Indian Missiles News & Discussions - 17 Dec 2018

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 09 Feb 2020 18:24

I remember to have read that with hyper-spectral camera, its possible to positive id things like Aircraft using the multi-spectral data from a single pixel and previously known signature from the database. I was thinking the same would be applicable for GISAT while detecting Naval ships. Not sure if its realistic or brochure specs wonly.

Prem Kumar · Post by **Prem Kumar** » 09 Feb 2020 23:35

Couple of points:

1) The GISATs will have a steerable camera. So, it can do the 50m resolution over "areas of interest". How much steering is probably classified. And the beauty is that its geostationary. Per the specs, it can snapshot the entire Indian landmass every 5 minutes at 50m resolution. So, if need be, we can make it take snapshots of the Malacca straits every 5 min

2) Ships can also be detected by their wakes. So, its not just the direct optical ID of the ship.

3) The GISATs may the "early warning" component, like a radar in scanning mode. For actual ID & interception, we might use a RISAT/Cartosat/P8I

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 10 Feb 2020 00:54

JayS, brochure capability under idealconditions. quite some way from a practically useful thing. Yes, hyperspectral is useful, but for the current usecase it's a marginal application at best.

PK ji,
1) it is the steering that will take you away from nadir angle and reduce the resolution. Which in any case wasn't great to begin with.

2)Correct, detected but not ID'ed. Without the later you won't launch weapons.

3) I think that's a very reasonable use case and won't be surprised if that's the path they take. Information fusion in realtime would be crucial.

kit · Post by **kit** » 10 Feb 2020 05:33

an interesting read (pdf)

https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... Timeliness

Vips · Post by **Vips** » 10 Feb 2020 09:26

Khagantak missile developed by JSR (Jay Shree Ram) Dynamics - Range 180 Kms.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 10 Feb 2020 21:45

VIDEO: https://twitter.com/AirForceReviews/sta ... 06784?s=20 ---> Astra, an all weather beyond-visual-range air-to-air missile developed by DRDO at display in Def Expo 2020. It is the first air-to-air missile developed by India and features mid-course inertial guidance with terminal active radar homing.

https://twitter.com/hvtiaf/status/12257 ... 61377?s=20 ---> Thanks for sharing. This is an incredible development. The test BVRAAMS exceeded all parameters during their trial firings.

https://twitter.com/hvtiaf/status/12257 ... 44961?s=20 ---> Yes! Astra will be integrated on most of the combat aircraft, if not all. As should be expected, user aspirations are bound to push for even longer ranges & more diverse sensors. As Astra Mk-1 gets inducted into various combat fleets, parallel development has started on Mk-2.

Prem Kumar · Post by **Prem Kumar** » 11 Feb 2020 09:35

One more junk deal to please someone else. AIM-120C Jai Ho!

India to buy NASAMS-II

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 11 Feb 2020 11:18

Prem Kumar wrote:One more junk deal to please someone else. AIM-120C Jai Ho!

India to buy NASAMS-II

Look US has soo many leverage points , I think from 2008 onwards it is pretty clear, we need buy a lot of weapons from them. If we dont want MRCA from them but need GE engines, we definately have to compensate them, it is not fair but we have to be practical.

Anyway hopefully this gives a close look on the AIM 120C-7 missiles.

Sumeet · Post by **Sumeet** » 11 Feb 2020 13:08

Aditya according to official release its AIM-120-C7/C8. AIM 120 C-8 is AIM 120 D which is latest from Raytheon.

https://www.dsca.mil/major-arms-sales/i ... nd-support

The Government of India has requested to buy an Integrated Air Defense Weapon System (IADWS) comprised of: five (5) AN/MPQ-64Fl Sentinel radar systems; one hundred eighteen (118) AMRAAM AIM-120C-7/C-8 missiles; three (3) AMRAAM Guidance Sections; four (4) AMRAAM Control Sections; and one hundred thirty-four (134) Stinger FIM-92L missiles. Also included are thirty-two (32) M4A1 rifles; forty thousand three hundred twenty (40,320) M855 5.56mm cartridges; Fire Distribution Centers (FDC); Handheld Remote Terminals; Electrical Optical/Infrared (EO/IR) Sensor Systems; AMRAAM Non-Developmental Item-Airborne Instrumentation Units (NDIAIU); Multi-spectral Targeting System-Model A (MTS-A); Canister Launchers (CN); High Mobility Launchers (HML); Dual Mount Stinger (DMS) Air Defense Systems; Vehicle Mounted Stinger Rapid Ranger Air Defense Systems; communications equipment; tool kits; test equipment; range and test programs; support equipment; prime movers; generators; technical documentation; computer based training equipment; training equipment; training towers; ammunition storage; training and maintenance facilities; infrastructure improvements;

