Indian Missiles News & Discussions - 17 Dec 2018

[Karan M]

Two exposes on the media hitjob.

1. One by Hukum - he goes line by line, repeating it here:

https://twitter.com/hukum2082/status/12 ... 0232200192

The @firstpost report by Yatish Yadav on problems plaguing the Akash Missile in @IAF_MCC service is an arms lobby sponsored hit-job. It is an attempt to weaken the government's thrust on procurement of indigenous weapon systems.I elaborate in the thread below :-

Allegation 1

The report states that "On 3rd June, 2018, Akash Missile's Transportation and Loading Vehicle (TLV), parked at an Air Force Squadron, was jolted after a sudden burst of tube followed by shearing off wheel bolts due to impact.

Clarification 1

Tubeless Tire of an Ashok Leyland Missile Carrier burst due to weight/over pressure/routine wear and as the weight landed on the rims , the wheel bolts gave away.Happens on Indian Highways everyday.

Allegation 2 :

More than a month later, another squadron reported cracks on air intake caps of dummy missiles.

Clarification 2 :

Dummy Missiles are for crew training and the same missiles are routinely used to train multiple crews.Regular use can cause an air-intake cap to crack.Note : This was not live ordnance.

Allegation 3 :

Air Force mentioned it on record that the Integrated Air Compressor and Storage Facility (IACSF) of Akash Missile System units are unserviceable due to wobbling and vibration, pneumatic leakage, breaking of mounting pads and bolts.

Clarification 3 : Military Grade Air Compressors are trailer mounted units which look like Gensets on Wheels.The compressors need to be serviced regularly. Any pneumatic leakage points to loose gaskets , Cracked O rings , leaking welds and joints. Easily fixable issues.

Clarification 3 Continued : Wobbling Trailers point to axle and suspension issues.Could also be a bent wheel rim.Compressors vibrate when mounting pads are loose due to broken bolts.A clear case of maintenance lapse after field usage.What does the AMC say ? Who is the vendor ?

Allegation 4 :

The incidents of leakage from fuel tanks and leakage in pressurised missile containers

Clarification 4 :


The Aakash Missile is Solid Fuelled and cannot leak.Leakage from the Missile Carrier Truck's Fuel Tank is being presented as a Missile Fuel Leak.Pneumatic Leakage in Missile Containers has been discussed earlier pointing to Compressor Maintenance Issues.

Issues with Servo Control Unit , Connector Unit and Booster Nozzle failure do point to poor QA/QC practices at BEL/BDL and this needs to be corrected on a war footing.

Most of the complaints are for the IAF Version of the missile and mostly related to Support Equipment like the Missile Transportation Vehicle (MTV) and the Air Compressor Vehicle (ACV).No deal breaking issues with the Missile and Radar. This also points to poor program management at BEL/BDL where Supply Chains are lax and Warranty Contracts have been loosely worded.Time to learn from Automobile Companies.

This is a clear attempt to discredit the entire missile system for routine support equipment failure.Have Russian and Israeli SAMs in @IAF_MCC service never had maintenance issues ? This report closely follows @RAFAELdefense public spat with @DRDO_India. Smell Something ?[/

And this report by erstwhile BRF member Huma Siddiqui:

Indian Air Force to get deadly Akash missiles! Places order for 7 squadrons of Made-in-India missile system

Dismissing reports in a section of the media about the systems which are supporting ground system, sources said that “maintenance is not carried out by DRDO but the Defence PSUs. (PTI)

Satisfied by the consistent and reliable performance by the indigenous Akash Missile System, Surface to Air Missile (SAM) an additional order for seven more squadrons have been placed by the Indian Air Force recently. This is by far the highest order placed by the service for the Akash Missile System.

The number of missiles fired in Ex- Vayu Shakti 2019 or Crossbow-18, the Akash Missile System had successfully intercepted and destroyed unmanned aerial targets.

