Indian Missiles News & Discussions - May 2017

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 10 Sep 2017 00:57

After developmental trials, there are user trials and then there are user acceptance trials.

hanumadu · Post by **hanumadu** » 10 Sep 2017 01:38

From TOI

NEW DELHI: India's indigenously developed third generation anti-tank
guided missile (ATGM) Nag has been successfully flight tested by premier
defence research organisation DRDO in deserts of Rajasthan, marking
completion of development trials.
The defence ministry said Nag has been successfully flight tested twice by
the DRDO against two different targets yesterday in Rajasthan. The missile
can hit a target up to seven km.
"The ATGM Nag missile has successfully hit both the targets under
different ranges and conditions with very high accuracy as desired by the
armed forces," the ministry said.
India has been trying to ramp up its military capability in sync changing security dynamics in the region.
The defence ministry said yesterday's flight tests and the trials in June marked the successful completion of development trials
of Nag missile.
"With these two successful flight trials, and the flight test conducted earlier in June in the peak of summer, the complete
functionality of Nag ATGM along with launcher system NAMICA has been established and marked the successful completion of
development trials of Nag missile," it said.

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 10 Sep 2017 01:43

So we have a confirmation now that Nag has achieved 7km range after all..? Hopefully user trials are expediated andLSP order placed soonfor user acceptance/exploitation tests.

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 10 Sep 2017 01:57

Thanks a lot IR, Karan, Shiv, tsarkar, ramana for reply to my question onlack of development program for CCM. Obviously CCM is a notch tougher than BVR especially when we dont have good seeker of our own. I understand we will have all the building blocks maturedin say 5 yr time frame and we can perhaps churn out a CCM in short span then. Maybe IAF doesnt trust DRDO enough to fund their program on CCM and/or BVR was a more pressing need. But this all cannot explain still why wenever started a CCM even a TD program. We never put efforts when we have time to work slowly but steadily. And when argent requirement comes we have to start from zero. For me this is serious lapse on MoD's part. We should have had a CCM program by now, however primitive it might have been. I hope to see one ASAP.

Re Shiv's 'rhetorical' question, an obvious answer - BVR cannot replaceWVR missile. At least the ones we have do not. In some situation they would work but its not a full proof solution. I dont think BVRs have as much agility and as sensitive seekers as CCMs need to have. Also they are heavier. Which means if one wants to carry them on wingtip as CCM, the wing would need addtional strength for some aircrafts at least.

Thanks ramana for history. Good to know.

hanumadu · Post by **hanumadu** » 10 Sep 2017 03:51

JayS wrote:So we have a confirmation now that Nag has achieved 7km range after all..? Hopefully user trials are expediated andLSP order placed soonfor user acceptance/exploitation tests.

The article doesn't say the current tests were at 7km range.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 10 Sep 2017 04:07

JayS wrote: Maybe IAF doesnt trust DRDO enough to fund their program on CCM and/or BVR was a more pressing need. But this all cannot explain still why wenever started a CCM even a TD program. We never put efforts when we have time to work slowly but steadily. And when argent requirement comes we have to start from zero. For me this is serious lapse on MoD's part. We should have had a CCM program by now, however primitive it might have been. I hope to see one ASAP.

Remember Akash orders only came a few years back despite all sorts of shenanigans from vested interests. Till then DRDO's capablity to develop tactical missiles was still in doubt. Now with Akash in service, as is Pinaka, and Astra (hopefully) to follow then Nag, plus QRSAM the path to getting sanction for a CCM is that much easier. That is from convincing the MOD perspective.

From the DRDO point of view, financed programs are either TD &/or based on mission mode requirements. These programs are intended for specific purposes. If DRDO sees no user interest in a specific class of weapon, why would it waste its scarce resources on such a program? It makes more sense to direct that money to improve existing weapons and systems. So user interest is crucial. DRDO can project its proposal. But IAF should concur on priority.

From IAF viewpoint, its WVR missile segment is not that critical as (say) the lack of BVR missiles & PGMs in number from a local source. IAF fighters have extensive stocks of the proven R-73E & via imports, Mica-IR, Python-5. In terms of effectiveness, R73E is not the best out there anymore but it works for the most part & IAF has ample stocks, with a HMCS it can be still deadly.

