Indian Missiles News & Discussions - May 2017

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 16 Nov 2018 22:32

Also GD the scope of naval battles has gone down.
The largest fleets were at Battle of Lepanto with oar powered ships.
Spanish Armada was next.
After that it was Trafalgar.
Next Jutland which was draw.
WWII Midway and Coral sea were much smaller but over a larger area.
Armada for D-Day was a channel crossing of a depleted Luftwaffe and deception.
All those sneak attacks are jihadi type strikes.
India is too large for those to make a difference.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 16 Nov 2018 22:41

Well jutland was a day long cagefight pub brawl.., a vast manthan with each cg/bb unleashing 100s of rounds each. The ships that fell were due to exploding charges stacked up in unprotected areas outside the magazine to speed up salvo rates

In ww2 not many sea vs sea battles as carriers took over but the battle of leyte gulf did have its moments with the giant musashi bearing down on the usn light carriers and smacking them a few

Anyway my point was if carrier task forces want to try blocsding our sea lanes anywhere in the ior we need our eyes and sword ready

Prasad · Post by **Prasad** » 16 Nov 2018 23:16

Well as far as early detection goes, either in the IOR threat axis or continental prc (via bombers), we need long eyes to track movements. The chinese are building up their bomber fleet with both conventional and a probable stealth(how much ?) bomber too. They won't be shy of running patrols if they get a big enough fleet, which won't be too long. So he isn't too far on the need for ground-based long range eyes.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 17 Nov 2018 02:08

Karan,

I think I have proven my fanboism towards DDR multiple times, but they got it wrong the PDV led to Pralay.

I will let you be the judge:
Pralay

Details from tender. Mark the caliber

The best known dimensions of Shaurya (you know who to thank)

Pralay, can be easily adapted for air launch, but we cannot. No platform. I know that the last 40 Su-30 is for strategic purposes to remove (over) dependence on France. The platforms are hardened in ways that only the worthies know, But AFAIK, there were no change in the capacity of the hardpoints.

The most extensive of those works is what HAL did on Su-30 for Brahmos-A. It is the heaviest single payload that a Su-30 has ever carried by combining the capacity of two augmented centerline hardpoints. The Russians also acknowledged this.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 17 Nov 2018 06:57

Russia yanks the chain of uk by sending bombers to skirt their adiz over mer du nord and likewise near alaska

Cheen will do ot soon over ior once their bomber fleet and confidence grows

They will start some base like hainan , fly over the malacca international airspace pissfully using overt transponder code, the in between andaman and nicobar gap, south of sri lanka and on to djibouti .., bomber and refuler mixed team. Reverse route few days later. Global pawa flag wave right there

We will not even be able to intercept and escort them the way things are right now

And without blackjacks we cannot return compliment

The p8 lacks aar else a midas and p8 combo from car nicobar may have been able

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 17 Nov 2018 07:36

Where are those damned backfires!

Avarachan · Post by **Avarachan** » 17 Nov 2018 07:45

Indranil wrote:Pralay, can be easily adapted for air launch, but we cannot. No platform. I know that the last 40 Su-30 is for strategic purposes to remove (over) dependence on France. The platforms are hardened in ways that only the worthies know, But AFAIK, there were no change in the capacity of the hardpoints.

The most extensive of those works is what HAL did on Su-30 for Brahmos-A. It is the heaviest single payload that a Su-30 has ever carried by combining the capacity of two augmented centerline hardpoints. The Russians also acknowledged this.

Indranil guru, all I'm going to say about this is that the 42 Flankers ordered in 2010 were assembled in Russia, not India. And, there are members of the Flanker family that have capacities beyond that of the standard Su-30.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 17 Nov 2018 07:53

There are going to be backfires too old and no plans for new production run

Go big or go home - this is where its at

http://www.businessinsider.com/russia-n ... er-2017-11

Avarachan · Post by **Avarachan** » 17 Nov 2018 08:01

Singha wrote:There are going to be backfires too old and no plans for new production run

Singha, are you aware that Tu-22M3's are being upgraded to Tu-22M3M's as we speak?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-22M