In Ex Crossbow-18 the indigenous Akash Missile System was fielded along with imported SAM weapon system under integrated Air defence operations and it surpassed all expectations. The made in India Akash Weapon System has proved its performance capability and reliability which has been successfully demonstrated by the IAF.

There were some teething problems related to extensive field usage faced by squadrons based in the North East and after several rounds of meetings between the user, DRDO and the defence PSUs BDL and BEL and other agencies involved, a mechanism has been evolved to carry out the maintenance together. However, due to the inclement weather in North East, there have been delays in carrying out the repairs.

To a question about serviceability and maintainability of the system, a former IAF officer explained “The BDL/BEL are Defence PSUs and are responsible for the maintainability of the system. There is no design issue with the system which has been designed and developed by DRDO.” And, “a proper ecosystem has been evolved between the user –IAF, DRDO, BEL/BDL from development to commissioning.”

In case of any faults, proper investigations are carried out by DRDO and issues resolved with the joint efforts of the user IAF, BEL/BDL, and other agencies which also included design change.

Sources said that prototypes were made and tested in one equipment and after successful testing and clearance by Quality Assurance (QA), produced in the required quantity and retrofitted in equipment in unit locations. The Missile system comes with combat ground systems which are directly responsible for engaging the threat and supporting ground systems to facilitate the readiness of the combat systems.

Dismissing reports in a section of the media about the systems which are supporting ground system, sources said that “maintenance is not carried out by DRDO but the Defence PSUs. However, design solutions towards the main combat systems are given high priority and addressing the issues related to the other supporting ground system was taken simultaneously.”

https://www.financialexpress.com/defenc ... m/1783341/

[Prem Kumar]

Great find & am glad someone is busting the hitjob immediately! A big thanks to the IAF!

How did Yatish Yadav get very specific details of support/maintenance problems, which turned out to be non-deal-breaking? There are people on the "inside" feeding him this info - for a fee, no doubt

[Prem Kumar]

You know what else must burn up Rafael - the report that, during the recent Vayushakthi, the Akash missile system outperformed all imported missiles, including the SPYDER

[Kartik]

Expect more of this kind of reports as more and more indigenous equipment enters service. The Indian market is too large and too lucrative for foreign firms to let it go so easily. And with a paid media that will more than happily do whatever they are asked to do as long as some carrot is dangled in front of them, it's not hard either.

[Cybaru]

We should present the other point of view in print if possible. JayS and Indranil did a good job last time.

[suryag]

Am not brushing these issues aside however, these kind of issues are normal when your first product hits the market. Any product when it hits the market needs to be backed up with Field Applications Engineers(FAEs) support and very often it happens that companies are not prepared/foresee the need or magnitude of after release support. BTW, the companies am talking about are huge ones not some chota startups. The other issue is of course the yield and am very much in agreement with IAF's approach of not accepting the product if it doesnt pass incoming quality control benchmarks

[chetak]

saar,

quality checks are designer defined.

If quality checks are tinkered with then the cost of poor quality kicks in.

A missile system is not to be checked based on experience.

The designers and the manufacturing engineers are the ones who decide on which quality checks to keep and which to waive off based on experience. For something like a missile, there would be thousands of drawing requirements. If all of them are to be checked for quality, it would take more time to check than to make it. The designers need to prioritize.

sirji,

This is not a matter subject to opinion or expediency.

There are set principles involved here. A lot of these PSUs, as well as the private players, are subject to the requirements of standards like AS9100D + DO160G derived test specs apart from many others that apply simultaneously. Apart from all this, the customer is free to impose any other test/inspection requirements that he may choose and the supplier has no choice in the matter, except to comply and may be charge extra for the test.

The question of "waiving off" ANY inspection checks based on "experience" simply does not arise.

whose experience is relevant, and who is to judge whose experience is right and somebody else's experience is wrong

The inspections and the control plans are objective and not subjective.

Aviation standards are 100% inspection of each and every component. Sampling is not the norm here and nor is it allowed or permitted.

customers are not going to be bullied or bludgeoned into submission by some silly know it all who says that "in HIS opinion, checks are not required and they are a waste of time" Such companies or organisations will die a very quick, painful and an extremely well deserved death.

