Indian Missiles News & Discussions - 17 Dec 2018

Karthik S · Post by **Karthik S** » 26 Dec 2019 14:53

titash wrote:
Philip wrote:The SMART supersonic torpedo delivery system out to 650km is mystifying as as of now, none of our ASW assets,below or above water have sonars with that detection range! Moreover, LRMP aircraft like P-8s, IL-38s and ASW helos have integral ASW munitions,mostly torpedoes, to instantly deal with the contact instead of calling through NCW for cooperativd engagement during which time the contact may take evasive measures,deeper diving,etc. I wonder whose wet dream has conceived of this programme. Far more useful in prosecuting UW threats is in developing as the USN is doing ,long endurance UUVs and unmanned surface combatants like the Sea Hunter. Though unarmed for now and at 135+t, the Sea Hunter is eminently capable of improved versions to carry ASW munitions.After detection of an enemy sub, the ( initial model unarmed) SH could call upon ASW air assets like the LRMP to despatch the target to
Davy Jones' locker.
The 650 km is a typo. Should be 65 km which is beyond shipborne HWT range and within TAS detection range. With only 20-30 large helicopters and a dozen or so serviceable at any given point in time, it makes eminent sense to develop and use an ASROC type weapon. The flight decks of our frigates/destroyers are empty unfortunately have have been so for a decade now. As a consequence, notice the P-17A have only 1 hanger and 1 helo. SMART/ASROC is the way to go

I hope once this missile is developed, we can do away with RBUs on our ships, they take away premium real estate.

chola · Post by **chola** » 26 Dec 2019 15:10

^^^ Unless it is in an universal VLS, it will take up even more real estate than a RBU. And we do not have an UVLS. The only vertical launch system we have that employs more than one type of missile is the UVLM which fires just Brahmos or a land attack derivative.

But ASROC is the way to go regardless.

Prem Kumar · Post by **Prem Kumar** » 26 Dec 2019 15:39

Phillip: there are several advantages to a weapon like SMART:

1) Separates sensor from shooter
2) Reduces time to target. A missile propelled torpedo will reach the target sub much more quickly than a torp launched into the water from the ship. You can take advantages of fleeting opportunities to target a sub
3) Enables the targeting of sub using passive sonars. The first time the sub knows that its being targeted is when it detects the torpedo entering 300m in the water above it! It almost ensures that the sub is ensnared in the "no escape zone". Its the equivalent of IIR or EO based air-to-air missile launches, where the target does not know its being targeted
4) Compared to an ASW helo, a ship can carry a large number of torps. It can launch a salvo of 3 SMARTs to ensure a 99% kill probability
5) Because you have the ability to kill at 65Km or more, your ASW helicopters have a wider area over which they can dunk their sonobuoys. You can sanitize a much larger area around a ship/CBG - even to the rear

A quick math. A Delhi class destroyer has a max speed of 30 knots (or 54 kmph). A sonobuoy has a max battery life of 8 hours. So, in theory, your destroyer could be listening to the sonobuoys signal from 400 Km behind it and potentially target a sub lurking way behind. I know, I know - there are limitations on how far can the sonobuoy signal travel, actual battery performance, sea conditions etc etc. But you get the point.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 26 Dec 2019 15:45

John wrote:
Karan M wrote:DRDO is developing a separate SRSAM for the Navy.
This is also being discussed in naval thread, the wild card is the RFP for immediate need of 4 systems which Sea Ceptor is also competing in. Honestly given the time frame once the deal is signed for first 4 with foreign vendor I won’t be surprised if navy purchases next 6 as well which will leave SR SAM in limbo.

Is the Naval requirement for a SRSAM going to stop at 6 systems? No, so the requirement will only increase. The need remains as valid as before.

Karthik S · Post by **Karthik S** » 26 Dec 2019 18:10

chola wrote:^^^ Unless it is in an universal VLS, it will take up even more real estate than a RBU. And we do not have an UVLS. The only vertical launch system we have that employs more than one type of missile is the UVLM which fires just Brahmos or a land attack derivative.