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 11 Feb 2020 13:26

FMS AIM-120 C/8 designation is not used for AIM-120D (FMS designation for AIM-120D is "D"). It is an AIM-120C 7 Missile with engineering changes to reflect replacement of certain components which are no longer produced and have since (from when AIM-120 C7 was first introduced) been brought to the same standard as AIM-120 D in order to make production simpler and uniform. The Delta AMRAAM is essentially a brand new missile from the inside with about 70% of the components having been changed or significantly upgraded from the AIM-120 C platform. This led to a couple of years of overlap in production before and ECO was issued to standardize certain components to make production easier for US and FMS purchases so that some of those sub-systems could be bulk ordered to save cost and make production more efficient. Even the software for the C5 and C7 series is substantially different from the D series in that it warrants a completely different upgrade program for the D. The AIM-120D is also not integrated with NASAMS.

Aditya_V wrote: Look US has soo many leverage points , I think from 2008 onwards it is pretty clear, we need buy a lot of weapons from them. If we dont want MRCA from them but need GE engines, we definately have to compensate them, it is not fair but we have to be practical.

Anyway hopefully this gives a close look on the AIM 120C-7 missiles.

NASAMS has been in the news (vis-a-vis an Indian purchase) since at least 2017. It is primarily a Norwegian System as the Communicaiton nodes/Data-links and the Command and Control system are Norwegian and it only utilizes a US sensor and the AMRAAM/AIM-9 which is standard across most NATO users. I don't understand why this system would be the one for a quid-pro-quo for some other deal if that is even the case. One reason it could be attractive is that it is designed to be integrated easily into proprietary or non-proprietary 3rd part Command and Control setups as this was a design goal for Kongsberg since they knew they were relatively small players and everyone they sold too would want control.

The US abandoned the HAWK air-defense system and retired those systems without a replacement since its focused shifted to mostly Missile Defense post SU collapse. Kongsberg which was in that space already decided to create NASAMS focused at that SHORAD to Medium Ranged Air Defense market. NASAMS II with AMRAAM/9X covers the SHORAD market while NASAMS II with the AMRAAM-ER covers the Hawk segment.

https://www.indiatoday.in/mail-today/st ... 2017-08-20

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 11 Feb 2020 13:55

Its an FMS deal and US would pocket most of the money

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 11 Feb 2020 14:03

Aditya_V wrote:Its an FMS deal and US would pocket most of the money

FMS deal only dictates how a deal is structured. You still have to contract the system out and delegate those contracts depending upon the mix of the systems and who owns the technical baseline to those. From what I can read, this deal does not appear to be for a system similar to the export NASAMS II (as is being mentioned in the media) but for a system more akin to the one that guard's Washington DC which is a mix of NASAMS and a whole bunch of US developed networked systems that connect various other elements into the chain to cover an urban environment. So one can expect a different prime mover and FDC set up perhaps one that distributes RF and IR sensors, interceptors and command and control systems on high rise buildings or other urban infrastructure etc.

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 11 Feb 2020 14:07

Yes may be the Media was wrong, but it is an Air defense FMS deal, with Amraam and stingers

Haridas · Post by **Haridas** » 11 Feb 2020 14:19

AN/MPQ-64 Sentinel is a 3D radar used to alert and queue Short Range Air Defense (SHORAD) ...

I think of these 5 units, 3x are to protect important buildings in Indraprastha (say 2 primary & one on standby or servicing) ) and 2x when PM/HM is travelling across country where there is a threat of small UAV attack. The 20-30 RPM rotation rate is key for that. The Qty:134 Dual mount Stringer (DMS) in the order will be slaved to this radar to cue it.

Ramana garu suggests the AIM-120 C will likely be used as SAM, if so the AIM-120 protection bubble range will be perhaps 25km. It's active radar gives a distinct flexibility compared to current Akash.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 11 Feb 2020 14:27

The way the DC system works is that there are active and passive sensors mounted on the ground and on top of buildings. 6-pack SLAMRAAM's provide outer perimeter cover against faster and higher threats [Yes it is a SAM and depending upon ones need one can get a short ranged SAM (AIM-9X Block II with data-link), a Short-Medium Ranged SAM (Aim-120C) or a medium ranged SAM (AMRAAM-ER) - all use the same launcher].