I agree we should have a program like this. But with limited resources, prioritization will always decide which program is a more pressing need.

IMHO the DRDO has many programs underway which can revolutionize IAF/IA firepower.

Garuda/Garuthma for IAF
Cluster PGM program for fighters/missiles
QRSAM for IA
Akash Mk2 for follow on to Akash
Akash Mk1S for upgrading Akash
NGARM for IAF
CLGM for Arjun
MPATGM for IA
Nag/Helina for IA/IAF
Rudra M-2 (I think this is a Brimstone MMW class of weapon) for IAF/IA
Nirbhay

Now what is the potential for a domestic CCM program? Its huge IMHO. Reason being the Su-30s, MiG-29s, MiG-21 Bisons all use the R-73E and this missile can definitely be replaced with a local one with advanced seeker and countermeasure resistance.

What would be my priorities for next DRDO missile programs?

A DEWS for PGMs/Cruise Missiles/Arty rounds
A CIWS (gun based) for the same as above, more mobile and inexpensive presumably to protect Vital points & our expensive SAM systems from stand off attacks
Range of stand off (>100 km) missiles
Advanced wideband ARMs + AR drones with loitering capability (say modified Nirbhay or Rustom1 type drones)
Smart cluster munitions (can devastate armor formations or wave type attacks)
BMD-Phase 2, Phase 3 etc for longer range plus MIRV class, advanced maneuvering threats
VLRSAM for our domestic replacement for S-400 class systems
CCM systems
Advanced MPATGMs and ATGMs
Ramjet based and also multi-pulse based missiles
Multi-spectral seekers
Adaptive datalinks (for backup when being jammed)

For sensors

GaN modules for standard S/X/L plus UHF/VHF matured domestically with bulk of subcomponents from domestic fabs
GaN follow on tech development
Bi/Multi static radars to counter LO/VLO threats
Advanced exotic band radars (VHF/UHF AESA) to counter LO/VLO threats
"Smart" radars with adaptive algorithms for countering EW & detecting low RCS targets
LPI waveforms as standard on all our systems
Multi-function systems as standard (modules to be added, software or hardware)
Very high power systems (BMD, Instrumentation, strategic monitoring)
Advanced sensor fusion & networking, eg buddy targeting from radar to radar, air or ground
Breakthroughs in airborne systems especially fighter & UAV radars

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 10 Sep 2017 11:30

Karan M wrote:
JayS wrote: Maybe IAF doesnt trust DRDO enough to fund their program on CCM and/or BVR was a more pressing need. But this all cannot explain still why wenever started a CCM even a TD program. We never put efforts when we have time to work slowly but steadily. And when argent requirement comes we have to start from zero. For me this is serious lapse on MoD's part. We should have had a CCM program by now, however primitive it might have been. I hope to see one ASAP.
Remember Akash orders only came a few years back despite all sorts of shenanigans from vested interests. Till then DRDO's capablity to develop tactical missiles was still in doubt. Now with Akash in service, as is Pinaka, and Astra (hopefully) to follow then Nag, plus QRSAM the path to getting sanction for a CCM is that much easier. That is from convincing the MOD perspective.

From the DRDO point of view, financed programs are either TD &/or based on mission mode requirements. These programs are intended for specific purposes. If DRDO sees no user interest in a specific class of weapon, why would it waste its scarce resources on such a program? It makes more sense to direct that money to improve existing weapons and systems. So user interest is crucial. DRDO can project its proposal. But IAF should concur on priority.

From IAF viewpoint, its WVR missile segment is not that critical as (say) the lack of BVR missiles & PGMs in number from a local source. IAF fighters have extensive stocks of the proven R-73E & via imports, Mica-IR, Python-5. In terms of effectiveness, R73E is not the best out there anymore but it works for the most part & IAF has ample stocks, with a HMCS it can be still deadly.

I agree we should have a program like this. But with limited resources, prioritization will always decide which program is a more pressing need.

