Kanson wrote:
Apologies for belated reply; my attention was elsewhere.
Let us first straighten the facts (based on info what I have).
1. On Seeker tech, we are some years away in achieving self-sufficiency.
As per previous DRDO head, Chander, we will reach that in missile overall by 2021/22. Satheesh Reddy, SA to RM Parrikar, earlier this year(2016) touched the topic and used the phrase "in a few years" on seeker tech. We are in the process of closing the gap. Apart from our in-house development, we are also absorbing tech through various deals to achieve above mentioned goal as early as possible.
Yes we are TAKING HELP not only in seeker but also missile tech in general from more than from one player, Russia, Israel, France etc. To put in perspective, We received some tech transfer through SPYDER system deal with Israel, which is a Short-Medium Range SAM system. Recently, as reported in news, we also received track via seeker tech for Long Range SAM again from Israel, amplifying the fact that though we broadly hear as "transfer of seeker tech" in every deal, we are getting various tech & different components of seeker as tech transfer through every deal.
Secondly, through VL MICA-M (M for Maritime) deal we are also getting other missile techs such as TVC, algorithms etc.
Hope this has some answers to your "Unless we plan to grab every seeker technology it doesn't make much sense" statement.
2. "This deal simply likely it was carved up to promote political interests, if not we would have either gone with co-development of new system based on Sea Ceptor or would have designed a new system based on Astra"
Before we go down this road, let aprise ourselves bit into the history of Sea Ceptor and ASRAAM. Becoz, Sea Ceptor is based on ASRAAM (Advanced SHORT RANGE Air to Air missile).
ASRAAM missile started of as AIM-132, common US-European missile. Before it became ASRAAM, Germany left the team to develop its own SHORT RANGE IRIS-T missile, stating it wanted more maneuverable missile than ASRAAM. Sameway, US went on to develop AIM-9X on SIMILAR PARAMETERS as that of IRIS-T. At the same time France was into MICA.
so ASRAAM became purely a UK missile, designed and developed based on their own strength, weakness, their projected threats and Operational Doctrine.
While AIM-9X, IRIS-T and MICA are highly maneuverable missile, OTOH ASRAAM has its strength in high speed and long range so it can "See First, Shoot First and Scoot First" in a Dog fight.
Both MICA and ASRAAM were inducted in 90's within a gap of few years. One can see that both MICA and ASRAAM are contemporary missiles; implying, there could be + and - but overall, technology wise it can't be said as one superior to other.
Post ASRAAM, UK started FLAADS program which stands for Future Local Area Air Defense System to replace ageing Sea Wolf and Rapier system for which MBDA was roped in.
FLAADS is rooted in low cost, commonality and ability to tackle present and future threats.
Becoz there was an emphasis on commonality, ASRAAM, an Air to Air missile was chosen as base for Sea Ceptor to replace Sea Wolf and Land Ceptor to replace Rapier.
In simple, MBDA's concept applied on ASRAAM = Sea Ceptor
At the same timeframe, MBDA started developing VL MICA-M by applying the same concept on which it was building Sea Ceptor. For example, Both Sea Ceptor and VL MICA-M don't need separate tracking radar.
If we look, both Sea Ceptor and VL MICA-M share the same concept.
UK through its own research and studies added, as part of FLAADS program, three new sub-systems to Sea Ceptor.
1.new low cost seeker, with open architecture and upgrades done mainly through firmware etc.
2.Common two way datalink, for their own purpose.
3.soft ejection system, similar to Brahmos missile.
So in effect,
MBDA concept + UK funded hardware on UK missile ASRAAM = Sea Ceptor
MBDA concept on MICA = VL MICA-M
It is clear why DRDO went for VL MICA-M and not Sea Ceptor. Through co-development, can't DRDO add a soft launch system as in Sea Ceptor? can't DRDO increase range to match Sea Ceptor? These are within DRDO's capabilities. So DRDO and Indian Navy went for an option that is actually what they need or where it can do what UK did to ASRAAM. IOW, we absorb VL MICA-M tech and develop into what is needed for us in future.
Further, ASRAAM/Sea Ceptor range is > 25km, whereas IN SRSAM spec asks for 15 km range, so VL MICA-M.
Now to the second question, why not Astra missile?
When IN SRSAM requirement was floated, Astra was still in development. DRDO which started working on similar short range requirement, QRSAM, much later has not offered any alternative of its own to IN SRSAM requirement.
"carved up to promote political interests" - Yes, all deals have that vulnerability. We don't know yet. Let's see if it is getting sanctioned.
3. "it will end up being repackaged VL MICA under guise of Made in India, which is exactly what it has become"
Well may be it could be just "repackaged VL MICA under guise of Made in India", but this is not where we are going to stop. Though we contracted IMI/Israel for long range SAM such as Barak-8, we are also developing our own 300 km long range SAM, as you know. So VL MICA-M tech that is getting transferred is not going to stay and vanish as VL MICA-M, in my opinion.
4. "VL Mica itself is over a decade old with MBDA actively promoting Sea Ceptor not former for export and new repackaged variant is not going to have much export prospect as well"
Correction: MBDA is promoting both Sea Ceptor and VL MICA-M.
Sea Ceptor is built for Type 26 and to replace Sea Wolf. Intial & potential customers of Sea Ceptor are the ones in need of Sea Wolf replacement and those who opted for Type 26 frigate just like UK did.
OTOH VL MICA-M is selected (and actively considered) by other navies who don't have that compulsion.
Missed your reply from earlier.
I understand your point yes thanks for information on VL-MICA components. To answer your other points:
1/2. Yes MICA has components that will benefit us and has technology on par with Sea Ceptor. Seeker technology will also help us fine tune Astra. But my concern is price point, MICA is not cheap missile by any means. As you yourself noted CAMM is supposed to offer cheaper alternative to expensive SAM missiles, Each MICA missiles costs over 2+ million dollars (source: IAF order of 500 missiles from 2012), compare that with Barak missile which costs about 500k or about 1 million for RIM-116 it is lot of money for point defense system.
We don't have figures for Barak-8 but i have seen figure of 200 million for the system (i believe it includes the radar and 32 + spare) so it puts it around 2 mill/per missile figure. You can make a case that Barak-8 already fills the need for SR SAM, it can be fitted onto even 400 ton missile boats and doesn't need MF Star it can be integrated even with 3D CAR radar. And it has a much smaller min range that VL-MICA (and on par with Barak missile ) so its far more potent point defense system. The main drawback is its price tag but as i mentioned earlier i would not be surprised if it costs the same or less than a rebadged MICA.
I am not saying VL mica/SR-SAM is terrible system but simply that is not right choice it is good for small navies looking for a point defense missile system they can plug into their vessels but for the IN it does not really fit in and seems like more of political move to keep French happy and to hasten the Rafale adoption.
IMO future point defense needs to inexpensive (less than 500k per round) and share components with existing system, should be able quad pack these into Brahmos U-VLS launchers or fit them into existing Barak-8 launchers. This will allow us to pack more missiles and also lowers maintenance costs right now maintain 3 VL different launchers is absurd, imagine the headache when reloading these.
3. As i mentioned earlier i am really doubtful of future of long range SAM with multiple delays with AAD and Israeli hints that it has found foreign investor for Barak-8 ER. I believe latter will server the needs for long range SAM perhaps that's topic for another delay.
4. Chile refused to consider VL Mica forcing MBDA to offer Sea ceptor for the competition there, while VL Mica has won orders with Indonesia and Malaysia i don't see anything more in pipeline.