As the terrain becomes more and more urban, both IR sensors, and RF sensors are, or can be (depending upon threat), used atop rooftops and the same applies to the interceptors. The C2 and the launchers can be removed from the prime mover for more permanent emplacement. Data--Links, unique to the US DC system (hence why I mentioned this is more akin to it than std. NASAMS), developed after 9-11, connect the Stinger units with the NASAMS C2 and sensors. I don't feel this is going to be a mobile system. I think if this deal is actually going to be made (FMS notifications are just that..with no guarantee of anything) then this may be used more of a permanent or semi-permanent set up around a well defined area. I suspect around 15 launchers would be on order (mix) with the remain interceptors as reserves.

The FDC -

SLAMRAAM Launcher

Stingers deployed in DC -

The quesgtion still remains, why now since its been three years when this popped on the radar. And secondly, why did a request for rifles go along with it?

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 11 Feb 2020 16:01

Not only rifles, why do 43 thousand 5.56 rounds go with it( apparently since our INSAS rounds and incompatible and we can't reduce the grains or something to make it comparable with NAto 5.56*45 ammo why not use the Tavor ammo?), why are Rifles and Bullets clubbed with it?

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 11 Feb 2020 16:04

Aditya_V wrote:Not only rifles, why do 43 thousand 5.56 rounds go with it, why are Rifles and Bullets clubbed with it?

That is how the request went out. FMS requests are approved as is, either originating directly from a host nation, or from a contractor who needs to obtain a clearence and requests systems that meet a specific user generated demand.

Barath · Post by **Barath** » 11 Feb 2020 18:37

https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/ne ... ticleshow/

What does this mean for the MPATGM/Spike or for others ?

abhik · Post by **abhik** » 11 Feb 2020 18:43

Barath wrote:https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/ne ... ticleshow/

What does this mean for the MPATGM/Spike or for others ?

Link does not seem to be working.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 11 Feb 2020 18:57

Sumeet wrote: Canister Launchers (CN); High Mobility Launchers (HML); Dual Mount Stinger (DMS) Air Defense Systems; Vehicle Mounted Stinger Rapid Ranger Air Defense Systems; communications equipment; tool kits; test equipment; range and test programs; support equipment; prime movers; generators; technical documentation; computer based training equipment; training equipment; training towers; ammunition storage; training and maintenance facilities; infrastructure improvements;

Interesting that the FMS notification has approved of both a Canister and high mobility launcher. Of the few operators who operate that mix is Australia which just selected a hybrid NASAMS (with domestic sensors) for its SHORAD program -

High Mobility Launcher -

Manish_P · Post by **Manish_P** » 11 Feb 2020 19:33

abhik wrote:
Barath wrote:https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/ne ... ticleshow/

What does this mean for the MPATGM/Spike or for others ?
Link does not seem to be working.

No more imports, army kick starts process to order anti-tank guided missiles from Indian industry

Seeking to cut down the import bill, the army has kicked started a process to order new anti-tank guided missiles (ATGM) from the Indian industry, preferring the domestic route for over 2,000 missiles, a number that could grow exponentially given its requirements.

The army has asked Indian companies – both private and public sector players like Bharat Dynamics Limited – to submit their `expression of interest’ in the program, which will be followed by the tendering process, trials and evaluations and commercial negotiations.

The army has promised the industry an assured order of 101 launchers and 2330 missiles if the trials are successful but the potential orders in the coming decade could be ten times this number. For example, just last year the army cleared the purchase of 5,000 of the older generation Milan 2T missiles to replenish stocks.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 12 Feb 2020 20:03

https://twitter.com/HimalyanDoctor/stat ... 71584?s=20 ---> DRDO Chairman Satheesh Reddy interview with Nitin Gokhale. At one point DRDO head mentions that we produce 60 Akash missiles per month. This is a huge number. He also said 80% components are made by private industry.

mody · Post by **mody** » 14 Feb 2020 15:57

Is the BDL Amogha-III the same as DRDO MPATGM-NAG or is it different? The article says that it was developed by BDL using internal resources, in collaboration with DRDO.

Gyan · Post by **Gyan** » 14 Feb 2020 23:07

Rakesh wrote:https://twitter.com/HimalyanDoctor/stat ... 71584?s=20 ---> DRDO Chairman Satheesh Reddy interview with Nitin Gokhale. At one point DRDO head mentions that we produce 60 Akash missiles per month. This is a huge number. He also said 80% components are made by private industry.