Yes indeed, there are tens of thousands of drawings. Why would there not be because such is the nature of the beast.

Pay close attention to each and every one of them or if you don't want to, then get out of the business.

Even flipping burgers these days are subject to numerous quality checks and stringent stage inspections.

Hamburger University is a 130,000-square-foot (12,000 m2) training facility of McDonald's, located in Chicago, Illinois. This 80 acre facility and corporate university was designed to instruct personnel employed by McDonald's in the various aspects of restaurant management.

Key characteristics of the burgers and their other food offerings are extremely minutely and stringently controlled and not to mention, enforced world wide.

Why can't the same be done for missiles and their parts here. Or our own chalta hai university takes precedence over all else, even to the extent of jeopardizing national security.

The vital question of whose father what goes when the missile does not perform as advertised is not being asked when it should be the very first question in everyone's mind.

Have we reached the stage of contemptuously overriding even CAG reports that are presented to parliament by saying that some joker on the shop floor is the final be all and end all of our defence systems.

how many corners are we going to cut

BTW, manufacturing engineers deciding on quality checks is like the fox guarding the henhouse. This is not done anywhere in the world.

I am not saying this, any, even halfway decent book on manufacturing will bear me out.

In the many hardworking PSUs that are there, no one, but no one ever talks like this about taking shortcuts in quality and inspections.

Inspection and quality shortcuts as part of the management or design narrative are sure fire career killers. No customer will ever deal with such organisations.

[chetak]

Am not brushing these issues aside however, these kind of issues are normal when your first product hits the market. Any product when it hits the market needs to be backed up with Field Applications Engineers(FAEs) support and very often it happens that companies are not prepared/foresee the need or magnitude of after release support. BTW, the companies am talking about are huge ones not some chota startups. The other issue is of course the yield and am very much in agreement with IAF's approach of not accepting the product if it doesnt pass incoming quality control benchmarks

Good show, Saar.

Finally, a sane voice in all the bedlam.

Thank you and this is the only way to go.

[Gerard]

India conducts another night trial of Prithvi-II missile

[ramana]

Do we know how long the recent A3 flew?

We know the first stage, separation between the two stages worked. Only data we have is down range it flew 115 km.

Rout says mfg defect hinted.

From wiki the second stage is maraging steel. Most likely there was latent lot defect in that batch.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agni-III

[Karan M]

Am not brushing these issues aside however, these kind of issues are normal when your first product hits the market. Any product when it hits the market needs to be backed up with Field Applications Engineers(FAEs) support and very often it happens that companies are not prepared/foresee the need or magnitude of after release support. BTW, the companies am talking about are huge ones not some chota startups. The other issue is of course the yield and am very much in agreement with IAF's approach of not accepting the product if it doesnt pass incoming quality control benchmarks

Good show, Saar.

Finally, a sane voice in all the bedlam.

Thank you and this is the only way to go.

All that is fine, but from the reports emerging these are not manufacturing and design issues to the level the original report presented, but can be related to issues of wear and tear post deployment, and need to be fixed at the unit level. In short, a malicious report.

[Vips]

Do we know how long the recent A3 flew?

We know the first stage, separation between the two stages worked. Only data we have is down range it flew 115 km.

Rout says mfg defect hinted.

From wiki the second stage is maraging steel. Most likely there was latent lot defect in that batch.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agni-III

Per a defense related AV on youtube it was a case of metallurgical failure/defect.

[darshhan]

Great find & am glad someone is busting the hitjob immediately! A big thanks to the IAF!

How did Yatish Yadav get very specific details of support/maintenance problems, which turned out to be non-deal-breaking? There are people on the "inside" feeding him this info - for a fee, no doubt

Apparently he was quoting CAG reports. But what is interesting is while CAG is generally critical of most weapon systems they audit(that is their job), this b@stard author selected only akash to castigate.

[chetak]

Good show, Saar.

