicle.

SALIENT FEATURES

The system capabilities are as follows:-

Real time, updated and accurate Recognised Air Situation Picture against a GIS back- ground.
Software tools & decision support packages to aid in the decision making.
Inter connectivity to the other TAC C3I networks of the Indian Army like BSS, ACCCS, CIDSS etc. and the IACCS of the Indian Air force.
Environment control to provide proper conditions for humans & machines.
Cross-country mobility.
Automated transmission of target data picked up by all sensors including weapon systems to control centres in real time including target position on a common grid, speed, heading, IFF response and any other available information for generation of a composite air picture.
Automated processing of data at control centres with adequate data handling capacity.
Data exchange between control centres in the form of filtered air picture, EW, identification and weapon control orders.
Automatic transmission of target data and operational control orders from control centres to weapon systems.
Transmission of operational status and location from weapon systems and sensors to control centres at laid down intervals of time or distance to facilitate threat assessment and weapon assignment.
Promulgation of AADFAs by appropriate control centres for air space control.
Automated AD clearance after analysis of request for AD clearance by comparison with friendly air activity and AADFA classification. Restriction on weapon systems and other users of airspace should be automatically generated once AD clearance has been issued.
Exchange of information for integration with TAC C3 I system, IACCS and the strategic C4I2 system.
A suitable communication media meeting the requirements of time criticality, broadcast facility,multi media, mobility, capacity, security and redundancy.

(b) Second question is this: who gives the feed to Army AD assets? IA relied on IAF for this. And IIRC, they also had a very limited holding of ST-68U radar to provide larger AD picture.

But now, a version of 3D-CAR from Akash program seems to be proliferating into other AD assets. 2014 or 2015 R-Day Paradae had a contingent from an AD Regiment of IA which uses L-70 guns. This contingent had displayed the 3D-CAR derived TCR. And wikipedia tells me that this derivative of 3D-CAR has smaller foot-print that original one.

What this means is that a L-70 regiment has an organic surveillance net of 90 km. You might well see more of these proliferate to other units. Whether IA goes for more powerful surveillance radars to develop organic surveillance capability over its AOR, remains to be seen.

But what is obvious is that whole jamboree of AD assets are going to be interlinked courtesy the digital AD coverage network. And even if Akash regiment cannot provide top missile cover to SPYDER, the surveillance feed from its radar and from wider AD network of IA and IAF will be available to even the fellow with MANPAD.