But ASROC is the way to go regardless.

We don't have UVLS because it may be difficult to fire Indo/Israeli origin and Indo/Russian origin missiles from in VLS. But SMART can be fit either one of those VLS. IN will be knowing better, but IMO RBU 6000 have a range of 8 KM IIRC, SMART will provide lot more protection from subs as its range will be much more.

chola · Post by **chola** » 26 Dec 2019 19:51

^^^ Unlikely we will be able to integrate with the Bharat 8 as that VLS is specific to that SAM. Possible for the UVLM but I have heard no development of anything for it other than Brahmos and derivatives.

Greater likelihood that SMART will come with its own slant launchers.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 26 Dec 2019 20:12

If the Navy asks for an UVLS, developing one is quite possible for the DRDO and its private partners.

The plethora of good news keeps coming.

1. Pinaka Guided at a high degree of maturity
2. Nag completes all trials, DAC accords approval for 300 missiles, 25 Namicas (12 sets of reloads), clearly a first batch
3. QRSAM completes developmental trials double quick
4. 2x additional regiment order for Akash decided as Akash Prime (https://www.defenceaviationpost.com/def ... -pakistan/)
5. MRSAM given production order go-ahead (https://www.rafael.co.il/press/kras-rec ... air-force/)
6. Akash Mk1 gets additional 7 squadron order for IAF
7. XRSAM configuration approved by IAF, its development will again have huge ramifications for our AESA radar systems and missile tech

Karthik S · Post by **Karthik S** » 26 Dec 2019 20:16

Karan M wrote:If the Navy asks for an UVLS, developing one is quite possible for the DRDO and its private partners.

The plethora of good news keeps coming.

1. Pinaka Guided at a high degree of maturity
2. Nag completes all trials, DAC accords approval for 300 missiles, 25 Namicas (12 sets of reloads), clearly a first batch
3. QRSAM completes developmental trials double quick
4. 2x additional regiment order for Akash decided as Akash Prime (https://www.defenceaviationpost.com/def ... -pakistan/)
5. MRSAM given production order go-ahead (https://www.rafael.co.il/press/kras-rec ... air-force/)
6. Akash Mk1 gets additional 7 squadron order for IAF
7. XRSAM configuration approved by IAF, its development will again have huge ramifications for our AESA radar systems and missile tech

Karan, won't it be better idea if DRDO also develops XRSAM for navy in parallel to save time ? So much talk about next gen DDGs (P18), it will be great if the ship and SAM are available at the same time. All news I see is only about IAF.

chola · Post by **chola** » 26 Dec 2019 20:43

^^^ Fantastic news, Karan ji! Especially on the QRSAM, MRSAM and XRSAM. I am sure we can develop an UVLS. But it is a matter of time needed for development and deployment. Those different SAMs are what makes VLS critical for warships.

The MK41 has the RIM-66/67/161/174 Standard mijjiles along with (quad-packed) RIM-7/162 Sea Sparrows that cover all ranges against aerial threats. Throw in ASROC and TLAM for anti-sub and land attack for good measure.

This is not a new concept, the MK41's been around ssince the 1980s so we are a bit behind the ball. I hope we can integrate the QRSAM/MRSAM/XRSAM and SMART ASROC into an UVLS if and when they come online for the navy. Having a different launcher for each won't hinder their effectiveness but it could mean less effective use of space and less flexibility in load.

John · Post by **John** » 26 Dec 2019 20:43

So much talk about next gen DDGs (P18),

There is no talk of P18 only ever mention was a fantasy article.

Karthik S wrote:We don't have UVLS because it may be difficult to fire Indo/Israeli origin and Indo/Russian origin missiles from in VLS. But SMART can be fit either one of those VLS. IN will be knowing better, but IMO RBU 6000 have a range of 8 KM IIRC, SMART will provide lot more protection from subs as its range will be much more.

It is not about firing missiles from two different countries of origin it is that they use different launch mechanism (hot vs cold) and we do not have truly universal hot launch system. Priority should be on developing one been saying it for over a decade at least for SAMs and any indigenous weapons like XRSAM, SMART and Nirbhay (still have issue where Brahmos is designed for cold launch).