Tu-22M3 for the Russian Air Force with engines from Tu-160M2 (NK-32-02), upgraded avionics (SVP-24-22 bombsights, a NV-45 radar and an improved cockpit)[69] and the ability to use precision air-to-surface weapons. Prior to 2020 it is planned to upgrade 30 Tu-22M3 with new hardware components and adapted for the extended range weapons.[70] Can carry 4 Kh-47M2 Kinzhal[71] or 3 Kh-32 missiles.[72] The first flight is scheduled for August 2018.[73] The roll-out ceremony of the first modernized aircraft took place at the Kazan Aviation Plant on 16 August 2018.[74]

Also, see these articles:
https://www.rbth.com/economics/defence/ ... sia_611501

https://www.rbth.com/blogs/stranger_tha ... ber_615567
Rakesh Simha has been overly influenced by Bharat Karnad, but there are nonetheless interesting links in this article.

I'm not sure that India will go ahead and purchase/lease these Tu-22's, but India is certainly considering it. It depends on how the Chinese aircraft-carrier fleet develops.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 17 Nov 2018 09:01

Upgraded for russian use only there is no plan or money for new build medium bomber run

Its blackjack or nothing - new build blackjacks with new engines are funded

On the day of gotterdamerung in middle of indian ocean with friendly aussie jorn cues crippled by bgrv attack from edge of space and two large navies trying to locate and sink one another, those blackjacks will be a critical force multiplier and time sensitive strike asset from the cape to perth

Put them in bidar and they can strike in any point of compass land or sea

Fund their quals with our pgm for mass strikes of garuda and so on like b1 does

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 17 Nov 2018 10:06

Singha wrote:http://www.businessinsider.com/russia-n ... er-2017-11

Heh heh. Who can say no to great white swan, but in it's absence, we'll take even a duck billed platypus saar.

Makes sense to buy a few BJ's though, they always feel good.

Karthik S · Post by **Karthik S** » 17 Nov 2018 10:08

Blackjacks are deterrents, 1 BJ can carry 6 BrahMos, 1 Talwar carries 8.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 17 Nov 2018 11:38

Indranil, Pralay weighs 5 tonnes.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 17 Nov 2018 11:53

An air launched version won’t.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 17 Nov 2018 14:00

India developing systems against ballistic missiles of more capability: Nambiar

https://www.outlookindia.com/newsscroll ... ar/1422923

Shillong, Nov 16 Noting that that Russian-made S-400 Triumf missile system is one of the most advanced air defence systems, Eastern Air Command Chief, Air Marshal Raghunath Nambiar on Friday said India is also developing systems to defend itself against ballistic missiles of more capability.

"We will have this capability (S-400 Triumf missile system) to defeat any space-based threat of a certain velocity. As this threat keeps growing, we will have to develop other systems," Air Marshal Nambiar said.

"Our nation is developing systems to defend ourselves from ballistic missiles of more capability," he said at the North Eastern Council headquarters in Meghalaya.

He said the state-owned Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) is also developing Program AD ballistic missile system, which will be more capable of interception.

"After Triumpf, it is going to be an Indian system (Program Air Defence) which will be more capable. It will not only intercept within our own atmosphere but also outside," he said.

"We have tasted success. I was skeptical as anyone else would be, but having seen the Program functions, I think it is just a matter of a few minor glitches and other issues to be set right. We have a very capable air defence system and more importantly, it is 'Make in India' system, which will be more cost-effective, more widely available for us with little secrecy because everything will be known by us," the Air Marshal said.

He said the S-400 Triumf capability, which will be in India's possession in 23 months from now, is to is to defeat airborne or spaceborne challenges besides giving the ability to defend India very effectively.

India and Russia signed an agreement for the purchase of the missile system in 2016.

On China's stealth fighter jets, Nambiar who test-flew the Rafale jet in France, said, "We believe we have the capability to defeat the Chinese with what we have at the moment. What happens in the future is another question. But today, we believe that we have the resources, the ability, the training and the ability to defeat at a particular level, but tomorrow is another new day."

Asked how potent the Indian Air Force is in its airspace, Nambiar said, "Our neighbourhood is dangerous. We have nuclear-armed neighhbours who have designs and claims on what belongs to us. So it is best to be well prepared and forewarned."

"We believe we have deterrence today. We have the strength, the capability. We have forces both in theatres as well as outside," Nambiar said.

On China's developing airfields in the Tibet region, the Air Marshal said, "We are geographically blessed. We have airfields which are at a low altitude and almost at sea level. Most of our airfields are at 400 feet and therefore our aircraft can lift a lot of load."