Finally, a sane voice in all the bedlam.

Thank you and this is the only way to go.

All that is fine, but from the reports emerging these are not manufacturing and design issues to the level the original report presented, but can be related to issues of wear and tear post deployment, and need to be fixed at the unit level. In short, a malicious report.

that's one way to go.

there are other reports out too, which focuses squarely on the PSUs and their almost nonexistent support network.

[darshhan]

All that is fine, but from the reports emerging these are not manufacturing and design issues to the level the original report presented, but can be related to issues of wear and tear post deployment, and need to be fixed at the unit level. In short, a malicious report.

that's one way to go.

there are other reports out too, which focuses squarely on the PSUs and their almost nonexistent support network.

Chetak, Yes there is definitely room for improvement as far as DPSU's are concerned. But to be fair, till recently the only thing these DPSU's were doing was licence production. Support network as you mentioned comes from better drafted contracts(between forces and DPSU's) which ensure regular maintenance. Give them time. The issues mentioned are nothing special which cannot be rectified. And they will be.

But no matter what, these har@@mi import dalals should never be entertained and they should be called out for who they are i.e glamourised pimps and nothing else.

[chetak]

that's one way to go.

there are other reports out too, which focuses squarely on the PSUs and their almost nonexistent support network.

Chetak, Yes there is definitely room for improvement as far as DPSU's are concerned. But to be fair, till recently the only thing these DPSU's were doing was licence production. Support network as you mentioned comes from better drafted contracts(between forces and DPSU's) which ensure regular maintenance. Give them time. The issues mentioned are nothing special which cannot be rectified. And they will be.

But no matter what, these har@@mi import dalals should never be entertained and they should be called out for who they are i.e glamourised pimps and nothing else.

The customers do not deal with subcontractors and other entities in the PSU supply chain. This part is opaque to them.

The subcontractor guys are the exclusive domain of the PSUs and it has to provide the PSU owned customer support service at the level that has been previously agreed upon and signed off on a very expensive contract.

Picking up wet behind the ears, absolutely raw "engineers" on temporary employment terms with next to nil training because no one wants to invest in any expensive training programs on what are essentially use and throw employees and designating them as "field service engineers" because regular PSU employees think it beneath their station in life to perform such mundane roles and chores.

One actually needs to see this level of chicanery in action to even comprehend how the customer is being ripped off.

I remember the first time when certain "customer furnished equipment" was shipped to the fatherland for an ongoing aircraft upgrade and the russkies flung the whole thing back right into the face of the supplier PSU and they strongly suggested that the same be shoved in certain places where the sun don't shine.

Nothing in what was supplied even matched the russkie drawings as far as fitment was concerned and a major portion of the electronics LRUs were DOA, meaning dead on arrival.

It almost caused a very nasty diplomatic incident.

[darshhan]

Chetak, Yes there is definitely room for improvement as far as DPSU's are concerned. But to be fair, till recently the only thing these DPSU's were doing was licence production. Support network as you mentioned comes from better drafted contracts(between forces and DPSU's) which ensure regular maintenance. Give them time. The issues mentioned are nothing special which cannot be rectified. And they will be.

But no matter what, these har@@mi import dalals should never be entertained and they should be called out for who they are i.e glamourised pimps and nothing else.

The customers do not deal with subcontractors and other entities in the PSU supply chain. This part is opaque to them.

The subcontractor guys are the exclusive domain of the PSUs and it has to provide the PSU owned customer support service at the level that has been previously agreed upon and signed off on a very expensive contract.

Picking up wet behind the ears, absolutely raw "engineers" on temporary employment terms with next to nil training because no one wants to invest in any expensive training programs on what are essentially use and throw employees and designating them as "field service engineers" because regular PSU employees think it beneath their station in life to perform such mundane roles and chores.

One actually needs to see this level of chicanery in action to even comprehend how the customer is being ripped off.