IMHO the DRDO has many programs underway which can revolutionize IAF/IA firepower.

Garuda/Garuthma for IAF
Cluster PGM program for fighters/missiles
QRSAM for IA
Akash Mk2 for follow on to Akash
Akash Mk1S for upgrading Akash
NGARM for IAF
CLGM for Arjun
MPATGM for IA
Nag/Helina for IA/IAF
Rudra M-2 (I think this is a Brimstone MMW class of weapon) for IAF/IA
Nirbhay

Now what is the potential for a domestic CCM program? Its huge IMHO. Reason being the Su-30s, MiG-29s, MiG-21 Bisons all use the R-73E and this missile can definitely be replaced with a local one with advanced seeker and countermeasure resistance.

What would be my priorities for next DRDO missile programs?

A DEWS for PGMs/Cruise Missiles/Arty rounds
A CIWS (gun based) for the same as above, more mobile and inexpensive presumably to protect Vital points & our expensive SAM systems from stand off attacks
Range of stand off (>100 km) missiles
Advanced wideband ARMs + AR drones with loitering capability (say modified Nirbhay or Rustom1 type drones)
Smart cluster munitions (can devastate armor formations or wave type attacks)
BMD-Phase 2, Phase 3 etc for longer range plus MIRV class, advanced maneuvering threats
VLRSAM for our domestic replacement for S-400 class systems
CCM systems
Advanced MPATGMs and ATGMs
Ramjet based and also multi-pulse based missiles
Multi-spectral seekers
Adaptive datalinks (for backup when being jammed)

For sensors

GaN modules for standard S/X/L plus UHF/VHF matured domestically with bulk of subcomponents from domestic fabs
GaN follow on tech development
Bi/Multi static radars to counter LO/VLO threats
Advanced exotic band radars (VHF/UHF AESA) to counter LO/VLO threats
"Smart" radars with adaptive algorithms for countering EW & detecting low RCS targets
LPI waveforms as standard on all our systems
Multi-function systems as standard (modules to be added, software or hardware)
Very high power systems (BMD, Instrumentation, strategic monitoring)
Advanced sensor fusion & networking, eg buddy targeting from radar to radar, air or ground
Breakthroughs in airborne systems especially fighter & UAV radars

Agreed completely. So I don't blame DRDO or even IAF. I mentioned its serious lapse on MoD's part. If DRDO has mandate to work on priority 1 projects only and they have no other funds available at their discretion to spend on priority 2 or 3 or futuristic programs, its not their mistake we don't have any real R&D for future, and we always firefight for yesterday's problems. IAF has its own priorities to keep operational requirements at highest priority. Its completely MoD's responsibility to make available funds and resources for important projects which are not only Priority 1 but 2,3..n. If DRDO is not mandated to do this, we need another agency/ies to be mandated to work on this (Many options are available such as CSIR, research centres at academic institutions, or a new agency if none of it is adequate). If MoD needs so much convincing on such obvious kinds of projects to release a few hundred cr rupees, then MoD is grossly incompetent in handling Defense. However good our building blocks may get, there are always system integration challenges specific to particular product. These issues or challenges would arise when you actually seat down to make a system. If we have background exploratory work done the system as a whole, it would be much easier when the actual product development project starts. Uttam is a very good example of how background work can expedite development work.

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 10 Sep 2017 11:38

hanumadu wrote:
JayS wrote:So we have a confirmation now that Nag has achieved 7km range after all..? Hopefully user trials are expediated andLSP order placed soonfor user acceptance/exploitation tests.
The article doesn't say the current tests were at 7km range.

hence the question mark. We know 5km range is proven in tests but 7km is what was asked for. But that was an old report. So whats new with this one..?

manjgu · Post by **manjgu** » 10 Sep 2017 11:40

guys..in case of Nag ..how will development trials be different from user trials ( except ofcourse one being done by DRDO and other by Army). is there any other difference?

Patni · Post by **Patni** » 10 Sep 2017 11:56

Afaik development trails has plenty of data collection to validate n confirm performance after incremental modifications in designs till desired goals are reached. Once development phase is declared over it establishes set of performance parameters which are handed over to end users. User trails is users confirming those n getting familiar with system.