_______________________--

Edited by Karan M: Austin, I have highlighted crucial parts.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 18 Nov 2018 02:26

Indranil wrote:Karan,

I think I have proven my fanboism towards DDR multiple times, but they got it wrong the PDV led to Pralay.

I will let you be the judge:

Yeah, i think you have got it cent per cent. In DDRs defence, I guess they went by a Rout article which stated Pralay was derived from the PDV, but i don't know which came first, their article or the Rout one.

Pralay, can be easily adapted for air launch, but we cannot. No platform.

Blackjack perhaps. Not sure what the Russkies would charge us to add a Pralay capability to them.

I know that the last 40 Su-30 is for strategic purposes to remove (over) dependence on France. The platforms are hardened in ways that only the worthies know, But AFAIK, there were no change in the capacity of the hardpoints.

The most extensive of those works is what HAL did on Su-30 for Brahmos-A. It is the heaviest single payload that a Su-30 has ever carried by combining the capacity of two augmented centerline hardpoints. The Russians also acknowledged this.

The 42 odd Su-30s are basically one and the same thing IMO. They were the ones originally planned for modification fully in Russia, but HAL ended up doing the Brahmos part. When Pillai saar was referring to the Su-30s he was clear they were the intended Brahmos carriers. So, we did the crucial strengthening part. So these 40 odd airframes will likely feature some additional EMP hardening etc, plus the wiring and pylons plus strengthened internals to carry the Brahmos-A/Air Launched Article (Rudra).

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 18 Nov 2018 02:35

Based on AM Nambiars comments:

1. S-400 is for both BMD and AD; BMD till a certain velocity profile, DRDO BMD system will complement and surpass it.

2. DRDO BMD system has proven it works in tests; by no means some R&D effort alone as vested interests in the media/import lobby keep trying to insinuate.

3. Some finetuning for the DRDO system still to be done, which is normal. Plus it will continue on its upgrade path.

4. J-20 or FC-31, with the Rafale, Su-30 combo, IAF still feels it can defeat these platforms (backed up by its sensor grid).

5. The payload issue for Chinese platforms remains.

nam · Post by **nam** » 18 Nov 2018 02:55

The word by AVM should lay to rest any doubts about our capabilities in the ABM arena. Clearly this tech was driven by DRDO, rather than services. To be precise, it was pushed by APJ Kalam.

Since the time the program was revealed to this day, we hardly heard any comment from IAF on BMD, even a general discussion. It was treated as DRDO's fantasy ride and there was no belief it it will ever be deployed.

AVM words show IAF is coming around the thought DRDO is one to something. A clear case of technologist driving change, rather than services.Increases belief in our MIC and allows IAF to dream much bigger.

We need more such "fantasy rides" from DRDO. We need such advantages.

Edit: BMD laid the foundation of our 21 century Air defence system. It got us AESA, Missile seeker, high energy propellant, net centric command and control.

Imagine not having AESA ..

Prem Kumar · Post by **Prem Kumar** » 18 Nov 2018 14:44

Another reason for Armed Forces accepting BMD is that, like the ballistic missile program, no one will part with this technology.

But its heartening to have an Air Marshal say that he is impressed and thinks ours will surpass S-400 in capability.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 18 Nov 2018 14:54

Another IAF bigwig in supreme court while testifying on rafale saying he personally likes the LCA and is waiting for it to enter service in numbers!

Arms importer 1 to Arms importer 2. "Ghor kalyug, Ghor kalyug".

Bart S · Post by **Bart S** » 18 Nov 2018 19:30

Sometimes in the past we have had visionary chiefs or senior leadership in the forces but their vision and knowledge in their individual capacity didn't become part of the system and the chain was broken, especially with political appointments and things regressed. Hope this continues to become part of the organizational culture so that others can build on it and take it further.

Vips · Post by **Vips** » 18 Nov 2018 19:37

The real fun will be when India accomplishes a success in the simultaneous exo/endo test. This has been in the works and was to be done in 2015. Hope it is done soon now.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 19 Nov 2018 05:48

Location of any large strat. bomber.Interesting thought about Bidar.Ark. has the longest runway (in Asia?) in the country, earlier housed the Bears there, but now the stable for the P-8s. Is there more room in the Ark inn?
Perhaps further south like Tanjore where Flankers can operate from, but obviously the runway and infra will have to be upgraded to operate a bomber.