Exactly. The customer does not sign the contract directly with subcontractors. However it has to sign watertight contract with the main contractor. Only then the main contractor(BDL/BEL in this case) will sign the same contract back to back with its subcontractors. From the article I deduce that this was not done. To rectify this many steps can be taken and will be taken. One of these steps is to grant the officers in IA and IAF better training in financial and contractual matters.

It takes time and experience to learn.

However again I reiterate that main issue here is that these import loving dallas are spinning this situation for their own selfish benefit which is nothing but treason. The flaws of DPSU's/DRDO etc have been discussed here many times and will be discussed in future too.There is even a DRDO and DPSU thread to discuss them. But today the clear and present danger to our country are these har@ami pimps and their malicious machinations.

[ramana]

So root cause analysis was already done? That fast!

[JayS]

Aviation standards are 100% inspection of each and every component. Sampling is not the norm here and nor is it allowed or permitted.

.
.
customers are not going to be bullied or bludgeoned into submission by some silly know it all who says that "in HIS opinion, checks are not required and they are a waste of time" Such companies or organisations will die a very quick, painful and an extremely well deserved death.
.
.
.
Why can't the same be done for missiles and their parts here. Or our own chalta hai university takes precedence over all else, even to the extent of jeopardizing national security.

.
.
BTW, manufacturing engineers deciding on quality checks is like the fox guarding the henhouse. This is not done anywhere in the world.

Bolded statement - (if we leave aside the bulk components like rivets, screws) Even if each component has quality check and no sampling is allowed, each component does not get checked for all design features, but only critical feature (sometimes the drawings themselves mark them as critical for clarity). That's what I was trying to tell. Now who, why, how decide which are critical features and which are not..???

I think if you see how any global level Aerospace company actually functions, you will end up thinking they all have "Chalta hai" attitude.

MFG engineers only can suggest, propose. Sign off authorities are always the Designers. And Quality guys do the checks.

Anyway, I said what I had to say on the matter giving my point of view.

[Prem Kumar]

The IAF calls out the lie peddled by dalal Yatish Yadav. Per their own words, these were initial developmental problems that have already been resolved & the order for 7 new squadrons were placed only after the problems were resolved!

If we were the U.S, Yatish Yadav's reputation would have been dragged through the mud so much that he will never pen another piece. If we were China, he & his handlers would never be heard of again.

https://aninews.in/news/national/genera ... 204171932/

[kit]

The IAF calls out the lie peddled by dalal Yatish Yadav. Per their own words, these were initial developmental problems that have already been resolved & the order for 7 new squadrons were placed only after the problems were resolved!

If we were the U.S, Yatish Yadav's reputation would have been dragged through the mud so much that he will never pen another piece. If we were China, he & his handlers would never be heard of again.

https://aninews.in/news/national/genera ... 204171932/

Quite right, it seems there are indeed some Indians behind this whole mess and not the Israelis., but i feel they should come clean and dissociate themselves publicly from such. There is a lot of goodwill for them and hopefully, they would do the right thing.

[tsarkar]

In the Indian context, coordination between Development Agency, Production Agency and End User is very poor.

Typically a DRDO lab has its own set of subcontractor. However, they're small scale and not able to scale up for mass production.

A DRDO scientist is not incentivised or has KPA of helping the production agency. Documentation is a tedious boring exercise and not given enough attention.

So while drawings and documents are shared, scaling up to production standards becomes the headache of the production agency. They need to get the necessary tooling etc. They need to farm out to a new set of subcontractors.

BDL never manufactured SAM's. So they needed to hire new engineers for field support. Needless to say, the new hires are not very proficient in the early years.

These peripheral irritants results in a lot of dissatisfaction in the services against indigenous products.

This is one area that Manohar Parrikar tried to improve.

https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/i ... 2016-06-29

Defense Minister Manohar Parrikar, handing over the torpedo to the Indian Navy, asked the DRDO to do "hand-holding" for the Bharat Dynamics Limited (BDL) which will be manufacturing the torpedo.