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 10 Sep 2017 12:04

manjgu wrote:guys..in case of Nag ..how will development trials be different from user trials ( except ofcourse one being done by DRDO and other by Army). is there any other difference?

Development trials are done on prototypes with well defined test matrix and under very carefully controlled conditions and by well trained operators. User trials are less controlled and would test production variants under real life conditions by men who are suppose to use it with only limited training and knowledge of the system and limited support and maintenance for the system. Again user trials can be under controlled environment to start with but eventually they will be testing the system in the environment it is supposed to be used.

hanumadu · Post by **hanumadu** » 10 Sep 2017 12:04

Apologies if posted earlier.

Saurav Jha‏ @SJha1618 Sep 8
DRDO is also developing a very long range SAM in the S-400 class, called XRSAM.

Can we do it on our own when we needed Israeli help for MRSAM/LRSAM?

karan_mc · Post by **karan_mc** » 10 Sep 2017 12:28

hanumadu wrote:Apologies if posted earlier.
Saurav Jha‏ @SJha1618 Sep 8
DRDO is also developing a very long range SAM in the S-400 class, called XRSAM.
Can we do it on our own when we needed Israeli help for MRSAM/LRSAM?

Initial report was SAM System with range of 150km and later DRDO people said it is 250km SAM System . but Now Jha says it will be S-400 Class which means 400+ km ???

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 10 Sep 2017 12:28

hanumadu wrote:Apologies if posted earlier.
Saurav Jha‏ @SJha1618 Sep 8
DRDO is also developing a very long range SAM in the S-400 class, called XRSAM.
Can we do it on our own when we needed Israeli help for MRSAM/LRSAM?

So thats what XRSAM is after all...

PS: Sorry, edited post instead of quoting. Now corrected the mistake.

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 10 Sep 2017 12:34

karan_mc wrote:
hanumadu wrote:Apologies if posted earlier.

Can we do it on our own when we needed Israeli help for MRSAM/LRSAM?
Initial report was SAM System with range of 150km and later DRDO people said it is 250km SAM System . but Now Jha says it will be S-400 Class which means 400+ km ???

How does that mean its 400+ km..? S400 is not one missile system but mixture of a bunch of them, isn't it..?

Is it possible (or rather how difficult it is) for us to augment all out SAM systems and create one monster integrated SAM system which will fuse all sensor data coming from the individual systems and assign targets to various of those individual systems to deal with based on which one is best suited to do the job..??

Ashokk · Post by **Ashokk** » 10 Sep 2017 13:15

Fire-and-forget missile Prospina set for trials in Pokhran range

JODHPUR: Inching closer to the induction, the Gen-3 Fire and Forget Anti-Tank Guided Missile Prospina earlier known as Nag is back in the desert ranges of Rajasthan for trials.

Successful trials of the ATGM in June this year, bestowed Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) with the much-awaited success at the Chandan Field Firing Range in Jaisalmer, the missile now as per the official sources is back again for not only the revalidation of the previous trials but also for the final leg of trials here.

What is more commendable is that the missile is being tested for its full four kilometre range. The officials said that if all goes well, the 'User Acceptance Trials' by Army will also be around the corner. At one point of time, it was being touted that the Army might have to induct the missile in its first phase at a reduced range of 3-3.2 km during day time since its earlier Imaging Infrared Seekers were not able to differentiate between the target and surroundings in hot desert temperatures with both reaching the same temperature.

Nag/Prospina has been incorporated with many advanced technologies including the high resolution Imaging Infrared (IIR) Seeker with integrated avionics. The much awaited and the much delayed Prospina Missile had successful night trials at a range of four km earlier last year at Mahajan Field Firing Range in Bikaner.

Highly sensitive detectors or seekers have now been placed on missile tip for sensing heat or infrared signals in three different thermal scenarios including that of a thermal differential within the target, between the target and the background and surrounding temperature variation. Prospina shall be mounted and transported on a Mechanised Infantry Combat Vehicle.. The successful trials in June this year, which reportedly far surpassed all expectations by achieving the target of 4km for both day and night were carried out by a team of scientists of Dr APJ Abdul Kalam Missile Complex at Hyderabad and ARDE and HEMRL at Pune.