As for SMART There is not much info and lot of inconsistencies on SMART lets wait for test launches before speculating on the range and the launch platform.

Karan M wrote:Is the Naval requirement for a SRSAM going to stop at 6 systems? No, so the requirement will only increase. The need remains as valid as before.

SRSAM is puzzling need because technically Barak-8 can be fitted on corvette and missile boats and it doesn't need MF-STAR, i suspect it is to diversify our vendors. But still having two different SRSAM system along with Barak-1s (there is Active guided variant offered as a cheap upgrade option) will add to complex maintenance, why can't P-28s and Next gen missile corvette have barak-1 as stop gap till SRSAM is ready..

abhik · Post by **abhik** » 26 Dec 2019 21:01

Do we know for sure that Barak-8 can perform the SR SAM role in the first place? It has a dual pulse motor, plus it drops the thrust vectoring vanes mid flight so its typical flight profile may not suit a short range/quick engagement.

BWT the Israelis are offering a truncated version of the Barak-8 as SR-SAM (video was posted here some time back).

John · Post by **John** » 26 Dec 2019 21:11

abhik wrote:Do we know for sure that Barak-8 can perform the SR SAM role in the first place? It has a dual pulse motor, plus it drops the thrust vectoring vanes mid flight so its typical flight profile may not suit a short range/quick engagement.

BWT the Israelis are offering a truncated version of the Barak-8 as SR-SAM (video was posted here some time back).

Truncated version was supposed to be 'cheaper' option, Barak-8 has one of shortest kill zone of 500 meters much lower than any other active guided SAM such as Aster-15 which is around 3km. Still doesn't beat Barak-1 100 meter intercept capability (there is video from RSN demonstrating that) but it is impressive.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 26 Dec 2019 21:12

John wrote:
Karan M wrote:Is the Naval requirement for a SRSAM going to stop at 6 systems? No, so the requirement will only increase. The need remains as valid as before.
SRSAM is puzzling need because technically Barak-8 can be fitted on corvette and missile boats and it doesn't need MF-STAR, i suspect it is to diversify our vendors. But still having two different SRSAM system along with Barak-1s (there is Active guided variant offered as a cheap upgrade option) will add to complex maintenance, why can't P-28s and Next gen missile corvette have barak-1 as stop gap till SRSAM is ready..

Barak-8 is expensive as it is long range system and we import a lot of components from IAI per the work-share agreement. The radars, the seekers, some additional components - basically all the missile avionics. You need a more cost effective round for short ranges. Plus, when we have already mastered almost all of the technology in-house via the Astra, QRSAM and Akash, each of which has proven some sub-system or technology, which can be combined to come up with a SRSAM, why run abroad for another system. Besides which, we will pay an arm and a leg for an import via its life-cycle costs, never mind being locked out of easy and frequent upgrades.

John · Post by **John** » 26 Dec 2019 21:15

Karan M wrote:
John wrote: SRSAM is puzzling need because technically Barak-8 can be fitted on corvette and missile boats and it doesn't need MF-STAR, i suspect it is to diversify our vendors. But still having two different SRSAM system along with Barak-1s (there is Active guided variant offered as a cheap upgrade option) will add to complex maintenance, why can't P-28s and Next gen missile corvette have barak-1 as stop gap till SRSAM is ready..
Barak-8 is expensive as it is long range system and we import a lot of components from IAI per the work-share agreement. You need a more cost effective round for short ranges. Plus, when we have already mastered almost all of the technology in-house, why again run abroad for another system. Besides which, we will pay an arm and a leg for its life-cycle costs.

My point is not Barak-8 vs SRSAM ( we have no idea where it is development state no point in speculating on it) but rather the RFP for another SRSAM system.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 26 Dec 2019 21:17

Clearly, the RFP is because Barak-8 is expensive. A 90km missile with a state of the art long range seeker, nav system, top of the line propulsion for handling a larger variety of targets, is not going to be as cheap as shorter ranged unit which can get by with less performance.