"I will also tell them their job is not over...They should ensure the product is of best international standards because not just Navy (will use them), we can export them. I have got a verbal clearance from navy chief too... He said there is no technological problem," Parrikar said, adding that the official procedures will be followed and stressed on quality control.

Having said that DPSU are learning. HAL is offering PBL to Coast Guard for Dhruv helicopters covering end to end maintenance.

[Karan M]

Well, in recent years, most of DRDO's subsystem contractors end up being the DSPU contractors as well. The issue is basically of QA/QC when some of these guys pull a fast one in some batches and also substandard maintenance at the user side which occurs because of lack of support either by the FRAs or the user themselves. In the recent Akash case, some of the issues mentioned should have been picked up and resolved, but werent.

[JayS]

IMO, MRO needs to be offloaded to the Private companies, taken out both from the hands of Armed Forces (except for field-level basic maintenance capability maintained which is essential from Wartime perspctive) and the DPSUs. Private companies can do far more effective work here and with much less cost (they dont have to pay by 7th Pay commission to everyone) with design level support and responsibility from/with the OEM (whether HAL/BDL/BEL etc) and oversight from the User overall. MRO is something which is a non-core activity for both the OEM and the AFs. We need specialised MRO companies. OEMs can subcontract them from their side under PBL or whichever type of contract that is signed between the OEM and the User. The User need to do the work of sub-contracting.

[Barath]

A debunking of overheated claims made in :

https://thediplomat.com/2019/12/failed- ... eterrence/

I used to find diplomat articles articles fairly good, definitely better than the average media. This one disappointed me.

---

The author, Pranav R. Satyanath's arguments are specious

I don't think Pakistan is likely to move forward with a first strike nuclear attack on India just because an Agni III failed.

A certain number of failures, targeting by enemy missiles and need for your own overkill etc is expected; that's why there are more missiles than targets major opponent's cities.

And even a single nuke getting through can ruin your day.

Besides, India has other missiles; not just K4 (?!) but K-15, Prithvi , other Agni missiles, and plane borne elements of the nuclear triad.

The idea that india would be inhibited by knowledge of putrported unreliability of it's nuclear edge is also not well borne out. After all, India can root cause and test at a high priority to estimate reliability. And even if it is completely dyfunctional, it is the perception of functionality in the enem eyes that counts. eg During Kargil, it was thought that pakistan's nukes had been ready, but it turned out later that they had not even been ready for deployment.

As long as sufficient uncertainty is created in the eyes of the enemy, to dissuade, the mission is accomplished.

The latest Agni III test provides yet another reason why India must not abandon NFU. Threatening to use nuclear weapons first requires an even greater level of preparedness of the weapon systems, as well as the command and control infrastructure. These systems, deployed in urgency, might fail to function correctly when required.

First, the linked 'proof' is to Stanislav petrov and the OKO early warning false alarm, which has nothing to do with the scenario he paints. Quite the reverse; it was a false alarm by a system expected to determine if the soviet union was under attack and thus aid decision to retaliate. So where does demands on first use come into it? If anything, it rebuts his argument and talks about reliability demands on NFU related systems nd processes

Second, reliability, command and control for a proactive first use deployment ought to be *much better* than for a reactive retaliation, which is hurried, with seconds to respond while enemy missiles are in the air or after undergoing damage to your C4 systems, under weight of nuclear attack, or decapitation of your leadership and bombardment of your own strategic forces.

Pranav gets it quite quite obviously wrong from common sense purposes.

One has to imagine that this silly argument and specious "proof" was hastily trotted out to serve a predetermined unsupported conclusion that India should not abandon NFU.

[Gerard]

Philippines likely to finalise BrahMos deal by next year

[ArjunPandit]

^^likely to finalize by next year.....

[Kartik]

From Janes

Philippines in talks with India to procure Brahmos supersonic cruise missile

The Philippines is seeking to acquire the BrahMos supersonic cruise missile system from India.

Official sources told Jane's on 9 December that officials from New Delhi and Manila are in advanced negotiations about the number of missiles to be procured and the overall contract value, adding that they expect a deal to be signed "sometime in 2020".