Success evaded DRDO for a long time in case of Project Nag, now renamed and launched as 'Prospina', taking this missile out of the cluster of missiles under Integrated Guided Missile Development Programme of (IGMDP) of India. Nag a baby of Defence Research and Development Laboratory (DRDL) of DRDO was earlier a part of the Integrated Guided Missile Development Programme of the DRDO launched in 1980s.

Thakur_B · Post by **Thakur_B** » 10 Sep 2017 13:25

I believe 4km range on Nag is LOBL mode and 7 km on LOAL mode.

manjgu · Post by **manjgu** » 10 Sep 2017 14:08

JayS...i do get ur point... but these trails have also happened in the desert where the army will use them ..or maybe even in Punjab or high alt area like ladhak etc?

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 10 Sep 2017 15:40

We saw a report that NAG was successfully tested for full range in worst timeof the day a few months ago through DRDO Newsletter IIRC. The report alsp said that IA personnel were present for verification. So how these latest tests are different..? Can someone clarify..? Or these are same tests but now prove reliability and repeatability of that performance..?

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 10 Sep 2017 15:58

manjgu wrote:JayS...i do get ur point... but these trails have also happened in the desert where the army will use them ..or maybe even in Punjab or high alt area like ladhak etc?

The test matrix for development trials might be more rigorous than actual application condition. But the key difference it the development test will be done with specified parameters and under carefully controlled environment. For example the specification for worst time of the day test might prescribe the target tank be soaked in heat for say 4hrs at cerain temperatures before it can be used as a target. Everything will be checked 10 times with all sorts of gizmos to make sure all things are within working limits. The missile will be fired from a platform remotely. But in user trials, user will simply use the missile with whatever real conditions they deal with on daily basis. They dont have time or training to check a system 10 times thoroughly. They wont bother about how long the tank was soaked in at what temperature. They would simply set up a test and whatever worst they think they can get and see if the missile works at it. Here is more experience and feel based than specific numbers. While the development test matrix is theoretically supposed to cover the worst scenario ever, the tests are often not adequate to capture all the variables. After a while statistics catch up, as they say. Thus we often see new issues uncovered during user trials. Thus is so much important to field any system quickly in first iteration.

Even for Cars or bikes, the OEMs give the first prototypes to professional frelance testers who basically take the vehicle to every terrain possible and they use it as they would if it was a mature bike without caring too much for service intervals or too much pampering of the vehicle or driving too carefully. They drive the vehicles for lacs of kms, to discover issues and then give feedback to the OEM design teams.

Another key factor is - 'User' is an unknown factor which is explored only during the user trails when the user uses the productas he intends to use it. Thus it helps a lot if there is a good user involvement right from the conceptual design. Many posible issues can be anticipated and rectified rpearly in design.

manjgu · Post by **manjgu** » 10 Sep 2017 16:07

thanks..

karan_mc · Post by **karan_mc** » 10 Sep 2017 20:40

JayS wrote:
karan_mc wrote:
Initial report was SAM System with range of 150km and later DRDO people said it is 250km SAM System . but Now Jha says it will be S-400 Class which means 400+ km ???
How does that mean its 400+ km..? S400 is not one missile system but mixture of a bunch of them, isn't it..?

Is it possible (or rather how difficult it is) for us to augment all out SAM systems and create one monster integrated SAM system which will fuse all sensor data coming from the individual systems and assign targets to various of those individual systems to deal with based on which one is best suited to do the job..??

Yes left a ?? because if it is S-400 Class then XRSAM could be Clubbing of Two Missile . Initial 150 km might have been dropped since cheaper alternative could have been MR-SAM with booster which touches 120+ . So either it is combination of Two missile with range of 250Km and 400Km or its just one Single SAM System with range of anything between 250-400 km.