As regards SRSAM development, I wouldn't be surprised at all, if its development is very rapid. As I mentioned above, most of the building blocks already exist via multiple programs.

John · Post by **John** » 26 Dec 2019 21:29

Karan M wrote:Clearly, the RFP is because Barak-8 is expensive. A 90km missile with a state of the art long range seeker, nav system, top of the line propulsion for handling a larger variety of targets, is not going to be as cheap as shorter ranged unit which can get by with less performance.

As regards SRSAM development, I wouldn't be surprised at all, if its development is very rapid. As I mentioned above, most of the building blocks already exist via multiple programs.

Barak-8 is quoted between 1/2-1 million which is cheaper 2 million+ MBDA was asking for VL-MICA they have quietly dropped for Sea Ceptor which is around million each (depends on variant).

Gyan · Post by **Gyan** » 26 Dec 2019 22:29

Each Barak8 missile is USD 3 million

John · Post by **John** » 26 Dec 2019 22:39

Gyan wrote:Each Barak8 missile is USD 3 million

Source?? Last order for P-17a was 7 system so that is over 300 missiles if you include spares for around 770 million. This includes the cost of Mf-Star and launchers.

https://wap.business-standard.com/artic ... 988_1.html

This link indicates cost at 6 crore as per DRDO.

Arun.prabhu · Post by **Arun.prabhu** » 27 Dec 2019 05:19

Think of the system as intended to dominate the Indian Ocean Area of Operations. Imagine basing these systems in the Andamans and Lakshwadeep and possibly other floating platforms, and the Indian Ocean floor plotted with passive sensors that listen for submarines or surface ships with overhead P-8Is lending a hand. This would be a good weapon system to counter the supposed numerical superiority of the PLAN sub fleet. I would hope that India are pursuing sunken torpedo mines like the Mark 60 CAPTOR system used by the Americans. In the event of war, I would hope that we have a bunch of decoy mines to deploy with real ones to save costs and deny a much larger area to our enemies.

Philip wrote:The SMART supersonic torpedo delivery system out to 650km is mystifying as as of now, none of our ASW assets,below or above water have sonars with that detection range! Moreover, LRMP aircraft like P-8s, IL-38s and ASW helos have integral ASW munitions,mostly torpedoes, to instantly deal with the contact instead of calling through NCW for cooperativd engagement during which time the contact may take evasive measures,deeper diving,etc. I wonder whose wet dream has conceived of this programme. Far more useful in prosecuting UW threats is in developing as the USN is doing ,long endurance UUVs and unmanned surface combatants like the Sea Hunter. Though unarmed for now and at 135+t, the Sea Hunter is eminently capable of improved versions to carry ASW munitions.After detection of an enemy sub, the ( initial model unarmed) SH could call upon ASW air assets like the LRMP to despatch the target to
Davy Jones' locker.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 27 Dec 2019 05:48

What is the missile in the background? Shakti?

Kakarat · Post by **Kakarat** » 27 Dec 2019 16:53

Looks like ASAT or PDV

tandav · Post by **tandav** » 27 Dec 2019 17:12

What is the strategy for countering Chinese under water drones which will definitely be the first salvo against IN and will be used extensively in sea denial?

ArjunPandit · Post by **ArjunPandit** » 27 Dec 2019 17:38

tandav ji it's a very broad question...the broad answer would be avoiding them, and killing them when seen...

I am not very sure of efficacy of naval drones, underwater or surface esp chinese ones...my viewpoint is (and i might be wrong, happy to learn otherwise)

i doubt they will serve anything beyond tracking/recon or underwater mapping. Underwater operations are far more challenging for a drone as compared to surface or air. Attacking naval assets which are in general quite rugged and strong would require large size for any mission kill. unlike air where one shot

The only thing I can think of is cavitation based fast torpedo ....

vis a vis chinese the broader indian strategy is to use the unsinkable AC of peninsular india based Su 30s equipped to destroy anything that can cause us significant damage. We cant prevent Dwarka cow hits and perhaps we shouldnt target it too...