Prem Kumar · Post by **Prem Kumar** » 19 Nov 2018 10:07

I've always felt that, a more achievable & strategic goal than the AMCA, would have been to build a B2-like long-range, stealth bomber.

1) Far less space constraints for radar, internal weapons bay
2) Far less aerodynamic requirements (making 9G turns etc)
3) Strategic role
4) Large loadout of Nirbhay, Brahmos, NGARM for conventional role
5) Kick-the-doors open phase of war. To destroy Cheeni SAMs & airbases within the 1st week. A2G role, which paves the way for air-dominance.

Point #5 is a key requirement IMO. In short intense wars, we should have the ability to annihilate the enemy infrastructure so much in Week 1 that it takes them decades to recover, even if the war itself is a stalemate. Today, we cannot do it. Sukhois with A2G role have a limited payload capacity, considering that they have to defend themselves A2A. It means lots of sorties. Plus, there will be attrition, because they are not stealth.

Engine would of course be a problem, as with AMCA too. But a B2 like approach would've helped us master technologies incrementally. Solve the stealth & A2G AESA problem first and produce a working product. Then for AMCA, solve A2A AESA, space constraints, supercruise etc.

Trying to solve everything under AMCA in one-shot delays the deliverable & even risks it altogether. Like with LCA, where we planned for AESA + Kaveri in the 1st version itself and had to finally drop them, leading to heartburn.

This is not to say that the bomber & AMCA projects need to happen sequentially. They can be done parallely, but one of the projects produces a deliverable in a shorter timeframe. The projects can have tight co-ordination to share knowhow.

<OT End>

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 19 Nov 2018 10:27

^^ This is not a bomber or Design your own aircraft thread. Only a limited discussion as delivery platform for missiles is halal here.

abhik · Post by **abhik** » 19 Nov 2018 18:20

I too have a hard on for heavy bombers, but we have no experience making any heavy aircraft (I guess heaviest one we have made is MKI at a measly 20t empty).

John · Post by **John** » 19 Nov 2018 19:54

abhik wrote:I too have a hard on for heavy bombers, but we have no experience making any heavy aircraft (I guess heaviest one we have made is MKI at a measly 20t empty).

Problem with procuring something like Tu-22m3/Tu-160 in miniscule numbers is that we are reliant on Russia for almost all maintenance or parts or enhancements. We have pay far too much just to fly handful of sorties in a year. After that experience with Tu-142 and Il-38 I don’t believe IN wants to go back to that again, IAF has its hands full with its existing procurements to fund billions for Tu-160 is unlikely.

Kakarat · Post by **Kakarat** » 20 Nov 2018 00:30

After Big S-400 Deal, Russia ‘Wins’ Indian Army VSHORADS Missile Contest - Livefist

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 20 Nov 2018 08:24

Total nearing $7b for russkies.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 20 Nov 2018 09:11

https://twitter.com/livefist/status/106 ... 84001?s=19

Beauty shot.

Can some one get a hires?

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 20 Nov 2018 10:11

Either they should have let Ruskies field new Verba system which has 3 mode guidance plus higher range and altitude of interception with all digital systemand has entered Russian Army last year or should have opted of RBS-70NG , The latter is a beam rider and is very difficult to jam by any counter measures and has slightly better performance.

RBS-70NG was any day a better choice in terms of performance over Igla-S system but would have been more expensive but worth the money if you look at the induction cycle for next 20 years these systems will be in service. I had a lengthy discussion with the RBS 70 folks at AI and its a superior system.

Same goes for Ak-103 over Ak-15 , IA could have gone for the latter offering better performance.

L1 can be a serious bottleneck in technology intensive competition but is safe bet for decision makers. Penny Wise Pound foolish type of decison MOD takes

Srutayus · Post by **Srutayus** » 20 Nov 2018 10:24

L1 can be a serious bottleneck in technology intensive competition but is safe bet for decision makers. Penny Wise Pound foolish type of decison MOD takes

When unsubstantiated mudslinging for political gain becomes normal, decision makers will have to take relief in procedure. And we cannot blame them.
Unfortunately, the country looses.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 20 Nov 2018 11:11

L1 is no bottleneck at all if the technical specifications are properly set and adhered to.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 20 Nov 2018 11:31

Srutayus wrote:
L1 can be a serious bottleneck in technology intensive competition but is safe bet for decision makers. Penny Wise Pound foolish type of decison MOD takes
When unsubstantiated mudslinging for political gain becomes normal, decision makers will have to take relief in procedure. And we cannot blame them.
Unfortunately, the country looses.