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 10 Sep 2017 20:56

JayS wrote:Even for Cars or bikes, the OEMs give the first prototypes to professional frelance testers who basically take the vehicle to every terrain possible and they use it as they would if it was a mature bike without caring too much for service intervals or too much pampering of the vehicle or driving too carefully. They drive the vehicles for lacs of kms, to discover issues and then give feedback to the OEM design teams.

For cars & bikes too, the testing is becoming more stringent and methodical.

http://www.natrip.in/

National Automotive Testing and R&D Infrastructure Project (NATRiP), the largest and one of the most significant initiatives in Automotive sector so far, represents a unique joining of hands between the Government of India, a number of State Governments and Indian Automotive Industry to create a state of the art Testing, Validation and R&D infrastructure in the country.

NATRiP Testing Centres

As part of NATRIP, the following test centres have been finalized to setup the test facilities as described below :

• GARC Chennai
• iCAT Manesar
• NATRAX Indore
• NCVRS Raebareli
• NIAIMT Silchar
• VRDE Ahmednagar
• ARAI Pune

Sorry for the OT, but wanted to highlight the importance of testing as a science by itself.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 10 Sep 2017 21:02

karan_mc wrote:
JayS wrote:
How does that mean its 400+ km..? S400 is not one missile system but mixture of a bunch of them, isn't it..?

Is it possible (or rather how difficult it is) for us to augment all out SAM systems and create one monster integrated SAM system which will fuse all sensor data coming from the individual systems and assign targets to various of those individual systems to deal with based on which one is best suited to do the job..??
Yes left a ?? because if it is S-400 Class then XRSAM could be Clubbing of Two Missile . Initial 150 km might have been dropped since cheaper alternative could have been MR-SAM with booster which touches 120+ . So either it is combination of Two missile with range of 250Km and 400Km or its just one Single SAM System with range of anything between 250-400 km.

Anything above 200-220 km in terms of SAM effective range against a target a challenging target gets you diminishing returns in terms of size and footprint unless you can network your radars and interceptors and can conduct BLOS intercepts (TBM targeting obviously being an exception to this). Tactically, if your enemy can see and effectively target you at 300+ km, you won't be flying at medium to high altitudes unless you are accompanied by massive Electronic Attack and SEAD support.

Specifically on the S-400, the standard long range missile used is the 46N6DM which as a maximum range of 250 km and is TVM/SAGG guided. The 40N6 which folks refer to while speaking of 400km range has not been seen in the wild yet alongside any currently deployed S400 systems in either Russia or Syria. There is no indication yet of it being deployed with frontline troops or exported to china, or indeed even being cleared for export. It has been reported that the modification to support the 40N6 deployment requires a 2 missile TEL which would make it easy to identify if and when it is deployed. These are key distinctions to be made when speaking of the system in either Russian or Export configurations. The 40N6 is not always a given (since it hasn't even been seen yet opeationally), and neither is the 55Zh6M Nebo-M system which is not part of the standard S400 but something that adds to it and therefore needs to be procured separately because it is not a part of the S400 FU.

Manish_Sharma · Post by **Manish_Sharma** » 10 Sep 2017 21:24

hanumadu wrote:Apologies if posted earlier.
Saurav Jha‏ @SJha1618 Sep 8
DRDO is also developing a very long range SAM in the S-400 class, called XRSAM.
Can we do it on our own when we needed Israeli help for MRSAM/LRSAM?

Actually our contribution to MARSAN/SRSAM is more significant as we have designed it's dual pulse motor

Karthik S · Post by **Karthik S** » 10 Sep 2017 21:32

Gurus, any news about Agni 6? Just seeing year old reports that the missile is under development and that it will be tested in 2017-18.

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 10 Sep 2017 23:43

tsarkar wrote:
JayS wrote:Even for Cars or bikes, the OEMs give the first prototypes to professional frelance testers who basically take the vehicle to every terrain possible and they use it as they would if it was a mature bike without caring too much for service intervals or too much pampering of the vehicle or driving too carefully. They drive the vehicles for lacs of kms, to discover issues and then give feedback to the OEM design teams.
For cars & bikes too, the testing is becoming more stringent and methodical.

http://www.natrip.in/

National Automotive Testing and R&D Infrastructure Project (NATRiP), the largest and one of the most significant initiatives in Automotive sector so far, represents a unique joining of hands between the Government of India, a number of State Governments and Indian Automotive Industry to create a state of the art Testing, Validation and R&D infrastructure in the country.