MoD wants to increase Akash missile production rate to 150 per month.

ArjunPandit · Post by **ArjunPandit** » 14 Feb 2020 23:16

that means in two years it will be 1800, interesting number...

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 15 Feb 2020 01:30

Just look at the number of indigenous man portable ATGM options the IA now has..Not to mention Nag, on NAMICA.

MPATGM from DRDO

Amogh-3 from BDL and DRDO

AsiBal from VEM Technologies

SAMHO, the infantry launched variant of the CLGM to be used from Arjun

Thakur_B · Post by **Thakur_B** » 15 Feb 2020 08:15

AsiBal and Amogha-III both seem to be Nag MPATGM derivatives to me. Maybe an ATAGS like program has been pulled with Nag MPATGM

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 15 Feb 2020 08:29

MPATGM itself is made similar to ATAGS with significant involvement of VEM. Very unlikely that there is another NAG based mPATGM program by DRDO.

I thinknchances for other ATGMs than DRDOs MPATGM are pretty slim. Anyway BDL and VEM will be manufacturing it. Amogh3 and AsiBel and any other such offering, if not selected by IA, should be xleared for export. As such Amogh isnthe only other ATGM with some firing test done. I have not heard other MPATGM tested.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 15 Feb 2020 11:57

That is incorrect IMHO. MPATGM is a stand-alone program by itself and will likely be license manufactured by BDL. Its not a tech feeder program for other suppliers. Details released by DRDO suggest a complete system, not merely a TD.

So far, DRDO has not done anything of this sort. Even Abhay was an in-house program, not handed over to others to run with it. There is a reason for them to be wary of their non-involvement as design issues or QA issues will be laid at their threshold.

Where their designs have been "extended" by production partners, they have been closely involved, i.e. 3D TCR for the Army by BEL.

In Amogha-3, the seeker and hand-held assembly likely come from Tonbo.

AsiBal - we have very little info on it. Has it been tested, fired, what is the actual configuration.

mody · Post by **mody** » 15 Feb 2020 13:38

Visually the MPATGM and Amogha-III look fairly similar. Also, the news item says that the Amogha-III has a smokeless propellant, which seems to be the case with the MPATGM as well, as can be seen from the pictures given above.
The news item also says Amogha-III was developed in collaboration with DRDO, whereas MPATGM info mentions that BDL is to be agency building it. Seems like Amogha-III and MPATGM should be one and the same.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 15 Feb 2020 15:37

mody wrote:Visually the MPATGM and Amogha-III look fairly similar. Also, the news item says that the Amogha-III has a smokeless propellant, which seems to be the case with the MPATGM as well, as can be seen from the pictures given above.
The news item also says Amogha-III was developed in collaboration with DRDO, whereas MPATGM info mentions that BDL is to be agency building it. Seems like Amogha-III and MPATGM should be one and the same.

The Amogha III is a different missile in terms of the body. As itt mid body fins are more numerous then the mid body fins on the MPATGM.

As shown in the pictures posted above.

Kakarat · Post by **Kakarat** » 15 Feb 2020 15:49

Vips · Post by **Vips** » 15 Feb 2020 18:42

Pratyush wrote:
mody wrote:Visually the MPATGM and Amogha-III look fairly similar. Also, the news item says that the Amogha-III has a smokeless propellant, which seems to be the case with the MPATGM as well, as can be seen from the pictures given above.
The news item also says Amogha-III was developed in collaboration with DRDO, whereas MPATGM info mentions that BDL is to be agency building it. Seems like Amogha-III and MPATGM should be one and the same.
The Amogha III is a different missile in terms of the body. As itt mid body fins are more numerous then the mid body fins on the MPATGM.

As shown in the pictures posted above.

What is the range of MPATGM? Amogha-III has a lower range of 2.5 Kms compared to TFTA stuff from abroad.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 15 Feb 2020 19:47

Is this true? Click on the link below to read the entire thread....

https://twitter.com/Aerodynamic111/stat ... 64355?s=20 ---> India’s plans of 2018 to equip its MKI and indigenous Tejas wth Meteor BVRAAM after MBDA France informed the govt that they would not integrate their weapon on any Israeli or Russian platform and even refused it to be integrated into a legacy platform like Mirage-2k due to high cost.

kit · Post by **kit** » 15 Feb 2020 20:43

Rakesh wrote:Is this true? Click on the link below to read the entire thread....

https://twitter.com/Aerodynamic111/stat ... 64355?s=20 ---> India’s plans of 2018 to equip its MKI and indigenous Tejas wth Meteor BVRAAM after MBDA France informed the govt that they would not integrate their weapon on any Israeli or Russian platform and even refused it to be integrated into a legacy platform like Mirage-2k due to high cost.