The better option will be for the PM to say no more imports. Whatever capacity is needed has to be developed at home.

Funding should be made available to domestic products.

Armed forces will have to be told that they have to make do with what the domestic industry will provide.

The industry will have to be told to diliver on the SQR asked for by the services.

This needs a change in attitude at all stake holders. Civilian leadership, the industry, the armed forces.

I am thinking of the ISRO model or the attitude that resulted in the development of PARAM supercomputer.

National missions for different sectors.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 20 Nov 2018 11:40

Livefist wrote:After Big S-400 Deal, Russia ‘Wins’ Indian Army VSHORADS Missile Contest - Livefist
Army sources say while all three systems have had performance or technical compliance niggles since field evaluations began in 2012, the Russian Igla-S had the most significant issues: firing was deemed not successful during field trials, target acquisition continuously failed, and, to top it all, the Igla-S didn’t have a state-of-the-art sight during trials. With today’s declaration of a Russian win, the Indian MoD has signaled that the issues were either addressed, or waivers granted.

Sources tell Livefist that Russia tried to push the 9K333 Verba system into the contest to replace of the Igla-S principally because of the latter’s performance issues in around 2016. However, replacing a product mid-course under an unusually strict set of targets charted out in the RfP was simply not an option, and would have meant an instant reboot to the contest. Russia was told the Verba couldn’t come anywhere near the race, and the VSHORADS contest would only test the Igla-S.

Here we go again. Another future "damning CAG report" in the making. Typical of the loony manner in which our procurement system works. The Russian OEM wants to replace its dodgy offering with a newer system, while the MoD/IA insists on placing a contract only for an older system.

Still.. its the Russians - they have first claim over the Indian treasury. Hell we're willing to place orders sans competition for light helos (instead of indigenous ones), frigates (instead of indigenous ones), assault rifles (instead of an indigenous ones), so what's a few waivers between old friends.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 20 Nov 2018 12:42

Rahul M wrote:L1 is no bottleneck at all if the technical specifications are properly set and adhered to.

Yes a tighter specs is a good work around L1 , Thats how Rafale won the day , good specs and L1

Kakarat · Post by **Kakarat** » 20 Nov 2018 12:53

There were some reports in 2017 that MOD has asked DRDO to develop VSHORADS, has there been any development on this?

A Deshmukh · Post by **A Deshmukh** » 20 Nov 2018 14:39

Austin wrote:Either they should have let Ruskies field new Verba system which has 3 mode guidance plus higher range and altitude of interception with all digital systemand has entered Russian Army last year or should have opted of RBS-70NG , The latter is a beam rider and is very difficult to jam by any counter measures and has slightly better performance.

RBS-70NG was any day a better choice in terms of performance over Igla-S system but would have been more expensive but worth the money if you look at the induction cycle for next 20 years these systems will be in service. I had a lengthy discussion with the RBS 70 folks at AI and its a superior system.

Same goes for Ak-103 over Ak-15 , IA could have gone for the latter offering better performance.

L1 can be a serious bottleneck in technology intensive competition but is safe bet for decision makers. Penny Wise Pound foolish type of decison MOD takes

Tech wise Mistral was superior - fire and forget.
RBS70NG needs soldier to keep lock on the attacking aircraft.
Igla had repeatedly failed the tests.

But more importantly the cost of deal in these initial reports are $3B for 1000 missiles. the need is for 5000 missiles. that $15B in total !!!.
and this was touted as a $5-6B project.

Nothing to be happy about (tech or money). will wait for more details.

John · Post by **John** » 20 Nov 2018 17:46

But more importantly the cost of deal in these initial reports are $3B for 1000 missiles. the need is for 5000 missiles. that $15B in total !!!.

This is not right? Even Barak-8 costs less than mil per missile. A manpad costing 3 million is insanity.

Added: The deal is 1.3 billion for 5175 missiles still a bit expensive for iglas.

Gyan · Post by **Gyan** » 20 Nov 2018 17:59

Each Barak 8 is around USD 4 MILLION