NATRiP Testing Centres

As part of NATRIP, the following test centres have been finalized to setup the test facilities as described below :

• GARC Chennai
• iCAT Manesar
• NATRAX Indore
• NCVRS Raebareli
• NIAIMT Silchar
• VRDE Ahmednagar
• ARAI Pune
Sorry for the OT, but wanted to highlight the importance of testing as a science by itself.

Thanks tsarkar. Good that they are doing this. Until now automotive testing facilities have remained grossly insufficient and pathetic at best.

The testing I mentioned is over and above the regular tests that OEMs do through ARAI approved test matrix in such test centers or in their own test tracks. When the product is almost ready for launch they will be given to professional travellers who would test bikes or Cars as users, take them to every corner of the country and give feedback. Just recently I heard Tata claimed Nexon was driven for 8 lakh km before launch. Majority of that would be actually user testingin the field. Only small difference is here user is professional who is expert enough to translate user experience in technical feedback. Of coarse any car or bike will be tested by end user after launch. Initial buyers are kind of guinea pigs. Based on their experience OEM refines product in first few months or a year. I closely followed Bajaj's development of new generation of Pulsars for couple of years, as I had bought one. Met their engineers, attemded their user feedback sessions, was following online user forum and all.

But since defense products are more complicated and much more is at stakes including lives of soldiers, the testing before actual launch has to be much more regorous, obviously.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 11 Sep 2017 00:57

hanumadu wrote:Apologies if posted earlier.

Can we do it on our own when we needed Israeli help for MRSAM/LRSAM?

Yes. We now have significant competence in designing long range radars and seeker development.

Prasad · Post by **Prasad** » 11 Sep 2017 01:11

Karan,
Going more off topic but where do you see naval radars going? Will we see a desi alternative to mfstars?

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 11 Sep 2017 01:22

Manish_Sharma wrote:
hanumadu wrote:Apologies if posted earlier.

Can we do it on our own when we needed Israeli help for MRSAM/LRSAM?
Actually our contribution to MARSAN/SRSAM is more significant as we have designed it's dual pulse motor

I'll just use your post to make this point as it keeps coming up. Not just the motor!
The missile, motor, actuator and arming mechanism:
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-clubPI8zJG0/V ... AEFruL.jpg

For the rest (MRSAM in particular).
The Combat Management system (http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-rzAxuh0BA_E/T ... 5MRSAM.jpg) being developed by TATA ASL along with DRDO & the missile TELS themselves with all the associated launching & communications technologies (http://www.military-today.com/missiles/mr_sam.jpg). Also: http://defense-update.com/20160329_mrsam-2.html
Used in the IAF tests as well. https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-JTi0SJiS208/ ... RSAM_3.jpg

For the radar, the vehicle plus power generation plus cooling system is from India as well, as I remember.

The radar & parts of the missile including its seeker are from Israel.

MRSAM was launched when our seeker programs & long range radar programs were in their infancy.

Today, India has its own EL/M-2084 equivalent in the S-Band Arudhra radar.
http://i.imgur.com/38MO1oI.jpg

Its seeker programs are advancing (Astra is being tested with an indigenized seeker, plus there is the long running ARSEEK program for Ku-band seekers.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 11 Sep 2017 01:23

Prasad wrote:Karan,
Going more off topic but where do you see naval radars going? Will we see a desi alternative to mfstars?

Yes, I presume so. The Navy is likely to ask LRDE (if it hasnt already) to make an AESA MFCR equal to what they get via import. IMHO we might see a desi-radar program for the IAC as well.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 11 Sep 2017 01:26

Arudhra and Ashwini are repeatedly remarked to be built as part of a scalable design which can be used for a family of multi-function radars.
Arudhra is in IAF user trials (300 km, AESA). Ashwini is in final developmental trials (180km, AESA).