Interesting, so MBDA UK works independently from MBDA France ?

also the little matter of Koreans integrating the meteor onto their indigenous fighter

karan_mc · Post by **karan_mc** » 15 Feb 2020 23:38

Rakesh wrote:Is this true? Click on the link below to read the entire thread....

https://twitter.com/Aerodynamic111/stat ... 64355?s=20 ---> India’s plans of 2018 to equip its MKI and indigenous Tejas wth Meteor BVRAAM after MBDA France informed the govt that they would not integrate their weapon on any Israeli or Russian platform and even refused it to be integrated into a legacy platform like Mirage-2k due to high cost.

He is IDRW parrot . all his tweets are of theirs

http://idrw.org/mbda-uk-might-have-a-so ... -to-india/

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 16 Feb 2020 01:14

mody wrote:Visually the MPATGM and Amogha-III look fairly similar. Also, the news item says that the Amogha-III has a smokeless propellant, which seems to be the case with the MPATGM as well, as can be seen from the pictures given above.
The news item also says Amogha-III was developed in collaboration with DRDO, whereas MPATGM info mentions that BDL is to be agency building it. Seems like Amogha-III and MPATGM should be one and the same.

Larger cruciform shaped wings on the MPATGM, fins at the end are also different.
https://www.livefistdefence.com/wp-cont ... 8/09/1.jpg

BDL design has a completely different layout for the midbody fins and even the other ones. Its clearly a completely different design.
https://www.armyrecognition.com/images/ ... issile.jpg
https://www.janes.com/images/assets/144 ... 8_main.jpg
https://www.janes.com/article/94144/bdl ... a-iii-atgm

Prem Kumar · Post by **Prem Kumar** » 17 Feb 2020 10:53

The 1st version of man-portable ATGM will most likely be not as good as Spike or Javelin. Either the min range or max range or weight will be an issue. I just hope that it gets inducted in numbers, production stabilized, field-feedback incorporated etc. Version 2, I am sure, will be world class.

Hope this doesn't go the Nirbhay/Arjun/Tejas-MK1 way where version 1, after all the slog, gets just a token order (or worse, gets labeled as a technology demonstrator), with the carrot dangled for a version 1a or 2.0.

sum · Post by **sum** » 17 Feb 2020 13:36

^^ Absolutely agree.

So many programs over these last few years seem so promising and all set to be on the verge of acceptance and then *crickets chirping*

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 18 Feb 2020 18:41

agupta wrote:
Karan M wrote:
Larger cruciform shaped wings on the MPATGM, fins at the end are also different.
https://www.livefistdefence.com/wp-cont ... 8/09/1.jpg

BDL design has a completely different layout for the midbody fins and even the other ones. Its clearly a completely different design.
https://www.armyrecognition.com/images/ ... issile.jpg
https://www.janes.com/images/assets/144 ... 8_main.jpg
https://www.janes.com/article/94144/bdl ... a-iii-atgm

Of all the things to modify between a Tech Demonstrator and a product, the aero control "sub-system" i.e. fin numbers, airfoil cross sections, planform etc. are the easiest - as long as they stay within configurable control law limits. This could be a function of standardization of components across multiple missiles/systems that BDL could/would do (after multiple decades this is something they SHOULD be able to do very easily), whereas VEM prob has no supply chain to think about exploiting, so their configuration looks almost a carbon copy of the DRDO designs tested.

It could be that BDL decided to "add on" some improvements ... warhead, propulsion etc. Range on both info boards is the same, sensor description is the same... but an old siddiqui article clearly says DRDO and VEM were collaborating and that BDL was the intended production agency.

https://www.financialexpress.com/defenc ... d/1333247/

What's not clear is WHEN are they available @ scale. THat '18 article talked about production being readied... and if both Private sector and PSUs are going to produce these, that's only fantastic news for the IA. Getting 100s of these every month to the front-line ... now that WILL make a difference !

So far no one could recall the similarities it has with Javelin ATGM?
With 8 mid-body fins, TVC at rear, dual pulse engine, does it not resembles Javelin?

We should see MPATGM differently from NAG ATGM. It could be said that what artillery guns are to Kalyani is same as ATGMs to VEM. Drdo partnered with VEM for this project from the beginning, further going by news report the synergy/relationship existed even before that.