Also part of the negotiations are after-sale logistics to induct the 292-km range BrahMos, as well as the instruction of the Philippines Army's 1st Land-based Missile System Battery (1LBMS Btry), which was activated in October at Fort Magsaysay, to maintain and operate the weapon system.

[chetak]

twitter

Failed Agni III test may dent India's credible deterrence:

twitter

Far from it. Repeated and frequent tests - including occasional failed tests only sharpen deterrence - they don’t blunt it. What blunts deterrence is REPEATED failures

[dinesha]

Anup Sayare
@sayareakd
looks like SLBM k15 and one on right looks like K4.

https://twitter.com/sayareakd/status/12 ... 6461480960

[dinesha]

Between 17-19 December. Range 300Kms

[Vips]

We need to hear about proposed testing date news on K4, A4 and A5.

[tsarkar]

A decade back photos of IAF bases were Pechora missiles, P-18 radars and MiG-21s. How much have things changed!



We've seen photos of Akash at Tezpur, Chabua, Gwalior & Pune. Where else?

[lakshmanM]

Between 17-19 December. Range 300Kms

A BMD test?

[Kersi]

A decade back photos of IAF bases were Pechora missiles, P-18 radars and MiG-21s. How much have things changed!



We've seen photos of Akash at Tezpur, Chabua, Gwalior & Pune. Where else?

So now someone is asking for the locations of Akash batteries ?
Isn't this supposed to be confidential information.

A few months ago I asked a similar question on the radars on the Radar thread, Our holier-than-thou administrators banned me for asking such a question.

What will be the action taken by the administrators ? Ban me again

Waitng Waiting and Waiting

[ashishvikas]

Security Scan - BVRAAM : Beyond Visual Range Air to Air Missile

https://youtu.be/Yz79Zpc5dws

[tsarkar]

So now someone is asking for the locations of Akash batteries ?
Isn't this supposed to be confidential information.

Dear Kersi, I was referring to publicly published information by the services themselves and not from any other sources. So there is a difference.

Also I remember you were asking about THD radars that are long range strategic systems. Numbers and location of strategic radars like THD-1955 are never disclosed by IAF despite decades of service.

I was discussing Akash whose numbers are public knowledge by Govt disclosure and whose photos are released by IAF. Its also a tactical system meaning it can be moved between places.

I do agree with moderator messaging that deployment discussion isnt in the best national interest. I would not have asked unless the IAF displayed the systems publicly like in that image.

While I'm not a moderator, I do consider you an old and valued member on this forum and I regret any inconvenience you would have faced.

[Kersi]

So now someone is asking for the locations of Akash batteries ?
Isn't this supposed to be confidential information.

Dear Kersi, I was referring to publicly published information by the services themselves and not from any other sources. So there is a difference.

Also I remember you were asking about THD radars that are long range strategic systems. Numbers and location of strategic radars like THD-1955 are never disclosed by IAF despite decades of service.

I was discussing Akash whose numbers are public knowledge by Govt disclosure and whose photos are released by IAF. Its also a tactical system meaning it can be moved between places.

I do agree with moderator messaging that deployment discussion isnt in the best national interest. I would not have asked unless the IAF displayed the systems publicly like in that image.

While I'm not a moderator, I do consider you an old and valued member on this forum and I regret any inconvenience you would have faced.

AGREE

i only asked for information in public domain.

Till recently there was hardly any official releases of any weapon / sensor till except when we see it in Republic Day Parade !!!!

As fas as Akash is concerned IAF /MOD has made some announcements of its installation, but I would not comment on it.

However as far a i know IAF/MOD has not released any pics of its actual deployment, which they should not do so.

Incidentally there are websites which give the location of THD 1955, believe me the locations seem to be in unimaginable places !!! In am sure the locations must be known to all friends and foes !!!

Thanks for your reply

[manjgu]

the enemies had full list of officers stationed across AF bases during 1971 ops...so what to talk abt radar installation in 2019.

[Vips]