Manish_Sharma · Post by **Manish_Sharma** » 11 Sep 2017 01:49

Karan M wrote:
I'll just use your post to make this point as it keeps coming up. Not just the motor!
The missile, motor, actuator and arming mechanism:
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-clubPI8zJG0/V ... AEFruL.jpg

.......

Thanks Karan, it was from you I learnt here about dual pulse motor and was

before I use to think it as an all Israeli project...

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 11 Sep 2017 02:45

Karan M wrote:
Today, India has its own EL/M-2084 equivalent in the S-Band Arudhra radar.
http://i.imgur.com/38MO1oI.jpg

I always thought the Arudha was the -2084 manufactured locally under Israel's build it yourself model for the radar family. What are the differences between the two?

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 11 Sep 2017 03:26

Can we focus on missiles related subjects in this thread?

hanumadu · Post by **hanumadu** » 11 Sep 2017 04:13

Karan M wrote:
Manish_Sharma wrote:
Actually our contribution to MARSAN/SRSAM is more significant as we have designed it's dual pulse motor
I'll just use your post to make this point as it keeps coming up. Not just the motor!
The missile, motor, actuator and arming mechanism:
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-clubPI8zJG0/V ... AEFruL.jpg

For the rest (MRSAM in particular).
The Combat Management system (http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-rzAxuh0BA_E/T ... 5MRSAM.jpg) being developed by TATA ASL along with DRDO & the missile TELS themselves with all the associated launching & communications technologies (http://www.military-today.com/missiles/mr_sam.jpg). Also: http://defense-update.com/20160329_mrsam-2.html
Used in the IAF tests as well. https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-JTi0SJiS208/ ... RSAM_3.jpg

For the radar, the vehicle plus power generation plus cooling system is from India as well, as I remember.

The radar & parts of the missile including its seeker are from Israel.

MRSAM was launched when our seeker programs & long range radar programs were in their infancy.

Today, India has its own EL/M-2084 equivalent in the S-Band Arudhra radar.
http://i.imgur.com/38MO1oI.jpg

Its seeker programs are advancing (Astra is being tested with an indigenized seeker, plus there is the long running ARSEEK program for Ku-band seekers.

Wow, In spite of all those contributions from the Indian side, the Indian part of $2.5B order for MRSAM is only $0.9B while the Israeli part is $1.6B.
http://defense-update.com/20170406_mrsam-3.html

Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI) and the Indian Ministry of Defense signed a contract worth US$1.6 billion today, for the supply of an unspecified number of Medium Range Surface to Air Missiles (MRSAM) for the Indian Land Forces.

The contract reflects the Israeli part of the $2.5 billion MRSAM order cleared by the Indian government in February this year.

shaun · Post by **shaun** » 11 Sep 2017 07:57

hanumadu wrote:
Wow, In spite of all those contributions from the Indian side, the Indian part of $2.5B order for MRSAM is only $0.9B while the Israeli part is $1.6B.
http://defense-update.com/20170406_mrsam-3.html

Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI) and the Indian Ministry of Defense signed a contract worth US$1.6 billion today, for the supply of an unspecified number of Medium Range Surface to Air Missiles (MRSAM) for the Indian Land Forces.

The contract reflects the Israeli part of the $2.5 billion MRSAM order cleared by the Indian government in February this year.

It seems value of seeker of the missile and radar is more or it covers TOT too ??

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 11 Sep 2017 08:41

This is a JV there is no TOT involved , Each side would bring its share of technology as agreed upon and integrated into one system.....Neither India would share any TOT from its side nor will Israel thats the whole idea about JV , its possible over long term each side would indignous these system if they had agreed upon.

sum · Post by **sum** » 11 Sep 2017 09:30

^^ Wasnt there a quote by BEL/<some Indian official> posted here a while back which stated that the MSRAM system was to be treated as a Israeli IP which had caused some noise on this dhaga?

manjgu · Post by **manjgu** » 11 Sep 2017 10:15

a query...about NAG ... Does the seeker accquire target at launch or mid course? does the target have to be in LOS? how does cueing happen?