Prem Kumar · Post by **Prem Kumar** » 27 Dec 2019 18:51

Batteries of 750 - 1500 Km Shourya based ship-killers, in Andaman & Nicobar islands will be deeply unsettling for the Chinese.

RKumar · Post by **RKumar** » 27 Dec 2019 20:08

^ or a number long range BrahMos long the islands. Special care for the choke areas. Let’s see how many subs they plan to send as anything and everything above water will not be able to enter Indian Ocean under watchful eye of satellites and P-8i. Hunting down 20-30 surface ships docked in Africa or South Asia should not be a problem, especially far from home.

abhik · Post by **abhik** » 27 Dec 2019 20:22

Their anti ship ballistic missiles will be in play in Bay of Bengal too, I wouldn't dismisses their surface fleet or power projection capabilities in IOR either.

Prem Kumar · Post by **Prem Kumar** » 28 Dec 2019 11:44

I am not underestimating. The need for our own anti-ship BMs & Brahmos batteries in A&N is precisely to thwart their power projection abilities via choke points. IOR must be India's ocean. At the least, anything above water must be target'able by us, should the need arise.

Sumeet · Post by **Sumeet** » 28 Dec 2019 15:40

XRSAM configuration video:

XRSAM missile (educated) speculation video:

nam · Post by **nam** » 28 Dec 2019 16:06

You have to give it to the youtube boys.

The page on DRDO must have been created months back. As soon as someone notices it, it gets put on twitter, then on to defence forums.

And voila, next is youtube video on "Everything about XRSAM"

All of these based on one section of DRDO, with a really bad screenshot image

Raghunathgb · Post by **Raghunathgb** » 28 Dec 2019 19:46

One question, apart from range increase in Akash -NG missile system, is there any improvement planned on radar front ?

Gyan · Post by **Gyan** » 29 Dec 2019 00:16

As per my info, Barak 8 deal of 9 squadrons had 490 missiles. Total Cost USD 2.4 Billion dollars in 2009 plus escalation 3.5% per Annum + some etc

John · Post by **John** » 29 Dec 2019 03:59

Gyan wrote:As per my info, Barak 8 deal of 9 squadrons had 490 missiles. Total Cost USD 2.4 Billion dollars in 2009 plus escalation 3.5% per Annum + some etc

Yea there is no break down of radars, transport and support vehicles and launchers so cannot calculate cost per missile from that also training and spare missile might not be fully included. Only DRDO source of 6 crores is the number we have. But to put it in comparison we do know order of 5 regiments of S-400 came to around 5.4 billion.

darshhan · Post by **darshhan** » 29 Dec 2019 10:41

John wrote:
Gyan wrote:As per my info, Barak 8 deal of 9 squadrons had 490 missiles. Total Cost USD 2.4 Billion dollars in 2009 plus escalation 3.5% per Annum + some etc
Yea there is no break down of radars, transport and support vehicles and launchers so cannot calculate cost per missile from that also training and spare missile might not be fully included. Only DRDO source of 6 crores is the number we have. But to put it in comparison we do know order of 5 regiments of S-400 came to around 5.4 billion.

Wasn't this for Indian Navy?? If so then where is the question of support vehicles etc.

John · Post by **John** » 29 Dec 2019 13:48

darshhan wrote:
John wrote: Yea there is no break down of radars, transport and support vehicles and launchers so cannot calculate cost per missile from that also training and spare missile might not be fully included. Only DRDO source of 6 crores is the number we have. But to put it in comparison we do know order of 5 regiments of S-400 came to around 5.4 billion.
Wasn't this for Indian Navy?? If so then where is the question of support vehicles etc.

That order is from the AF.

https://www.airforce-technology.com/pro ... ile-mrsam/

lakshmanM · Post by **lakshmanM** » 30 Dec 2019 01:51

Since XRSAM is everyone's favorite now, I figured let's have a crack at it.

Pointing out all the cliched things

Picklu · Post by **Picklu** » 01 Jan 2020 21:32

nam wrote: You have to give it to the youtube boys.

The page on DRDO must have been created months back. As soon as someone notices it, it gets put on twitter, then on to defence forums.

And voila, next is youtube video on "Everything about XRSAM"

All of these based on one section of DRDO, with a really bad screenshot image

Thank God, we need more of them; may their tribe prosper.

Volume and variety in king in SM battle; not everything can be of the quality of Gen Ata Hasnain and the good general would be the first one to endorse the importance of "perception management" and the need to counter Gafoora with volume and variety of our own.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 02 Jan 2020 00:54

We already operate some of the Klub series of missiles of which the 91RTE2 is a ship- launched ASW variant ( VLS) with a range of 40km. The sub- launched 91RE1 has a range of 50km. Both are supersonic missiles with a LW torpedo delivered. Since the missile can be launched from std. sub 533mm tubes, it should also be capable of launch from 533mm TTs aboard surface combatants equipped with the same. In RuN major surface combatants,the system called RPK 6/7 has a range of 120 km., homing torpedo or nuclear depth bomb warhead.RPK-6 payload is the APR-2E.RPK-7 payload is a 533mm homing torpedo. In these warships,it is fired into the water,stabilizes itself then ignites.
With this missile already available to us, in service in some variants, developing a 65km range copy beggars the Q,why? All our Delhi class DDGs possess the 533mm TTs, which can launch/ fire these ASW variants. Is a UVLS system/missile really required?
It would reducd the number of anti-ship and anti-air missiles carried.

Including ASW helos, a warship could thus theoretically prosecute an enemy sub 100km away,with the LW homing torpedo's range as extra. That is a v.significant range to be able to detect and pinpoint an UW target .In general accurate sonar ranges varying from 25 to 40 km

Developing an ASTRA naval SAM makes sense, as this is commonplace with major nations.The Sov. era SAN-1 is a variant of the SA-3. SAN-4, variant of the SA-8 Gecko. Western navies have done the same with their missiles. One supposes that the cost of an ASTRA ER naval SAM will be significantly cheaper than a B-8 which has Israeli input. Astra is also a smaller missile than Akash which could've had a naval TD variant earlier.An ASTRA ER naval SAM with a range of 100 to 120km would be a major milestone for the DRDO/ IN.

John · Post by **John** » 02 Jan 2020 01:50

We already operate some of the Klub series of missiles of which the 91RTE2 is a ship- launched ASW variant ( VLS) with a range of 40km. The sub- launched 91RE1 has a range of 50km. Both are supersonic missiles with a LW torpedo delivered.

No as per Sipri these were never procured and based on what I have heard they were never fully developed and Novator never received the funding (Export order) to complete it. Pleae don’t derail this thread to discuss this there is Russian section to discuss this.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 02 Jan 2020 05:18

Philip wrote: Developing an ASTRA naval SAM makes sense, as this is commonplace with major nations.The Sov. era SAN-1 is a variant of the SA-3. SAN-4, variant of the SA-8 Gecko. Western navies have done the same with their missiles. One supposes that the cost of an ASTRA ER naval SAM will be significantly cheaper than a B-8 which has Israeli input. Astra is also a smaller missile than Akash which could've had a naval TD variant earlier.An ASTRA ER naval SAM with a range of 100 to 120km would be a major milestone for the DRDO/ IN.

Missile diameter (with impact on seeker and SRM performance) is important so you cannot compare something like an ASTRA with booster to a B-8. This is why the ESSM is a naval SAM and they never bothered with an AIM-120 based naval SAM. The only advantage that would lead one towards a smaller diameter SAM is if you can superpack them. But that needs to be verified in terms of what the exchange ratio is (for example an SM6 to an ESSM exchange ratio is 1:4 and an SM6 to PAC-3MSE exchange ratio is 1:2). When VL cells are limited there is a strong case to be made in favor of the most capable missiles you can pack into that space as at sea replenishment is tricky if not practically impossible and the incremental cost of more capable individual missiles is trivial compared to what they are protecting.

Thakur_B · Post by **Thakur_B** » 04 Jan 2020 09:44

Missile launched PGM and it's 10kg warhead.